The council adopted a housing allocation scheme based on priority bands, for the purposes of Housing Act 1996 Part 6. A clerical officer employed in one of the council’s area housing offices improperly manipulated the council’s computer system to grant tenancies of more than six separate council properties without reference to the allocation scheme. The council sought possession against the defendants who had been granted those tenancies on the basis that they had not been allocated in line with its allocation scheme and were therefore void: Housing Act 1996 s167(8). In the alternative, the council claimed possession under the statutory grounds in Housing Act 1985 Sch 2. The claims were struck out. The secure tenancy regime had to be treated as a complete code under which possession could only be claimed on statutory grounds. These claims were doomed to fail because there was no evidence that any of the families had given any false information to obtain the tenancies or paid any premium for them. The council appealed against the rejection of its claim that the tenancies were void for want of compliance with the allocation scheme.

 

Islington had a choice-based letting scheme that assessed housing needs by the use of points. Its scheme provided that ‘the needs of all individuals in the applicant’s household will be taken into account when points are awarded’. The claimant lived with her husband, five children (aged 31, 29, 27, 24 and 22) and three young grandchildren. The council declined to take the five adult children into account when assessing the claimant’s points as they were all independent adults and were each subject to leave to remain in the UK which was conditional on not having recourse to public funds. The claimant complained that the scheme did not define ‘household’ and, on an ordinary meaning of the word, the whole family lived as one household. Cranston J dismissed a claim for judicial review. The claimant appealed.

 

 

In September 2005, the council’s arrangements for letting homes changed from a points-based allocation scheme to a banded choice-based lettings scheme. It had to decide how to deal with applicants who had been assessed for points under the old scheme and were to be banded under the new one. The claimant had medical priority under the old scheme (20 points) but was not given the equivalent medical priority (Band 3) in the banding scheme, although the wording of the medical priority categories was virtually the same. The council was, in fact, operating unpublished administrative criteria for medical assessments that could not be squared with the criteria for the new scheme and a decision in the claimant’s case was made pursuant to that. In judicial review proceedings, HHJ Mackie QC held that the old and new schemes for assessment of medical need were indistinguishable in substance. He quashed the decision that the claimant should not be accorded Band 3 medical priority, and granted a declaration that the transitional provisions for those with 20 medical points were unlawful. He also declared the new scheme unlawful because it did not specify accurately the basis on which priority dates within bands could be computed.

 

In 2012, Ealing amended its allocation scheme so that 20 per cent of its lettings would be made available only to applicants from working households and those council tenants who had complied with their tenancy agreement. The claimants were disabled and / or single mothers who did not work. The amended scheme was quashed by the High Court on the grounds that it unlawfully discriminated against the claimants and Ealing had failed to comply with either Equality Act 2010 s149 or Children Act 2004 s11. Ealing appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The council adopted a new social housing allocation scheme pursuant to Housing Act 1996 Part 6. The scheme designated certain classes of applicant as non-qualifying (Housing Act 1996 s160ZA(7)). They included a class comprising homeless applicants whom the council had provided with suitable temporary accommodation under its homelessness functions (Housing Act 1996 Part 7). The claimant fell into that class. As a result she would normally be entitled to a statutory ‘reasonable preference’ in any allocation scheme (Housing Act 1996 s166A(3)) but the council told her she did not qualify for its scheme at all. She brought a claim for judicial review contending that it was unlawful to exclude from an allocation scheme a person who would otherwise be entitled to a reasonable preference. She was refused permission to judicially review the decision and appealed against that decision to the Court of Appeal.

 

In April 2010, Mr Rabbets was diagnosed as suffering from acute myeloid leukaemia. Mr Rabbets requested that he be re-housed because his health was at risk while he lived with his sister and her daughter. He submitted medical evidence in support which showed that it would be very dangerous for him to remain living where he was. Richmond’s allocation scheme provided that 200 points, which would result in an allocation being made very quickly, would be awarded where an applicant’s medical condition was life threatening and their accommodation was undermining their health. In December 2010, Richmond only awarded Mr Rabbets 50 points. Mr Rabbets subsequently died of an infection he caught from his sister’s child in January 2011. Ms Darby, as executor of Mr Rabbets estate, brought a claim in negligence against Richmond. Richmond applied to strike out the claim.

