Disabled Man Loses High Court Case Against Home Group — But Fresh Revelations Raise Questions of Discrimination...

Defeat in court, but not in principle — how a disabled resident’s case has blown open the hidden discrimination within Hartlepool’s housing system...

10th October 2025

A disabled Hartlepool man has lost his legal battle in the High Court against housing provider Home Group Ltd, in a case that's reignited concerns over how disabled applicants are being treated by the town’s housing system.

In a decision issued on the 30th September 2025, His Honour Judge Saffman refused permission for the local man to proceed with a judicial review against Home Group Ltd.

The case centred on the allocation of a two-bedroom bungalow in Hartlepool, which the applicant argued should have been offered through Home Group’s internal waiting list rather than through Hartlepool Borough Council’s controversial “Home Search” scheme.

The applicant claimed alleged breaches of Home Group's statutory duty under the Housing Act 1996, Equality Act 2010, and procedural unfairness. However, the court ruled that the existence of a Nominations Agreement between Home Group and Hartlepool Borough Council (which was not disclosed to the applicant before the hearing took place) allowed the council to nominate tenants for up to 25% of Home Group’s available housing, including almost all of Home Group's adapted properties.

The Controversial Allocation

Its claimed adapted properties in Hartlepool arent being given to those who truly need them

According to documents seen by the Teesside & Durham Post, the property in question — was believed to have been adapted for disabled use — & was controversially later awarded to a Band 4 applicant, the lowest possible priority category under Hartlepool’s housing system.

This revelation caused outrage among campaigners and community advocates, who argued it undermines the fairness of the local housing process. “If a disabled person loses a case over a property that’s then handed to someone with the lowest housing priority, it calls into question whether justice was ever really served,” ..

Court’s Reasoning vs. Public Perception

Judge Saffman, who heard the case earlier last month

In his written judgment, HHJ Saffman found that Home Group’s actions were consistent with its contractual obligations to the Council, and that the property “appeared, in the judges opinion not to be suitable for the claimant and his partner” because it was claimed, "the property was not entirely on one level".

However, critics say this interpretation sidesteps the broader issue —in that disabled applicants are frequently losing out to non-disabled individuals even when properties are designed or adapted for accessibility reasons...

Housing campaigners also argue this case highlights yet more systemic bias against disabled residents, where bureaucratic contracts and behind closed doors nomination agreements are being used to justify decisions that effectively exclude vulnerable applicants from fair access to suitable housing.

The Teesside & Durham Post’s investigation into the case suggests that the loss in court may have been a calculated move on Home Groups Part, allowing officials to avoid scrutiny of how adapted properties are being distributed. While the judge dismissed the Equality Act argument, observers note that the eventual reallocation of the bungalow to a Band 4 applicant reinforces the perception that disabled people are being sidelined by a deeply discriminatory housing system.

As one local housing rights volunteer put it,

“This isn’t just about one property — it’s about how the system is clearly designed to fail those who need help most. When disabled people lose legal challenges but the facts then later show clear unfairness, it exposes something far more troubling than a simple administrative decision.”

What Happens Next

The applicant has the right to seek reconsideration of the High Court’s decision, but campaigners say the case has already already exposed how private housing associations and local councils are using secret nomination contracts to override fairness in the housing system.

As Hartlepool continues to face a severe shortage of accessible housing, this ruling — and the subsequent revelations — raise serious questions about who the housing system really serves and whether disabled residents are being systematically denied their rights in the name of procedure.