Local Government Lawyer Home Page


Sharpe Edge Webpage Banner

Welcome to Sharpe Edge, Sharpe Pritchard’s local government legal hub on Local Government Lawyer.

Sharpe Edge features news, views and analysis from our team of specialist local government lawyers working at the heart of the latest legal developments. Sharpe Edge platform is also the only place where local government lawyers can get e-access to two law books by our Head of Local Government Rob Hann: The Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers (‘LACAT’) and The Guide to Local Authority Companies and Partnerships (‘LACAP’).

 

                                                                                                  

Slide background

Curing a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty in possession proceedings

Icons DateChristian Grierson and Simon Kiely examine the impact of a High Court judge’s ruling on whether a breach of the public sector equality duty (PSED) can be cured in possession proceedings.

In upholding a possession order made by Her Honour Judge Melissa Clark at Oxford County Court in May 2019, Mr Justice Zacaroli sitting in the High Court also confirmed that Slough Borough Council had not breached the PSED when deciding to take and continue possession proceedings against their tenant, despite the tenant’s disability.

The case of Slough Borough Council v Taylor [2020] EWHC 3520 (Ch) considered how a public authority must comply with the PSED when seeking a possession order. The judgment also provides further guidance for public sector landlords and confirms that an initial breach of the PSED can be cured by subsequent compliance with the duty.

Background

Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 provides that a public authority must act in accordance with the PSED. This requires that in the exercise of their functions they must have due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations between different people when carrying out their activities.

Ms Taylor was granted an introductory tenancy for a home (the “Property”) in 2009 which became a secure tenancy in 2010. The council became aware that Ms Taylor had bipolar disorder from 2012. Ms Taylor also has a history of drug and alcohol misuse.

Whilst Ms Taylor resided at the Property a vast number of allegations of anti-social behaviour were made against her, largely relating to the sale and consumption of drugs at the Property. These allegations culminated in a Closure Order being made against the Property on 2 January 2018. On the same day the council served a notice seeking possession on Ms Taylor based on ASB and the making of the Closure Order, relying on the absolute ground of possession under s.84A of the Housing Act 1985.

Prior to commencing proceedings against Ms Taylor, the council conducted an Equality Act impact assessment in accordance with the PSED. However, it was incorrect as it failed to consider that Ms Taylor had a disability, as at the time the officers conducting the assessment were unaware of Ms Taylor’s diagnosis of bipolar disorder. However, once the officers at the council became aware of the diagnosis in June 2018 they treated Ms Taylor has having a protected characteristic and gave due regard to the PSED in making further case management decisions thereafter.

At trial, HHJ Clarke gave judgment in favour of the council and made a possession order after finding both that the possession proceedings were a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and that whilst there was an was initial breach of the PSED by the council in failing to consider Ms Taylor’s disability when issuing possession proceedings, the council through its subsequent compliance with the PSED duty had ‘cured’ the breach.

Ms Taylor’s appeal against the possession order proceeded on the single ground of whether HHJ Clarke was wrong to find that there ultimately had been no breach of the PSED by the council. Mr Justice Zacaroli, in upholding the previous order, considered again whether there had been a breach of the PSED such that the possession order should not have been made.

Breach of PSED

It was submitted by the Appellant that the ‘exercise of its functions’ required by PSED, referred to the council’s housing function and this had been breached because the council had not taken account of Ms Taylor’s disabilities at the time that it commenced proceedings. It was found in the County Court that the council had ultimately complied with the PSED. The council was initially in breach of the PSED by failing to consider Ms Taylor’s disability when issuing possession proceedings, but the council had subsequently complied with the PSED duty and through its compliance had cured the breach. The question of whether a breach could be cured by subsequent action was examined in detail.

Cure of the initial breach of the PSED

The Appellant submitted that subsequent conduct cannot cure a breach of the PSED, and that the Council had not cured the breach in any event. Zacaroli J categorically rejected the submission that a breach of the PSED cannot be cured by subsequent compliance with the duty [1]. In his judgment he referred to three cases where subsequent compliance had been specifically approved by the Court of Appeal [2]. In the cases of Barnsley [3], Powell [4] and Forward [5] there is clear judicial support that it is open to a social housing landlord to cure a breach in compliance with the PSED at a later stage. Zacaroli J also found that the submission made by the Appellant that there had not been subsequent compliance did not come close to meeting the high threshold to overturn a trial judge’s primary findings of fact in this regard [6].

Comment

Further clear guidance has been provided that in the context of possession proceedings that an initial breach of the PSED can be cured by subsequent compliance with the duty. Whilst public authorities should of course be very careful to properly observe the PSED in the first instance, they should also be aware that they may be able to remedy the issue subsequently if required.

