Homelessness and equality—council database not indirect discrimination against women (R(Begum) v LB Tower Hamlets)
Local Government analysis: In indirect discrimination claims, deciding whether the conduct complained of is a provision, practice or criterion (‘PCP’) which is discriminatory involves considering the four elements identified in section 19(2)(a)-(d) of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). Their meaning is ascertained by looking at the individual words (provision, practice, or criterion) in context (not in isolation) having regard to the remainder of EqA 2010, s 19. This case highlights: the risks of a discrimination claim based on statistical evidence alone, and the need to ensure that the disparate treatment said to shown by the statistics is in fact caused by the PCP and not by some extraneous factor. The court found neither the council database/transfer list logging details of homeless applicants (under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (HA 1996)) requiring suitable accommodation, nor the system within which it operated, discriminated indirectly against women. Nor did they otherwise breach the public sector equality duty (PSED) because applicants on the database were statistically more likely to be women than men. Written by Genevieve Screeche-Powell, barrister, and Andrew Burrell, pupil barrister Field Court Chambers.