Social Housing Speed Read – Disability Discrimination and Proportionality in Housing Management
7th May, 2025
In the recent case of Thiam v Richmond Housing Partnership (2025) EWHC 933 (KB), the High Court has adopted a flexible approach towards the meaning of proportionality in the context of possession orders sought by landlords against disabled tenants.
The case invites the opportunity for social housing providers to refresh their understanding of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, and to reflect on their use of proportionality assessments.
The Equality Act 2010
The duty of housing providers to ensure the decisions they make in respect of disabled tenants are proportionate derives largely from the Equality Act 2010. Disability is listed as one of nine attributes, known as “protected characteristics”, that are protected from discrimination under the Act. Disability discrimination can come in four different forms under the Act:
- Direct discrimination – where a landlord treats a disabled tenant less favourably than an able-bodied tenant because of their disability.
- Indirect discrimination – where the landlord has a policy, criterion, or practice in place that does not appear discriminatory but that places disabled tenants at a disadvantage.
- Discrimination arising out of disability – where a landlord treats a disabled tenant unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of their disability.
- Failure to make reasonable adjustments – where a landlord fails to make reasonable adjustments to a property to assist a disabled tenant, such as installing ramps.
Under the Equality Act 2010, a landlord would have a defence against any claim of disability discrimination brought by a tenant, if it could be shown that their treatment of them was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This is where the Thiam case is important.
Thiam v Richmond Housing Partnership
The case of Thiam v Richmond Housing Partnership concerned an assured tenant, Ms Thiam, who was suffering from schizophrenia and associated delusional disorders. A possession order was sought against her by her landlord, Richmond Housing Partnership, on the grounds of rent arrears, the condition of her property, and anti-social behaviour by her son.
In response to the possession order, Ms Thiam (who was represented by the Official Solicitor as she lacked litigation capacity) brought a discrimination claim against the Richmond Housing Partnership on the grounds of discrimination arising out of a disability. The claim failed at the first instance court, and the claimant appealed to the High Court on three grounds:
- Ground 1 – the first instance court should have found that the defendant had not recognised the claimant’s symptoms of her delusional disorders.
- Ground 2 – the first instance court should have found that the defendant had not put in place specialist intervention measures to assist the claimant.
- Ground 3 – the first instance court should have found that the defendant should have made an application to the Court of Protection in respect of the claimant.
Finding in favour of the defendant landlord, the High Court rejected all three arguments and held that the possession order was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Beginning with the first ground, the High Court found that a proportionality assessment is a matter of substance rather than process. This means that it does not matter how the landlord comes to their decision on proportionality, provided the tenant’s disability has been adequately considered. In this case, the defendant need not have known about the claimant’s symptoms.
They understood that the claimant was vulnerable and had considered this as part of their decision to evict her from the property. This was sufficient to demonstrate proportionality.
In respect of the second ground, the High Court refused to find that the defendant was required to engage specialist help for the claimant. It was held that this would go beyond the landlord and tenant relationship, and that in any event the defendant had tried to involve other agencies in the claimant’s care, such as social services, who were better placed to assist with this.
Finally, the High Court found that the defendant could not have been expected to make an application to the Court of Protection as this would involve incurring a significant amount of costs on a speculative exercise, given the uncertain status of the claimant’s mental capacity.
The Importance of Proportionality Assessments
The High Court’s findings on the meaning and requirements of proportionality may come as a relief to social housing providers, who are free to adopt their own policies and procedures to assess the proportionality of their decision making when it comes to disabled tenants.
However, the defendant satisfied the requirement of proportionality because it considered the claimant’s vulnerability as part of their decision to evict her. Therefore, the Thiam case also serves as a reminder for housing providers of the importance of carrying out proportionality assessments when recovering possession of a property, and ensuring that they are adequate.
Housing providers may wish to consider the following as part of their assessments:
- Whether the tenant has any protected characteristics, such as a disability – reviewing the tenant’s file and pre-tenancy history to identify risks could assist with this.
- Whether the relevant policies and procedures have been adhered to – for example, any escalation processes detailed in the tenancy agreement should be followed.
- Whether there are any reasonable alternatives to possession – these could include an injunction or non-court methods such as involving social services.
If you have any questions about the options that are available to you to deal with a problematic tenant, please do not hesitate to contact one of our expert Social Housing Lawyers.
Please note that this briefing is designed to be informative, not advisory and represents our understanding of English law and practice as at the date indicated. We would always recommend that you should seek specific guidance on any particular legal issue.
This page may contain links that direct you to third party websites. We have no control over and are not responsible for the content, use by you or availability of those third party websites, for any products or services you buy through those sites or for the treatment of any personal information you provide to the third party.
