The Disability Discrimination Act 2005 came into force on 4 December 2006 and imposes new duties on landlords, among others. Landlords must not unreasonably withhold consent for disability-related improvements to certain rented dwelling-houses, although they themselves are not under a legal duty to make physical adjustments to premises. In addition, landlords, property managers and letting agents have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to their policies, practices and procedures, and to provide auxiliary aids and services on request, to enable disabled people to rent premises. However, they are not under any duty to make, or permit, disability-related adjustments in the common parts of residential premises to facilitate access to rented accommodation. A recent Court of Appeal decision (which contains important practical guidance on the relationship between the legislation and the guidance in the codes of practice produced by the Disability Rights Commission (DRC)) reinforced criticisms of the Government’s failure to legislate on communal areas. In Williams v Richmond Court (Swansea) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1719; [2006] PLSCS 266, the landlord refused to allow an 81-year-old tenant to install a stairlift to enable her to reach her flat on the third floor. It maintained that it was concerned about the aesthetics and the cost of future repairs, the other tenants were concerned about the noise and inconvenience that the stairlift would cause. The landlord argued that it had not discriminated against the tenant because it would not have allowed anyone else to install a stairlift. Its case succeeded because it was found not to have discriminated against the tenant and because the disability legislation does not impose any positive duties in respect of the common parts of rented residential accommodation. The decision offers important practical guidance on how to use DRC’s code of practice. The codes are not definitive statements of law, but the courts and tribunals must use them in order to make informed decisions. The example from the code that was cited in court might have led a reader to conclude that the landlord should have responded differently, but the court ruled that the guidance will not always be relevant. The example was based upon an assumption that some discrimination had occurred and focused on the question of whether the behaviour could be justified. The correct approach was for the court to decide whether the tenant had been treated less favourably. If that were the case, the court should then consider whether the landlord’s behaviour could be justified. The decision takes us back to basic principles: the courts must first construe the legislation and should only then refer to the code to see whether it is relevant to the way in which the legislation should be applied.
