Top Tips for Housing Providers: Navigating ASB Cases with Equality Act Defences
With the recent High Court judgment in Thiam v Richmond Housing Partnership [2025] EWHC 933 (KB), housing professionals are reminded of the care and clarity required when pursuing possession cases involving disabled tenants. In this insightful piece, Aisha Akhtar, Senior Legal Counsel for Housing and Litigation at SNG and associate for us here at Green & Burton ASB Associates, shares her expert guidance for landlords dealing with cases where an Equality Act defence may be raised.
Facts of the case
The Housing Association sought possession under four grounds pursuant to the Housing Act 1988:
- Ground 8 due to rent arrears of circa £18,000
- Ground 12 due to breaches of tenancy, including a failure to allow the landlord and its contractors access to the property
- Ground 13 due to the internal and external condition of the property (arising from hoarding of items internally and the gardens, which were overgrown and filled with black bin bags and other discarded household items)
- Ground 14 due to anti-social behaviour of the tenant’s son who lived at the property
Ms Thiam lacked litigation capacity and the Official Solicitor was appointed as litigation friend. The County Court found that the tenant was disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The tenant had schizophrenia and had also (informally) been diagnosed with delusional disorder in or around 2008. She had a history of systematised, persecutory, and grandiose delusions, did not recognise the extent of hoarding in her home and refused help to address it.
The tenant defended the claim for possession and submitted a counterclaim of disability discrimination on the basis that the possession claim was unjustified within the meaning of section 15 Equality Act 2010 and the landlord’s actions amounted to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of her disability.
The Judge accepted that the circumstances resulting in the landlord’s actions were matters that occurred because of the tenant’s mental illness and therefore were connected to her disability. However, the County Court decided the landlord was trying to ensure the property was adequately maintained and was not causing nuisance to those in the locality, and that its actions were proportionate – a legitimate aim.
The tenant appealed to the High Court on three grounds
High Court Decision
The landlord had understood that the tenant was vulnerable and had considered this as part of their decision to evict her from the property. The landlord had gone to significant lengths to seek to address the hoarding problem, including seeking a prior injunction.
The High Court stated that the landlord was not a local authority or social services authority exercising statutory powers and obligations to promote the wellbeing of persons subject to illness or disability. It had engaged with the tenant and sought to involve other agencies, including social services. The Court found that the obligation to act proportionately under the Equality Act 2010 did not require a landlord to engage with specialist help for tenants, as this would go beyond the landlord and tenant relationship. The landlord also pointed to the likely cost of specialist services and their limited resources.
The tenant also argued that the landlord should have had a mental capacity assessment conducted and made an application to the Court of Protection rather than issuing proceedings. This ground of appeal failed. The High Court agreed that the housing provider could not be expected to make such an application as a prerequisite to proportionately seeking possession.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
The case serves as a reminder for housing providers of the importance of conducting a proportionality assessment before serving a notice of possession – and keeping it under review.
Top Tips from Aisha Akhtar
- Carry out an Equality Act justification exercise and document your reasons for legal action. This is not a tick box – consider carefully whether there is a protected characteristic like disability.
- Ask yourself: is the possession action proportionate? Consider responses such as “our aim is to keep other residents safe,” “earlier intervention tools failed,” “non-engagement,” or “serious ASB requiring police involvement.”
- Explore alternatives to eviction, such as injunctions.
- Record the outcome of any early interventions.
- Check your systems: pre-tenancy history, any records of disability, including mental health conditions. What information do you already have?
- Have you offered support to the person if there’s an underlying condition? Make sure it’s clearly documented.
- Can you obtain information from third parties?
- Speak to other relevant teams – don’t work in a silo. For example, check in with your income or repairs teams.
- Consider writing to the person involved and giving them the opportunity to share any personal circumstances they’d like you to consider.
- Ask: is there a link between the behaviour and a possible disability? Seek external medical advice if needed.
- Upon receipt of further information, re-review the decision and document this. The duty is ongoing and you may change your position on court action.
- Take the Equality Act 2010 seriously – this isn’t just about compliance, it’s about fairness and risk management.
- Follow your internal policies – they’re there to guide you.
- And finally, remember the Housing Ombudsman guidance: if it’s not written down, it didn’t happen. So: document, document, document.
Aisha Akhtar
Senior Legal Counsel, Housing and Litigation
SNG