The judgment collates relevant case law on PSED in possession proceedings and serves as a reminder on best practice for social housing landlords when complying with the PSED. The following overarching factors should always be considered:

  • Nature and scope: Public authorities are under a duty to have due regard to the need to achieve the results identified in Section 149 and this will involve weighing the relevant the facts involved.
  • Making enquiries: Whilst not applicable in every case, where features of the PSED are evident there might be a duty to make further enquiries from, for example, the police, social services and other support agencies.
  • Substance over form: Public authorities should not treat compliance with the PSED as a tick box exercise.
  • Continuing nature: There is no point where the duty is extinguished, and public authorities must continually comply with it.
  • Timing: Consideration of the PSED must be made before deciding to issue possession proceedings.
  • Recording: Public authorities must carefully record their actions to comply with PSED.

[1] Para [36] of the judgment
[2] Paras [37] – [40] of the judgment
[3] Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Norton [2011] EWCA Civ 384
[4] Powell v Dacorum Borough Council [2019] HLR 21
[5] Aldwyck Housing Group Ltd v Forward [2020] 1 WLR 584
[6] Para [49] of the judgment

Christian Grierson is a Trainee Solicitor and Simon Kiely is a Legal Director at Sharpe Pritchard.

Simon acted for Slough Borough Council in this case and instructed Ruchi Parekh of Cornerstone Barristers. Sharpe Pritchard has a number of experienced Housing Litigators who are available to answer any queries local housing authorities may have arising from this Judgment. Please contact Simon Kiely if you wish to discuss the implications of this case in more detail.

For further insight and resources on local government legal issues from Sharpe Pritchard, please visit the SharpeEdge page by clicking on the banner below.

sharpe edge 600x100

This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

LACAT BookFREE download!

A Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers

Written and edited by Sharpe Pritchard’s Head of Local Government, Rob Hann,

A Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers covers:

• Updated charging powers compendium          • Commercial trading options

• Teckal ‘public to public’                                    • Localism Act

FREE DOWNLOAD

LACAT BookAvailable to buy:

A Guide to Local Authority Companies and Partnerships

An invaluable, comprehensive toolkit for lawyers, law firms and others advising
on or participating in Local Authority Companies and Partnerships”

- Local Authority Chief Executive

BUY NOW

  More Articles

<a href=

Levelling up – A new opportunity for further devolution in England?

Rob Hann explores the Government's 'levelling up' policy and looks at whether it is an opportunity for further devolution in England.
<a href=

Time limits for commencing proceedings in procurement challenges

Colin Ricciardiello discusses a landmark procurement challenge judgment on the time limit for commencing proceedings.
Icons Hazard

The Revised National Planning Policy Framework: Better design, greener outcomes?

Alastair Lewis and Sarah Wertheim outline the latest National Planning Policy Framework changes and explain how future developments will be impacted by the new rules.
<a href=

Loose talk costs money: Oral agreement to forego liquidated damages was valid

Michael Comba outlines and analyses a contract dispute resolution: Mansion Place Ltd v Fox Industrial Services Ltd [2021] EWHC 2972 (TCC)
<a href=

Procurement reform – an update

Radhika Devesher and Natasha Barlow provide a summary of the proposed and enacted changes to the UK procurement regime post-Brexit.
Icons Court

The Public Procurement Review Service Report: Procurement Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Juli Lau and Beth Edwards examine some of the most common procurement pitfalls and provide a checklist of points for local authorities to bear in mind in order to avoid costly errors.
<a href=

JCT Dispute Adjudication Board Rules: a case of “three’s a crowd”?

Peter Jansen who specialises in construction law and dispute resolution, examines the roles and functions of the JCT’s Dispute Adjudication Board and highlights some key considerations for parties planning to adopt the Rules in their JCT contracts.
<a href=

The Electric Vehicle Revolution or…

Emily Knowles discusses new legislation on the requirement of electric vehicle charging points, and its potential impact on the Electric Vehicle Revolution.
<a href=

Consultation on the Electronic Communications Code – What’s Changing?

Lillee Reid-Hunt outlines the legislative changes to the Electronic Communications Code.
Icons Court

You Must Adjudicate First NEC3 imposes obligation to adjudicate first before commencing court proceedings.

Michael Comba discusses NEC3 imposing an obligation to adjudicate first before commencing court proceedings.
Icons Court

Rocking aground the Christmas tree

Clare Mendelle and George Dale discuss and solve a common construction scenario, looking at the position under the Contract, and how the Employer should deal with the Contractor's request.
Icons Hazard

Adequacy Decision Granted to the UK

Charlotte Smith considers two recent adequacy decisions and explains how this affects existing data practices.
<a href=

Managing employees with long COVID and employees who have anxiety about returning to the office

Julie Bann and Victoria Smith consider how Long Covid may be treated under existing employment laws and provide compliance guidance for employers.
<a href=

Environment Act 2021: What Does it Mean for Waste Authorities?

