Clarion Housing Association ordered to pay significant compensation for discriminating against tenant

Clarion Housing Association has been ordered to pay £20,000 in disability discrimination damages to one of its social housing tenants.

Ms Feeney suffered from a mixed anxiety and depressive disorder, which made it very difficult for her to open her post and manage her rent and Universal Credit account. In 2018, unknown to Ms Feeney, Clarion obtained a suspended possession order against her.

Over the next few years, Ms Feeney mentioned her mental health difficulties to Clarion in various telephone calls. Rent arrears continued to accrue on her account. In January 2024, Clarion applied to the court to enforce the 2018 possession order.

Ms Feeney issued a counterclaim for disability arising from discrimination, contrary to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. Clarion defended the discrimination claim, arguing that they did not know (or could not reasonably have known) about Ms Feeney’s disability, and that – even if they did know – the steps that they had taken were proportionate in the circumstances.

At a contested trial, District Judge Shakespeare found that Clarion did know about the disability. The call logs showed that Ms Feeney had told Clarion that she had “been put on antidepressants”. A few weeks later she explained, in another call, that she was “on antidepressants and needs help managing her tenancy”. Some time after that, she told Clarion that she “has buried her head in the sand and been ignoring letters and calls due to anxiety and mental health issues”.

The judge accepted that these disclosures fell within the textbook definition of disability, and that Clarion had therefore known about the disability when they applied to enforce the possession order.

As to whether Clarion had acted proportionally, the judge was highly critical of the housing association. She noted that there was a period of more than a year when Clarion did not contact Ms Feeney at all, even though the wrong amount of Universal Credit was in payment and the rent arrears were growing. Clarion had also mis-recorded Ms Feeney’s date of birth, which led to a six-month delay in rent payments because her Universal Credit claim could not be verified.

Clarion relied on the fact that they had sent a number of letters to Ms Feeney, suggesting that she should seek support. The judge concluded that Clarion “cannot, in my view, rely on letters with standard wording, and signposting towards help, when they know that the tenant is disabled and struggles with finances and post. Pointing to a generic sheet is not sufficient”.

The judge made a declaration that Clarion had unlawfully discriminated against its tenant, contrary to section 15 (read with section 35) of the Equality Act 2010.

As to damages, the judge concluded that the discrimination against Ms Feeney had lasted for about a year: from the date of the decision to apply to enforce the possession order, until Clarion reversed that decision a fortnight before the discrimination trial. The discrimination had caused relatively significant harm to the tenant. The judge decided that these factors meant that the claim fell within the middle Vento band, and ordered Clarion to pay damages of £20,000 and costs.

The 2018 possession order was also discharged, as the compensation greatly exceeded the remaining rent arrears.