The tenant, supported by her family, had asked the Court of Session to rule that West Dunbartonshire Council’s housing allocation policy broke equality law. She lives with her two adult children in council housing that has suffered from ongoing damp and mould problems.

Her son, 28, has autism, non-epileptic seizures and Sensory Processing Disorder. Her daughter has anxiety, depression, urinary incontinence and chronic fatigue syndrome, although these conditions have not been formally diagnosed. The tenant herself has several health conditions, including urinary incontinence, type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia.

Damp problems and a stalled inspection

The family first reported mould in the property in early 2024. The council struggled to get access to carry out repairs, and the problem wasn’t properly looked at until September 2025. Even then, a full inspection was made difficult because rooms were piled high with belongings. Workers did manage to fit upgraded extractor fans in two rooms to help tackle the damp.

Bid for priority points turned down

Over several years, the family had asked to be moved to a different property. In the past, this had led to the daughter being given 60 “medical priority points” – points awarded to households where a member’s health is affected by their housing conditions.

In January 2025, the family made a fresh request, this time seeking points for the mother and son. But an occupational therapist assessment found no medical need to rehouse them, and the council refused to award any extra points to either of them.

The family then took the case to court, arguing that the council’s rules:

• Didn’t properly consider the impact on disabled people, as required by law
• Discriminated against the son because of his disability
• Failed to make reasonable adjustments for family members with disabilities

Judge backs council’s approach

Lord Renucci, who heard the case, said the real question wasn’t whether the property had a damp problem – it was whether the council’s points policy was lawful. He noted that the family had, in fact, made it harder for the council to identify and fix the damp issue.

He explained that the council only awards points to one person per household – whoever has the most serious medical need – rather than adding up points for every family member. He said this approach makes sense, because otherwise a family with several people who each have minor health issues could unfairly jump ahead of a family with one person who has much greater needs.

On the discrimination complaint, the judge said what mattered wasn’t whether the son missed out on points he might have got – it was whether he was treated unfairly by getting none. Since the household had already benefited from 60 points awarded for the daughter’s needs, the son not receiving separate points didn’t amount to unfair treatment. Even if it had, the judge said the policy still had a fair and reasonable aim behind it.

Finally, the judge said the family hadn’t shown any real evidence that the council’s policy puts disabled people at a disadvantage generally – simply pointing out that they, personally, didn’t get points wasn’t enough. Because of this, he ruled the council wasn’t under any legal duty to make special adjustments in this case.

The petition was refused.