 

The claimant was a joint tenant of council flat with his sister. The property became unsuitable for his sister and she was required to serve a Notice to Quit in order to be re-housed by the council. The claimant applied to the council for alternative accommodation and was informed that he would be granted a tenancy of a one-bed flat when one became available. He remained in the original flat awaiting an offer. Following a subsequent police raid on 10 February 2006, the claimant was convicted for possession of a small amount of cocaine. On 16 March 2006 a further police raid resulted in the claimant being cautioned for possession of a small amount of herbal cannabis. The council then decided that the claimant was ineligible for the allocation of accommodation under Housing Act 1996 Part 6 on the basis that he was guilty of unacceptable behaviour (s160A). He applied for a review of that decision under section 167(4)(d). During the course of further enquiries police records indicated that the claimant had previously been cautioned for similar offences in 1996. In a detailed letter the review officer informed the claimant that he considered that all the elements for exclusion for unacceptable behaviour under section 160A were satisfied. In accordance with the Code of Guidance (in force 31 January 2003) he found that the county court would grant an outright possession order. The claimant was told that he would be evicted from his original flat. He applied for judicial review.

 

The applicant and his partner applied under Lambeth’s allocation scheme and were placed in the queue for one-bedroom accommodation. His partner then became pregnant and Lambeth reassessed his needs and placed him in the two-bedroom queue (which he chose over remaining in the one-bedroom queue). Under the scheme, his waiting time on the two-bedroom list ran from the date of the reassessment, rather than from the date of his initial application. He had nearly reached the top of the one-bedroom queue but would have to wait a minimum of two years for a two-bedroom property. He sought judicial review of the allocation policy, claiming that it was unreasonable because a family could be constantly relegated to the bottom of the housing queue as it grew.

Mr and Mrs Jones were joint secure tenants of a two-bedroom council house. Mrs Jones died in 2012. Mr Jones died in May 2015. Their son, the claimant, remained in occupation with: (1) his civil partner; and (2) that partner’s brother. The brother had complex health issues including diabetes. He was looked after by the claimant and by his own brother (the claimant’s partner). In addition, the claimant and his partner each suffered from chronic depression. The claimant applied to the council for the grant of a fresh tenancy of the house to him. The council’s housing allocation scheme stated:

Islington’s housing department operated a scheme in which any professional employed, inter alia, in children services could request that a child be provided with immediate re-housing if an ordinary transfer application would be likely to lead to delay which was considered detrimental to a child’s welfare. While the director of children’s services was entitled to make only 15 nominations a year, this did not preclude children’s services from making additional referrals to housing. Wherever a child was deemed to be at an immediate risk of severe injury or a fatality the head of housing was required to consider the case within 24 hours and to keep the case under review. Were there was a risk of harm, an occupational therapist was required to draw up a risk management plan and both housing and children’s services were required to keep the case under review.

 

The council, following a policy not to accept on to its housing waiting list anyone who held a tenancy with another local authority, refused the applicant’s request to be put on its waiting list.

 

C originally lived in Southwark with her husband and three children. She left Southwark after suffering domestic violence and applied to Islington for accommodation under Housing Act 1996 Part 7. Islington subsequently provided C, who was deaf, and her three children with a three bedroom property in Islington. She subsequently applied to join Islington’s housing register and was awarded 110 points. Under Islington’s scheme, those with less than 120 points were prevented from bidding for accommodation. In practice, and in apparent contrast to the wording of the scheme, such applicants could be provided with accommodation under a ‘direct offer’. C sought to judicially review the lawfulness of the scheme. The scheme also operated a local lettings policy that gave existing tenants of Islington priority, over other applicants, to bid for newly available accommodation that had been built by Islington that was either located on applicant’s estate or within an applicant’s ward.

 

The council’s policy of not approving transfer requests from people in arrears of rent was subject to a number of exceptions. Examples of them were set out in the policy.

 

See Housing Law Casebook 3rd edition, E1.16.

 

See Housing Law Casebook 4th edition, S1.5.

