Thiam v Richmond Housing Partnership 2025: An Important Update for Landlord Decision Making under the Equality Act 2010
A recent court decision offers practical guidance for landlords on the centrality of proportionality when seeking to take enforcement action against tenants where the Equality Act 2010 (the EA) is engaged.
This decision is a useful reminder to landlords that EA duties must be considered on an ongoing basis and balanced objectively against operational goals.
Background
In the recent case of Thiam v Richmond Housing Partnership (Thiam), a tenant challenged the decision of her landlord, Richmond Housing Partnership (RHP), to seek possession of her home on grounds including non-payment of rent, anti-social behaviour and excessive hoarding. The claimant, who had a recognised disability, argued that the proceedings amounted to discriminatory treatment under s15 of the EA. S15 applies where the tenant is treated less favourably due to something arising in consequence of their disability. However, a landlord will importantly not be in breach if it can show that subjecting the tenant to the unfavourable treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (s15(1)(b)).
Decision
The court held that the proportionality assessment required by s15(1)(b) of the EA must take account of context. In the circumstances, seeking possession was proportionate considering RHP's legitimate aims including prevention of hoarding and the need to collect rent. RHP's evidence had clearly demonstrated that it had attempted to help the tenant and the steps taken by RHP, including in referring the claimant to social services, were sufficient. RHP as a landlord did not need to itself engage specialist help for the tenant, or to apply to the Court of Protection, which in the circumstances it was considered would go further than what could reasonably be required of a landlord in this capacity.
Key Take-Aways
The Thiam case is a useful reminder that operational goals must be objectively balanced with EA duties and landlords must tread carefully. This decision emphasises that EA duties should be considered at the earliest opportunity if a landlord becomes aware, or potentially aware, of EA issues in connection with breaches of their tenancies. However, as demonstrated in the Thiam decision, s15 does not create a blanket restriction on landlords from taking action against tenants where a disability prevents a tenant from being unable to fulfil its tenant obligations.
Furthermore, Thiam shows the value of a robust paper trail. Landlords should therefore ensure that they hold clear, written records setting out a proportionate justification case in support of an enforcement decision involving EA concerns. This should take place prior to the action being taken and should include an assessment of why the action is proportionate, what legitimate aim it serves, any potential alternatives, and details of any steps taken (or considered and discounted) to mitigate the impact of the action.
The full judgement is available here.