Lords Ruling On DDA Good News For Landlords » Housing » 24dash.com

A long-awaited ruling by the law lords overturning a Court of Appeal decision in the case of Lewisham v Malcolm is good news for landlords according to Greenwoods Solicitors. The ruling should help to clarify the grey area surrounding the application of the Disability Discrimination Act 1985 (DDA).

The House of Lords judgement in essence says that a landlord cannot breach the DDA if whatever action it takes in relation to a tenant is not based on the tenants disability. The law lords also said that a landlord cannot discriminate against a disabled tenant if it is unaware of the disability.

Commenting on the ruling Graham Cooper, head of the housing law team at Peterborough based Greenwoods Solicitors, said: At first sight the ruling makes it more difficult for tenants to use a defence based on the DDA against landlords seeking possession. This will assist local authorities, registered social landlords (RSL) and private landlords seeking to take possession of property from tenants who break the terms of their tenancies but claim discrimination on the grounds of disability as a defence.

The ruling will still operate to dismiss any claim for possession where unlawful discrimination is found, even if the claim is based on mandatory grounds.

The House of Lords ruling followed an appeal to the Court of Appeal by Mr Malcolm, a tenant of the London Borough of Lewisham, who was given notice to quit his flat after subletting it without consent while still a tenant of the authority. Mr Malcolm, who was a schizophrenic, claimed that the authority had discriminated against him on the grounds of his mental health. 

Graham Cooper explained: The Lords accepted that Mr Malcolm was a disabled person within the terms of the DDA but did not agree that the reason for starting possession proceedings against him was due to his disability. The ruling found that the objective reason for seeking possession was that the landlord was not prepared to allow tenancies to continue where the tenant was not living at the premises.

The sub-letting was not related to the disability, the decision to seek possession was a pure housing issue.

Mr Malcolm was a secure tenant of Lewisham who had exercised his right to buy. Before he completed that he decided to sublet his flat without the consent of the local authority and therefore ceased to be a secure tenant. When Lewisham discovered that he had sublet his flat it gave Notice to Quit and issued proceedings for possession. Mr Malcolm was a schizophrenic whose condition was controlled by medication which it appears he had not been taking.

At the initial hearing the judge held that the provisions of the DDA did not apply because Mr Malcolm had lost his security of tenure. Mr Malcolm was not a disabled person and his actions had not been caused by his disability. The judge added that there could not be discrimination by the local authority if it did not know of his disability.

Mr Malcolm appealed to the Court of Appeal submitting that he was disabled for the purposes of the DDA and that his health problems had caused the subletting because changes to his medication caused him to make irrational decisions. He also argued that lack of knowledge of his condition did not mean he could not be discriminated against.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, dismissing the proceedings for possession and holding that Mr Malcolm would remain in occupation as a contractual tenant. It said that Mr Malcolms mental impairment had a substantial effect on his ability to carry out day-to-day activities and therefore rendered him disabled under section 1 of the DDA.

It also said that the local authoritys proceedings against Mr Malcolm were related to his disability and that obtaining an order for possession would discriminate against a disabled person. It also held that a lack of knowledge was not a defence in a claim against discrimination.

In overturning the appeal the Lords accepted that Mr Malcolm was a disabled person within the terms of the DDA but did not agree that the reason for starting the proceedings was due to Mr Malcolms disability.

The full impact of this ruling will become clear over the following months as commentators and litigators dissect this judgement. At present, however, it seems to be good news for landlords defending claims under the DDA, said Graham Cooper.