Disabled homeless applicant wins discrimination appeal concerning reasonable adjustments

A disabled applicant for homelessness assistance has won an important appeal in a ‘reasonable adjustments’ discrimination case against the London Borough of Lambeth.

Mr Asiimwe, who suffered from an acquired brain injury, had various physical care needs. He relied on family members in Lambeth to look after him, and he was also under specialist treatment at a hospital in the borough.  He approached Lambeth Council when he was evicted from his privately rented flat.

Lambeth Council places about 70% of its applicants for temporary accommodation outside of the borough. The council recognised that Mr Asiimwe needed to be placed within Lambeth, or close to the hospital, because of his care needs. However, after several months of not providing any accommodation at all, the council placed him several miles away, in North Finchley.

Various complaints and challenges concerning the suitability of the North Finchley placement failed to progress matters, and Mr Asiimwe brought a judicial review claim against Lambeth (which included allegations of unlawful discrimination). Lambeth found him permanent accommodation in the borough after the judicial review proceedings had started, roughly two years after they first accepted a homelessness duty towards him (and 21 months after placing him in North Finchley).

County Court Proceedings

The judicial review was settled, and the discrimination aspect of Mr Asiimwe’s challenge went to trial in the County Court. Mr Asiimwe’s case was that Lambeth had breached its ‘reasonable adjustments’ duty towards him, by failing to provide in-borough accommodation over a long period.

At the trial, Mr Asiimwe established that Lambeth had a ‘practice’ of placing a large number of applicants out-of-borough, and that such a practice had a significant impact on people with disability-related care needs. He argued that Lambeth ought to have made adjustments to its practice, by housing applicants with care needs within the borough, or (where that was not possible) by taking appropriate measures to ensure that such applicants were rehoused in Lambeth within a short period.

The trial judge accepted that there had been failings in Mr Asiimwe’s case. However, the judge considered that the failings were individual or ad hoc, rather than systemic, and Mr Asiimwe’s discrimination claim was dismissed on that basis.

High Court Appeal

The case went to appeal in the High Court on two points:

• The nature of the ‘reasonable adjustments’ duty (whether it is sufficient if one person experiences a breach, or whether there needs to be a systemic failing); and
• The ‘reverse burden of proof’ under section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 (whether the judge had correctly decided that Lambeth had proved that its systems generally worked well).

The second point succeeded.  Heather Williams J decided that the failings in Mr Asiimwe’s case had not been sufficiently explained, and Lambeth’s witness statement had not shown how effectively its systems worked in general. Unless Lambeth could explain the reasons for the failings in Mr Asiimwe’s case, it was difficult to know whether their broader arrangements for making adjustments were adequate.

The High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the trial judge for a re-evaluation of the overall effectiveness of Lambeth’s arrangements.

Implications of Asiimwe

This decision in Asiimwe establishes that there does generally need to be a structural failing in order for a ‘reasonable adjustments’ claim to succeed against a public authority: it may not be enough for one person to show that there has been a failure to make adjustments in a given case.

However, the facts of one applicant’s case may be indicative of a broader problem, and public authorities may need to prove that their systems are otherwise functional. The case also demonstrates that breaches of the statutory homelessness duties under the Housing Act 1996 might arise because of (or in parallel to) discriminatory practices, which applicants may challenge in the courts.

Mr Asiimwe was represented by Nick Bano of Garden Court Chambers’ Housing Law Team, instructed by Oscar Leyens of Southwark Law Centre. At first instance, Mr Asiimwe’s solicitors were Centre 70, which very sadly closed down during the course of the proceedings.

Full judgment: Asiimwe v Lambeth [2026] EWHC 1479 (KB)