Claimants who financially qualified for a reduction in tax liability were denied, based on a two- year residency requirement in a specific locality. The UK High Court of Justice struck down the residency requirement on multiple grounds including that the requirement was outside statutory authority, discriminated against women and non-UK citizens, violated the right to freedom of movement, and did not comply with a required consultation with affected parties.
As a result of the judgment, Sandwell removed the two-year residency requirement (Email interview with Carla Clarke, Solicitor, Child Poverty Action Group, June 25, 2018). In addition, two other Councils (Tendring and Basildon) which had adopted minimum local residency rules have ceased to apply them.
The judgment positively affected the lives of tens of thousands of low income council tax payers who were previously denied assistance in Sandwell as well as in other local authority areas with similar council tax reduction schemes. The case reaffirms that a core objective of social protection must be to effectively support the most vulnerable in our societies.
Moreover, this case strongly underscores the human rights principle of participation, encouraging genuinely participatory decision-making through a process of public consultation. On the issue of participation, UN resolution 33/22 called for draft guidelines on the effective implementation of the right to participate in public affairs, urging states to take measures including promoting the inclusion of all citizens in public affairs, in particular women, minorities and persons belonging to marginalized groups and in vulnerable situations.
The examination of indirect discrimination[1] in this case foregrounds the linkage between particular issues that predominantly women confront – for example domestic violence – and housing instability, which in turn negatively impacts enjoyment of a range of other rights, including access to social protection systems. In terms of scale of the problem, 1.2 million women faced domestic violence in 2017 in the UK. The WHO estimates that worldwide almost one third (30%) of all women who have been in a relationship have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by their intimate partner. Such violence frequently compels women to flee their homes and is a leading cause for homelessness for women. Other women lacking safe housing alternatives stay trapped in an abusive environment of often escalating violence. Security of tenure and access to housing are key cornerstones of the human right to adequate housing, as outlined in CESCR’s General Comment No. 4. In line with international human rights law, States must provide victims of violence access to services, including housing. This case is an important reminder that we need to draw on the principle of indirect discrimination as part of a broader substantive equality analysis, and adopt a comprehensive understanding of the experience of gender based-violence, to effectively secure women’s rights, including their right to housing.
For their contributions, special thanks to Child Poverty Action Group and ESCR-Net members: Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy (PHRGE) at Northeastern University and JustFair UK.
Last updated on 9 July 2018
[1] Indirect discrimination occurs when a law or policy appears to be neutral, but has a disproportionate adverse impact based on a prohibited ground for example race and gender.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission
Child Poverty Action Group