 

 

See Housing Law Casebook 5th edition, T51.24

 

Newham’s housing allocation scheme, made under Housing Act 1996 Part 6, provided that medical assessments of applications for housing accommodation would be carried out by the ‘medical assessment officer in the quality and review team’. The claimant made an application for housing supported by the reports of a GP, a paediatrician and an environmental health officer. The application needed a medical assessment. The council had no employee in post as a ‘medical assessment officer’ and sent the claimant’s application for assessment to an external adviser, a Dr Keen. He advised that no change to the claimant’s medical priority status was required and the council accepted that advice and declined further medical priority. The claimant sought judicial review. Prior to the hearing she secured alternative accommodation through her landlord. She pursued her application for a declaration.

 

The claimant applied to Newham for homelessness assistance: Housing Act 1996 Part 7. It accepted that she was owed the main housing duty (section 193) and she was provided with temporary accommodation. The claimant registered herself on the council’s housing allocation scheme for social housing accommodation: Housing Act 1996 Part 6. She was one of about 400 homeless applicants who were each told that if they took a qualifying offer of an assured shorthold tenancy in the private rented sector they would still retain their priority status under the council’s housing allocation scheme. The claimant and the other applicants acted on those assurances, left their temporary council accommodation and took private rented sector tenancies.

 

The council operated a choice-based lettings scheme with bands, adopted for the purposes of Housing Act 1996 s167(1). The claimant applied for an allocation but was only placed in Band D (the lowest band). Band C would apply if ‘the household’s current housing conditions are having an adverse effect on their medical condition which creates a particular need for them to move’ (para 3). The claimant considered that, for medical reasons, he should be placed in a higher band and submitted a report from his doctor. The council commissioned medical advice that confirmed the GP’s view that an adverse health effect arose in the current accommodation. However, the medical adviser (Dr Keen) went on to advise adversely about what priority should be afforded and about the necessity to move. The council obtained a further opinion from a psychiatric adviser who expressed the view that other housing applicants were in more unpleasant situations. The council relied on those reports and confirmed Band D status.

C1 and C2 were a brother and sister aged four and five. They both had behavioural difficulties and lived with their mother in a one bedroom flat owned by Family Mosaic, but facilitated by Hackney, after they had been forced to flee domestic violence. It was not in dispute that the one bedroom flat was unsuitable and that the family required a three bedroom property. Previous judicial review proceedings had been settled on the basis that Hackney’s children’s services should make a request under Children Act 1989 s27, that the housing department provide the family with suitable accommodation. No accommodation was provided and the family brought a judicial review.

 

The claimant was a private sector tenant. He applied for social housing under the council’s housing allocation scheme. He was made an offer of accommodation but refused it. The council’s allocation scheme provided that the effect of refusing a suitable offer would be that the application would be cancelled and any further application would be deferred for a period of two years.

HA suffered domestic violence at an address in Hounslow. She left this address and applied to Ealing for assistance under Housing Act 1996 Part 7. Ealing decided that it owed her the full duty under section 193(2). She subsequently applied to join Ealing’s housing register. Her application was, however, rejected because Ealing’s allocation scheme provided that, absent exceptional circumstances, applicants who had not lived in Ealing for the last five years could not apply for accommodation under Part 6 and HA had not lived in Ealing for the last five years. HA challenged the lawfulness of the scheme on the grounds that it did not give her a reasonable preference, unlawfully discriminated against women and victims of domestic violence and Ealing had failed to apply Children Act 2004 s11 when devising the scheme. Alternatively, Ealing had fettered its discretion and not considered whether her facts were exceptional so as to allow her to bid.

Mrs Hillsden had originally applied to join the authority’s housing register when she was a secure tenant of Newham. In May 2012, however, she decided to relinquish her secure tenancy following advice from social services and moved to Epping Forest to stay in privately rented accommodation. In May 2013, Epping Forest adopted a new allocation scheme. It provided, amongst other things, that a person could not join the housing register and be eligible for an allocation of a secure tenancy unless they had resided in the authority’s area continuously for a period of three years or more. As a result, Mrs Hillsden was removed from the housing register. Mrs Hillsden challenged the decision on the basis that the authority had failed to consider exercising its discretion under the scheme to allow her to remain on the housing register or, in the alternative, insofar as the authority’s scheme prevented such a discretion to be exercised, it was unlawful

 

Ms Kabashi was homeless. The council accepted that it owed her the main housing duty in Housing Act 1996 Part 7 s193 and provided her with temporary accommodation. It placed her on its choice-based lettings allocation scheme with an effective registration date of 11 September 2003 and with an assessed need for a three-bedroom property. In 2007, Ms Kabashi’s household circumstances changed. She informed the council and it reassessed her as needing a two-bedroom property. It amended her registration date to 1 August 2007 under a provision in its scheme that:

