|
To what extent can T rely upon a disability discrimination argument as a
defence to a possession claim?
Under s24(1) Disability Discrimination Act 1995, L will discriminate where ‘for
a reason which relates to the disabled person’s disability, he treats him less
favourably than he treats or would treat others to whom that reason does
not or would not apply’. In a recent case, the T of an LA property illegally
sub-let, so losing security of tenure. With no conventional defence to the
claim, he sought to defend on the basis that the eviction would be unlawful
under DDA because his decision to sub-let was related to his schizophrenia
(which led him to make irrational decisions). He won in the CA, but that
decision was overturned by the HL. In its view, the correct approach is to
look at the situation of somebody who had acted in the same way as the
disabled T but for a reason unrelated to a disability (eg what would have
the position been if a non-disabled T had illegally sub-let the fl at?). On that
basis, there was clearly no discrimination. Moreover, the HL added that there
could be no discrimination unless L knew, or ought to have known, of the
disability. The end result is a significant tightening up in the scope of disability
discrimination.
Note that T’s disability can still be raised in possession proceedings on the
basis that it is one of the reasons why it would not be ‘reasonable’ to make a
possession order. For instance, T’s mental disability may be part of the overall
reason why a judge may decide it is not ‘reasonable’ to make a possession
order; likewise, if L is complaining of T’s behaviour but that behaviour is caused
by a disability then similar arguments may be possible. Otherwise, the ability of
a T to raise disability where the grounds for possession are mandatory, or where
there would normally be no defence (eg sub-letting) are severely limited. In
most cases, assuming there has been no direct discrimination (ie the disability
was not the motive for seeking possession), then it will be extremely difficult
to use disability as an argument in possession proceedings. See commentary
on Lewisham v Malcolm [2008] UKHL 43 in [2008] SJ 29 July 17.
|
|
September 2008 |