Mortgage repossession & disability discrimination

Published on 4 August 2026 at 22:23

The Equality Act 2010 can be a significant consideration, but it is rarely a complete defence on its own. The key is to identify precisely how the lender's conduct amounts to unlawful discrimination and what remedy follows.

A useful way to analyse the case is to ask the following questions.

  1. Does the borrower have a disability?

Under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, the borrower must have:

  • a physical or mental impairment; and
  • the impairment must have a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

Medical evidence is usually required.

  1. Did the lender know, or ought it reasonably to have known, about the disability?

A lender cannot usually be liable for a failure to make reasonable adjustments if it had no actual or constructive knowledge of the disability.

Evidence might include:

  • medical reports previously supplied;
  • correspondence mentioning the condition;
  • communications from support workers or solicitors;
  • obvious signs of impairment during interactions.
  1. What reasonable adjustments should have been made?

This is where many lenders are vulnerable. Examples include:

  • communicating through a representative where appropriate;
  • allowing additional time to respond to correspondence;
  • providing information in an accessible format;
  • ensuring staff dealing with the case understand the customer's vulnerabilities;
  • considering alternative repayment arrangements before commencing possession proceedings.

The Equality Act does not require a lender to write off the debt or refrain indefinitely from enforcing its security. The adjustments must be "reasonable."

  1. Was there discrimination arising from disability?

Section 15 of the Equality Act may be particularly relevant.

Suppose:

  • the borrower suffers severe depression;
  • the depression causes missed payments;
  • the lender seeks possession because of those missed payments.

The missed payments may constitute "something arising in consequence of" the disability. The lender must then justify its treatment as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This is a fact-sensitive balancing exercise.

  1. Is there indirect discrimination?

A lender's standard policy may disadvantage disabled borrowers. If so, the lender must objectively justify the policy.

  1. FCA obligations

The FCA's Consumer Duty and its expectations regarding vulnerable customers are often overlooked. A lender should identify and respond to customer vulnerability, communicate effectively, and provide appropriate support. A failure to do so may not itself create a private cause of action, but it can be persuasive evidence when challenging the lender's conduct or seeking to negotiate a resolution.