 

The council’s allocation scheme provided that three-bedroomed accommodation would be allocated if a household comprised children of the opposite sex at least one of whom was aged seven or over. The applicant fulfilled those criteria but one of his children was still waiting for her application for indefinite leave to remain in the UK to be granted. The council considered that, because she was not a ‘qualifying person’ as a result of her immigration status, it was prevented by Housing Act 1996 s161 from including her as part of the applicant’s household when assessing his housing needs and allocating accommodation. It advised him that he would only be offered two-bedroomed accommodation.

 

The claimant was the secure tenant of a second/third floor maisonette which she occupied with her four young children. There was no lift. She and her eldest daughter suffered from severe asthma. She applied to Lambeth for a transfer. Her doctor stated that ‘when [her] asthma is bad, it would be impossible for her to climb stairs alone, let alone with children and shopping’. She was assessed as being within group D of Lambeth’s allocation scheme, a ‘mainstream’ group which covered a number of the categories of applicants listed in Housing Act 1996 s167(2). She asserted that she should be in group B, covering emergencies, and applied for judicial review asserting that the assessment was unlawful.

 

In 2008, the council adopted a new allocation policy for pitches on its official Gypsy and Traveller sites. The policy required applicants to re-register every year and to provide documentary evidence of a residential connection with the borough. The claimant, an Irish Traveller, sought a judicial review of the policy claiming that it imposed unrealistic and bureaucratic requirements on a mobile and vulnerable group and was therefore irrational. Kenneth Parker J dismissed the claim:

 

The claimant’s father and mother both died. They had been, in turn, the secure tenants of the family home. The claimant had no statutory right to succeed to the secure tenancy as he would be a second successor: Housing Act 1985 s87. He applied to the council for a discretionary tenancy under section 5 of the council’s allocation scheme. This set qualifying criteria and provided that:

 

Miss O was the secure tenant of Newham and was in arrears of rent. She was the victim of domestic violence and she applied for a transfer to alternative accommodation. Newham assessed Miss O’s housing needs and determined that she had a need for emergency re-housing because of the violence she had suffered. Under Newham’s allocation scheme this would ordinarily have resulted in her being awarded additional preference which would have entitled her to a direct let. Newham’s scheme also provided, however, that an applicant’s priority may be reduced where an existing tenant had arrears of rent. Newham told Miss O that it operated ‘a no debt policy’ and until the arrears were cleared she would not be offered a direct let. In response to a letter before the claim, which set out Miss O’s personal circumstances, an officer responded that he was not minded to exercise his discretion to waive the policy because Miss O had not taken any steps to reduce the arrears. Miss O judicially reviewed this decision on the basis that Newham had applied its policy rigidly and failed to have any regard to her circumstances. Alternatively, inadequate reasons had been given explaining why Newham was not minded to exercise the discretion to waive the policy.

 

Harrow’s amended housing allocation scheme reduced the priority previously given to applicants from overcrowded households in privately rented accommodation (described in the scheme as ‘homeseekers’), while preserving high priority for its own overcrowded council tenants who were making transfer applications. The claimant was an overcrowded private tenant who had been in Band A. Following the amendment to the scheme, she was placed in lower Band C. She sought a judicial review of the amended scheme on the basis that it: (a) unlawfully discriminated against those in the private rented sector contrary to Human Rights Act 1998 Sch 1 Articles 8 and 14; and (b) in consequence did not secure that a reasonable preference was given to applicants occupying overcrowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions: Housing Act 1996 s166A(3).

 

The authority operated a choice based lettings scheme. The authority’s allocation scheme provided that applicants might receive less priority under the scheme if they lacked a local connection to the borough. The authority, however, had a separate policy, which was not published or included within the scheme, that prescribed how this discretion would ordinarily be exercised. That policy provided that applicants with a reasonable preference and a local connection would always be preferred to applicants without a local connection. Miss Van Boolen did not live in Barking and Dagenham, but applied to the authority for accommodation. Miss Van Boolen’s priority under the scheme was, however, reduced every time she bid for accommodation. There were 78 occasions where, but for this fact, she would have obtained accommodation from the authority. The successful applicants all had a local connection to Barking and Dagenham. Miss Van Boolen brought a judicial review against the authority on the ground that it was not allocating accommodation in accordance with its scheme.

