United Kingdom High Court: In an appeal arising from a claim by a disabled homeless applicant alleging breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 (Equality Act), Heather Williams J., held that the County Court had erred in its assessment of a disabled homeless applicant’s claim against the London Borough of Lambeth. While rejecting the argument that an isolated failure to implement a reasonable adjustment automatically constitutes discrimination, the Court held that the failures in the claimant’s case could not be treated as irrelevant to the question whether the local authority had taken reasonable steps to avoid the disadvantage suffered by the relevant class of disabled persons. The Court stated that individual failings may indicate broader deficiencies in the operation of a system and therefore could not automatically be disregarded when assessing compliance with the reasonable adjustments duty. Thus, the appeal was allowed in part, and the matter was remitted for re-determination.
Background
The claimant, Patrick Asiimwe, is a disabled person within the meaning of Equality Act. He suffered a serious brain injury following a stroke in 2018, resulting in memory impairment, sight loss, and mobility difficulties. In October 2021, he applied to the London Borough of Lambeth (Lambeth) for homelessness assistance. Lambeth accepted that it owed him an interim housing duty and assessed that he required accommodation within the borough or within a 30-minute commute of St Thomas’ Hospital, where he was receiving treatment.
Despite that assessment, no temporary accommodation was provided for approximately three months. In January 2022, Lambeth housed him in North Finchley, which did not satisfy the location criteria previously identified by the authority. Although Lambeth later accepted that it owed him the full housing duty, he remained in the North Finchley accommodation until September 2023, when he was offered suitable social housing within Lambeth.
The claimant brought proceedings alleging a failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. He argued that Lambeth placed a considerable proportion of its homelessness applicants in out-of-borough temporary accommodation. It was said that this put people with disabilities at a substantial disadvantage because they are more likely to have location specific needs in respect of care, social support and medical treatment.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
1. Whether Failure to Apply an Existing Adjustment to One Individual Constitutes Discrimination
The principal issue was whether a claimant can establish unlawful discrimination where a public authority has generally adopted reasonable systemic adjustments but fails to apply them in a particular case. The claimant argued that once a reasonable adjustment has been identified, a disabled person suffers discrimination whenever that adjustment is not implemented in their individual case, even if the authority otherwise operates an adequate system.
However, the Court rejected the said argument and examined Sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act and held that, in cases governed by Schedule 2, the duty to make reasonable adjustments is an anticipatory and systemic duty owed to disabled persons generally. A breach arises only where the authority fails to take reasonable steps to address the disadvantage experienced by the relevant class of disabled persons.
The Court held that an isolated failure to apply an otherwise adequate adjustment does not itself establish a breach of the reasonable adjustments duty. Accordingly, if a public authority has taken reasonable systemic steps to address the disadvantage, an ad hoc failure affecting one individual would not automatically give rise to liability under Sections 20 and 21 of Equality Act.
2. Relevance of Individual Failings to the Systemic Duty
The Court noted that the County Court repeatedly characterised the delays and failures experienced by the claimant as merely “ad hoc” matters and concluded that they did not indicate any systemic problem. However, the Court observed that the reasons why failures occur in an individual case may be highly relevant when determining whether the authority’s procedures are operating effectively.
The Court stated that individual failings may indicate broader deficiencies in the operation of a system and therefore could not automatically be disregarded when assessing compliance with the reasonable adjustments duty. Determining whether that burden has been discharged may require consideration of why the failures occurred in the claimant’s case and whether they reflect shortcomings in the authority’s processes.
3. Failure to Examine the Cause of Delays
The Court noted that the claimant had been assessed as requiring accommodation within the borough, was placed in accommodation recognised as potentially unsuitable for more than a short period, remained there for almost twenty months, and experienced a delay of more than seven months in obtaining a suitability reassessment.
Despite these facts, neither the County Court’s reasoning nor the evidence relied upon by Lambeth adequately explained why the failures had occurred. The Court observed that Lambeth had not provided evidence showing how its review and transfer systems functioned in practice or whether the claimant’s experience was exceptional.
The Court held that the County Court’s approach reflected a misunderstanding of the legal framework. While the reasonable adjustments duty is assessed by reference to disabled persons generally, that does not mean evidence from an individual case must be disregarded when evaluating whether reasonable systemic steps have actually been taken.
4. Burden of Proof Under the Equality Act
The Court further held that the County Court’s approach failed properly to reflect the burden of proof under Section 136 Equality Act. Once the claimant identified potential reasonable adjustments, the burden shifted to Lambeth to demonstrate either that the adjustments were not reasonable or that reasonable steps had in fact been taken.
Since Lambeth had not adequately addressed the causes of the failures experienced by the claimant, and because the County Court treated those failures as effectively irrelevant to the systemic inquiry, the Court concluded that the issue required reconsideration.
Conclusion
Thus, the Court held that an isolated failure to apply an adjustment does not automatically amount to discrimination where reasonable systemic adjustments have been implemented. However, the Court held that the County Court erred in treating the claimant’s individual experience as incapable of shedding light on whether Lambeth had complied with its reasonable adjustments duty.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the order dismissing the claim and remitted the case to the trial judge for reconsideration of whether Lambeth had taken such steps as it was reasonable for it to take to avoid the disadvantage suffered by the relevant class of disabled persons.
[Asiimwe v. London Borough of Lambeth, [2026] EWHC 1479 (KB), decided on 17-06-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Nick Bano (instructed by Southwark Law Centre).
For the Respondent: Lindsay Johnson (instructed by The London Borough of Lambeth).
