Mr R Bryce v Solihull Community Housing Limited — 2025

Mr R Bryce brought a claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability arising from Solihull Community Housing Limited’s recruitment process for a part-time Accounts Manager role. The tribunal accepted that Mr Bryce was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 and that the respondent applied the pleaded PCP, namely requiring applicants to evidence in writing that they met the essential criteria before interview. The respondent also had a PCP in its process that applicants with a disability who met all essential criteria must be offered an interview.

The tribunal’s central issue was whether Mr Bryce, because of his impairments, had communication difficulties such that he could not necessarily evidence in writing that he met the essential criteria, and whether the written application PCP therefore put him at a substantial disadvantage compared with a non-disabled applicant. It reviewed the medical evidence, including older educational psychology material, an Asperger syndrome assessment, a 2020 cognitive profile and a 2023 psychiatric report, but found that the material did not support a conclusion that he could not express himself in writing. The tribunal noted that the older report suggested difficulty with the mechanics and style of writing rather than the content, and that the cognitive profile recorded no significant challenge with email communication.

The tribunal also considered Mr Bryce’s own evidence and its observations of him during the proceedings. It found that his application form stated that he had excellent written communication skills, that his explanations of the alleged disadvantage changed over time, and that his witness statement and appeal materials were well written. It accepted that he could recall and present facts, experiences and scenarios clearly, and noted that he had been given an extra day to complete the application form. The tribunal rejected the argument that a difficulty with social imagination or with recalling examples from memory meant that he was unable to evidence the criteria in writing, and distinguished Government Legal Service v Brookes because this case concerned a written application requiring examples from the claimant’s own experience rather than a hypothetical or counterfactual reasoning exercise.

The tribunal therefore found that the PCP did not place Mr Bryce at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with non-disabled applicants and dismissed the claim. No monetary award was made.