X AGAINST GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL [2022] ScotCS CSOH_35 (27 April 2022)

X AGAINST GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL [2022] ScotCS CSOH_35 (27 April 2022)

The respondent is under an absolute statutory duty to provide temporary accommodation suitable for the petitioner's household, taking into account the additional support needs of the petitioner's disabled son. Resource constraints or reliance on third-party providers do not excuse non-compliance. The respondent must...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ScotCS CSOH_35
Parties
Petitioner: X; Respondent: Glasgow City Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Opinion of Outer House, Court of Session
Outcome
Petition upheld. Respondent found in breach of statutory duty.
Legal Topics
Homelessness, Local Authority Duties, Disability Discrimination, Reasonable Adjustments, Public Sector Equality Duty
Administrative Law Housing Law Equality Law Homelessness Local Authority Duties Disability Discrimination Reasonable Adjustments Public Sector Equality Duty

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Petitioner

Glasgow City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Opinion of Outer House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the local authority is under an absolute legal obligation to provide suitable accommodation for a homeless household taking into account the needs of the household, particularly where a member is disabled
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's practice of sourcing accommodation only from registered social landlords is lawful under the Equality Act 2010
  3. 3 Whether the respondent complied with its public sector equality duty

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent is under an absolute statutory duty to provide temporary accommodation suitable for the petitioner's household, taking into account the additional support needs of the petitioner's disabled son. Resource constraints or reliance on third-party providers do not excuse non-compliance. The respondent must make reasonable adjustments to its practice if necessary to meet this duty.

Court Disposition

Petition upheld. Respondent found in breach of statutory duty.

Orders

  • Case put out by order for discussion of appropriate interlocutor and compliance timescale. Respondent required to propose how it will comply with its statutory duty to provide suitable accommodation within a reasonably short timescale.