When aged 19, YA applied to the council for social housing. His application was supported by his social worker and the care leavers’ housing panel but was refused. The council’s allocation scheme excluded from qualification for housing (see Housing Act 1996 s160ZA(7)) the following class of applicants (para 4): ‘Applicants who have been guilty of unacceptable behaviour which makes them unsuitable to be a tenant. Examples of such unacceptable behaviour include: … illegal or immoral behaviour …’ The council refused to consider the claimant for housing allocation because he was not a qualifying person under its scheme. Judicial review was sought on the basis that: (1) it was unlawful for the council to take account of the spent convictions; and (2) there had been discrimination against the claimant – as a care leaver – contrary to Article 14 ECHR.

 

The claimants were a mother and her six-year-old daughter. Both had disabilities. The mother had prolapsed discs in her back, a very painful condition in both shoulders, susceptibility to chest infections (as a consequence of a bout of pneumonia), and she suffered anxiety and panic attacks. The daughter had autistic spectrum disorder, language disorder and significant difficulties with adaptive function. She had problems with going to the toilet, with diet, with disturbed sleep and with speech. She also had no sense of danger, did not understand risk and did not know how to keep herself safe. She enjoyed running and climbing but was aggressive and violent towards other children, including her older brother, JM. He had the heart condition, pulmonary regurgitation. The mother cared for AM and JM on her own.

The claimants and JM lived in a two-bedroom, first floor, council flat. The flat was not suitable, given AM’s disabilities, because it had balconies at the front and back with a drop to the ground of over four metres. The mother applied to the authority’s children’s services department for her to be provided with a property on the ground floor. A children’s services assessment in February 2017 recognised the risk and that the family were in need of a three bedroomed ground accommodation with a garden. The authority’s children’s services department sought the assistance of its housing department in meeting its duty under Children Act 1989 s17, but then closed its file and took no further steps to develop a plan to find alternative accommodation. In November 2017, the housing department commissioned a report from Dr Keen of NowMedical who advised that there was not a serious medical need to relocate ‘given a fall from a first floor is unlikely to be fatal, and that availability of ground floor properties may be so scarce as to potentially delay a relocation, then I think that a first floor property is an acceptable alternative.’ In December 2017, the council’s Housing Decisions Panel concluded that practical measures, such as window locks could be utilised to manage the risk, and therefore ‘the current housing situation is not so serious or critical as to warrant band A or band B priority’ and that ‘a direct offer was not considered appropriate because there isn’t a critical medical/welfare needs or serious safeguarding concern’. In February 2018, the head of housing need reported that between April 2016 and February 2018 the council had let 157 three bedroom properties of which only nine were on the ground floor. There were hundreds of families in band C and hundreds more in bands A and B ‘with an even greater need’.

The claimants sought judicial review of the decision not to formulate a plan for re-accommodating the claimants and failing to consider providing alternative accommodation under Children Act 1989 s17.

HHJ Walden-Smith, sitting as a judge of the High Court, allowed the claim. It was irrational for Children’s Services to refer the matter to the housing department and then close its file in circumstances in which the housing department had effectively reached a decision which would result in the claimants not being re-housed in the immediate future. Moreover, the decision of the housing department to place the claimants in Band C was also irrational. Both departments had failed to give any sufficient weight to the very real risk to AM’s safety; In particular, the difficulties that AM posed to her own safety; and that parental supervision could not be sufficient to prevent AM from getting on to the balconies and harming herself. The council’s decisions were quashed and mandatory orders made for the family’s needs to be reassessed for the purpose of providing appropriate accommodation.

