A Court of Appeal judgment has clarified that a housing database used by Tower Hamlets Council to allocate temporary accommodation does not amount to unlawful indirect discrimination against women, nor does it breach the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) — despite the fact that female applicants were disproportionately represented on the system.

In R (Anisa Begum) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2025] EWCA Civ 1049, the Court upheld an earlier High Court ruling dismissing Ms Begum’s claim — which had been supported by the charity Shelter — under sections 19 and 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

The decision offers important guidance for local authorities navigating equality law obligations in the context of acute housing shortages and data-driven allocations.

Background to the Claim

Ms Begum had argued that the database used by Tower Hamlets to identify suitable applicants for available accommodation indirectly discriminated against women, as the majority of those placed on the database were female. She further claimed that the Council had failed to discharge its duty under section 149 of the Equality Act (the PSED) to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity.

The Court of Appeal rejected these claims, confirming that statistical over-representation of women on the database — while relevant — did not, in itself, amount to unlawful discrimination.

How the Database Operates

The system in question is designed to assist Tower Hamlets in matching homeless applicants with suitable temporary accommodation in a borough facing severe housing pressures. The database holds information such as household size, medical needs, accessibility requirements (e.g. maximum floor height), and preferred locations — but notably, not the applicant’s gender.

When properties become available, officers can swiftly shortlist households that meet the criteria, with decisions based on suitability rather than a fixed queue or waiting time. Waiting time is only considered as a tie-breaker where two households are equally matched.

The Court accepted that this process was not intended to delay allocation of housing but to deliver it more efficiently, fairly, and transparently.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeal endorsed the High Court’s view that the system was a legitimate and proportionate means of allocating scarce accommodation. It emphasised that:

• The database constituted a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) under section 19, but
• There was no causal link between the PCP and the claimed disadvantage to women,
• The correct approach under section 149 requires decision-makers to understand the equality impact of their functions — but not to eliminate all statistical disparities.

In its analysis of the PSED, the Court highlighted the need to approach duties in context: when the equality considerations are embedded within the very function being performed (e.g., prioritising households by need), this may satisfy the obligation in practice.

Sector Reactions

Legal experts and council officers have welcomed the clarity the judgment brings. Many had expressed concern that the increasing use of databases and digital allocation tools — essential in overstretched housing departments — could be vulnerable to legal challenge under equality legislation.

Tower Hamlets, represented by Kelvin Rutledge KC of Cornerstone Barristers and Genevieve Screeche-Powell of Field Court Chambers, successfully argued that the system was working to accelerate, not delay, the discharge of its housing duty, while improving transparency and reducing inefficiencies such as void periods.

What This Means for Local Authorities

The judgment affirms that local authorities may lawfully use structured, criteria-based databases to manage housing allocations — provided that:

• The criteria used are objective, transparent, and proportionate,
• Systems are monitored for equality impacts, and
• Authorities can evidence how the PSED has been integrated into policy design and decision-making.

While the case does not remove the obligation to consider the impact of policies on protected groups, it does confirm that not every disparity equates to discrimination — a point of growing relevance in an era of algorithmic decision-making and resource triage.

Further Reading
The full Court of Appeal judgment is available online [link placeholder]. For legal teams reviewing equality policies or homelessness procedures, the case also offers helpful clarification on comparator groups, causation, and how the PSED should be applied in overlapping policy functions.

Would you like a shorter version for social media or a focused legal briefing note for council teams?