Trevor Simpson took Dumfries and Galloway Council to court, arguing the authority breached its duties under the Equality Act by offering him a third‑floor flat accessible only by stairs, despite being aware of his severe mobility issues. He raised the action in 2021, shortly after presenting as homeless.

The case, heard at Dumfries Sheriff Court by Sheriff Mungo Bovey KC, centred on whether Simpson should be allowed to amend his claim to introduce new allegations of disability discrimination.

Simpson, who experiences chronic back and leg pain and regular muscle spasms, approached the council as homeless in September 2020. He requested ground‑floor accommodation and provided an occupational therapy report outlining his needs.

Despite this, he was offered a third‑floor flat in Lockerbie with stair-only access. According to Simpson, officers told him he had to accept the offer or risk returning to rough sleeping, and that no alternative accommodation was available.

He said he accepted the flat only because he felt he had no choice. His mobility issues meant he was unable to leave the property on some days.

Simpson attempted to introduce two new elements to his case:

• A claim that the council operated a general practice of placing homeless disabled people in unsuitable accommodation.
• A new allegation under a different part of the Equality Act, arguing the council’s decision effectively forced him to live in conditions that did not meet his disability-related needs.

The council opposed the changes, noting that the officer who handled Simpson’s original homelessness interview had since died, making it impossible to gather direct evidence about what was said at the time.

In his decision, Sheriff Bovey refused both amendments, saying they were too vague and would require the council to undertake extensive new investigations into its wider homelessness practices from 2020.

He noted that the proposed “practice” of placing disabled people in unsuitable homes was not described in any meaningful detail, and allowing the claim to proceed would significantly expand the scope of the case.

On the second amendment, the sheriff highlighted that the new allegation introduced questions about the decision-maker’s motives—an issue made more difficult because the key officer involved had passed away.

He concluded that the limited detail about the harm suffered, combined with the practical difficulties for the council in defending the new claims, meant the balance of fairness lay with refusing the amendments.

The sheriff refused permission for both proposed changes, meaning the case will proceed only on the original, narrower grounds relating to the council’s allocation policy.