Sally Stock, Juli Lau, Ellen Painter and Beth Edwards discuss notable changes made to the Environment Bill 2021-2022, which received Royal Assent on the 9th November.
<a href=

ESG and its relevance to the public sector

Peter Collins and Sydney Chandler discuss the growing importance of Environmental, Social, and Governance criteria in public procurement.
<a href=

JCT 101: Time and Punishment

Rachel Murray-Smith, Clare Mendelle and Laura Campbell discuss a common Construction scenario regarding the Practical Completion of a project, and the position under the unamended JCT DB 2016.
Icons Court

The importance of due process, communication and fairness in employee conduct investigations – what you need to know.

Julie Bann and James Hughes discuss the importance of fairness in employee conduct investigations, taking a look at the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham -v- Mr S Keable case.
<a href=

Becoming More Inclusive: VAT and Public Procurement

Juli Lau, Natasha Barlow and Beth Edwards examine the recently published Public Procurement Regulations 2021, focussing upon amendments to the thresholds within various procurement regimes.
<a href=

The LADs are Alright

Laura Campbell discusses liquidated damages in construction contracts, focussing upon the long-running Triple Point saga which ended in the Supreme Court this year.
<a href=

Procurement Policy Note 08/21

Juli Lau and Beth Edwards outline Procurement Policy Note 08/21, recently published by the Cabinet office.
Icons Court

Hard Times: Improving Air Quality with Clean Air Zones

Rob Hann and James Goldthorpe examine the introduction of Clean Air Zones to improve air quality across the UK.
<a href=

Autumn Budget Spending Review 2021 – What Public Bodies Need To Know

Rob Hann and James Hughes examine the Autumn Budget Spending Review 2021, looking at what Public Bodies need to know.
<a href=

Net Zero – What’s new for local authorities?

Steve Gummer and Sophie Drysdale look at two major climate publications: the Heat and Buildings Strategy and the Net Zero Strategy.
Icons Hazard

Jumping to conclusions: Final Statements, liquidated damages and material breaches of natural justice

Michael Comba looks at a recent Technology and Construction Court case that provides useful guidance on the JCT’s procedural requirements on disputing Final Statements.
Icons Court

Three times one equals one: Several disputed payment applications amount to a single dispute

Michael Comba considers a case in which the High Court dismissed an employer’s argument that an adjudicator lacked jurisdiction because the referral concerned three separate payment applications and, therefore, comprised three separate disputes.
<a href=

Warm feelings or hot air: the Heat and Buildings Strategy and Heat Networks

This week the government published its Heat and Buildings Strategy (Strategy). This contained vital innovations and essential step changes in terms of how heating is provided, writes Steve Gummer.
<a href=

Procurement reforms: update from Cabinet Office

Rob Hann, Nicola Sumner and Juli Lau assess the Cabinet Office's update on the progress of the government's public procurement reforms.
Icons Court

Bond, Performance Bond. Delivering value for the Public Sector?

Justin Mendelle examines whether public sector clients achieve value for money from the provision of performance bonds.
Icons Hazard

Not so personal messages: R. (on the application of Good Law Project Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Abingdon Health Plc [2021] EWHC 2595 (TCC)

Nicola Sumner, Juli Lau and Beth Edwards look at The Good Law Project's challenge of the direct award by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care of three contracts for the production and supply of rapid Covid-19 antibody tests (the “Contracts”).
<a href=

Insolvency – Termination and Beyond

Rachel Murray-Smith and Clare Mendelle consider the potential warning signs of, and the compliant manner for dealing with, contractor insolvency.
Icons Court

Settlement agreements – waiving Personal Injury claims

In the case of Farnham-Oliver v RM Educational Resources LTD, the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court allowed a Personal Injury claim (“PI claim”) to be pursued by an employee against his former employer despite the parties signing a Settlement Agreement in respect of an Employment Tribunal claim on the same issue. Julie Bann and James Hughes report.
Icons Hazard

Mandatory Vaccination for Care Home Workers in England – Update

Rachel Murray-Smith and Francesca Gallagher look at the detail of the government's guidance on compulsory vaccination for care staff.
<a href=

Make your mind up! Liquidated Damages clause upheld despite Employer’s challenge

In the recent case of Eco World Ballymore (EWB) v Dobler[1] , an Employer took the unusual position of challenging their own entitlement to liquidated damages (LDs) on the ground that the LDs provision constituted an unenforceable penalty clause. Clare Mendelle and James Goldthorpe investigate.
<a href=

Are Collateral Warranties Construction Contracts? Timing is Key.

Clare Mendelle and Anna Sidebottom examine the recently decided case of Toppan v Simply[1], which has provided guidance on when collateral warranties may be considered “construction contracts” under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and so give the warranty holder the right to adjudicate.
Icons Court

Climate emergency or climate catastrophe?

Rob Hann asks how central & local government departments and councils can work together more effectively to combat the challenges to achieve net zero by 2050.
Slide background