 

Newham operated a choice-based letting scheme with three bands. The largest band (from which 75 per cent of lettings were made) contained applicants who were entitled to a ‘reasonable preference’ under one or more of the categories in Housing Act 1996 s167(2). When bids from members of that band were received for an available property they were ranked by registration date. The property would be allocated to the bidder with the oldest date. Two smaller bands dealt with (a) existing council tenants who had no grounds for ‘reasonable preference’ – transfer cases (able to bid for up to five per cent of lettings) and (b) non-council tenants with no reasonable preference (able to bid for sheltered and hard-to-let homes only). The council also operated a ‘direct lets’ scheme for ‘decants’ (households requiring re-housing as a result of council action) and others requiring an urgent move in exceptional circumstances. The claimant had multiple housing needs spanning a number of reasonable preference categories and several members of his household had medical needs. His application for ‘direct let’ status was unsuccessful and he remained in the choice-based letting main band, queuing by date. He sought judicial review of Newham’s scheme on the basis that: (a) it irrationally grouped the vast bulk of applicants into a single band distinguishing between them by date of registration rather than housing need; and (b) giving five per cent of lettings to the transfer band was incompatible with giving applicants who were within section 167(2) a reasonable preference.

 

The applicant was married with five children. She was evicted from her council home because of rent arrears. She obtained accommodation in the private rented sector which was overcrowded and unsatisfactory. She applied to go on the council’s waiting list but was excluded because of its policy to exclude those who owed more than two weeks’ rent arrears. She appealed to an appeals panel that could reverse a decision where there was a social or medical need or substantial efforts had been made to reduce the arrears or ‘exceptional circumstances’ applied. Her appeal failed. She applied for judicial review, contending that, despite falling within three of the statutory reasonable preference categories in Housing Act 1985 s22, she had not been granted a preference.

 

Barnet accepted that it owed the claimant the main housing duty under Housing Act 1996 s193. It placed her in private sector leasing (PSL) accommodation. Barnet’s allocation scheme provided, inter alia, for applicants to be awarded: 200 local residency points, 100 income points, 100 transfer points and 10 points for each year waiting up to a maximum of 50. Furthermore, homeless applicants waiting for family size accommodation were also awarded 10 points, with 300 points being awarded when their PSL accommodation was about to be returned to the landlord. In the context of the scheme, the claimant, with 350 points in total, was unable to be in a position to bid successfully for a property until she received 300 points at the end of her lease (which was of ten years).

Ms Alemi applied to Westminster for assistance under Part 7. Westminster decided that it owed her the full duty under section 193(2) and she was provided with accommodation in Enfield and placed on Westminster’s housing register. Westminster’s allocation scheme provided that those who had joined its housing register after a successful homeless application were suspended from being eligible for an allocation of a secure tenancy for a 12-month period. In the interim they would only be eligible for offers of accommodation in the private rented sector.

 

The claimant, his wife and his two young daughters occupied a small studio flat he rented from the council. He applied for a transfer to a larger property and was placed in Band B of the council’s Choice Based Lettings Scheme and awarded over 500 priority points. Three years later, he had not been successful in bidding for any properties. For part of that period, he had been suspended from bidding because of his rent arrears. During another period, a limited number (or ‘quota’) of overcrowded Band B applicants had been given additional priority and moved to Band A. He sought judicial review of the council’s allocation scheme, contending that:

 

See Housing Law Casebook 4th edition, S2.7.

The claimant lived with her mother in a private rented one-bedroom flat. She was 22 and pregnant. Because two of the mother’s children had been taken into care, the council’s children’s services department told the claimant that it would apply for a care order for the new baby if she continued living in the flat with her mother. The claimant applied for homelessness assistance (Housing Act 1996 Part 7). The council accepted that it owed her the main housing duty under Housing Act 1996 s193(2) and provided her with temporary accommodation in the private sector. The claimant also applied for social housing under the council’s allocation scheme. She was awarded 110 points (10 homeless points and 100 residence points). That was too few points to bid successfully for any properties that became available (the threshold was 120 points). The claimant argued that she was entitled to an additional 90 points under the council’s ‘new generation scheme’, which was open to the adult children of tenants living in the council’s area with their parents.

 

The claimant was a council tenant. She was a disabled woman living alone. She applied to Southwark for a transfer. Its housing allocation scheme, adopted in November 2013 under Housing Act 1996 Pt 6, gave preference to applicants within the statutory ‘reasonable preference’ groups and afforded some of those applicants a ‘priority star’. That star rating was available to applicants in work and to those making a community contribution by way of voluntary work. The claimant contended that she could not undertake either paid or voluntary work and challenged the council’s scheme. The issues arising on her claim for judicial review were whether the design or operation of the council’s priority star scheme indirectly discriminated, contrary to the Equality Act 2010, against the disabled or against women whose caring responsibilities prevented or reduced their ability to work, either for pay or as volunteers.