What Berkeley’s encampment class action could mean for London’s homeless policies

A federal lawsuit in California has been granted class-action status, challenging the city of Berkeley’s practice of removing homeless encampments. The plaintiffs argue that the sweeps violate the U.S. Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). While the case is specific to the United States, it touches on questions that are equally relevant to London: how far can a city go in clearing tents when emergency shelter is insufficient, and what legal protections exist for people with disabilities living on the streets?

The Berkeley case was originally filed in 2025 and covers all people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness in the city and have been, or will be, affected by the city’s encampment removal policies. The court’s decision to elevate it to a class action means that any ruling could have broad implications for how cities in the Ninth Circuit (which covers most of the western U.S.) manage rough sleeping. The plaintiffs claim that the city’s practice of seizing and destroying personal property without due process, and of failing to provide accessible alternatives for disabled individuals, is unconstitutional.

London’s legal landscape for encampment clearances

In London, the legal framework is different. The Housing Act 1996 and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 give local authorities and the police powers to move people on from public land, provided they follow certain procedures. But the question of whether those procedures adequately protect the rights of disabled rough sleepers has not been tested in a class-action setting.

The Greater London Authority (GLA) has its own Rough Sleeping Plan, which emphasises a “by-name” approach and a focus on rapid rehousing. However, in practice, boroughs continue to clear encampments, often with little notice and without offering alternative accommodation that meets the needs of individuals with physical or mental health conditions. The Berkeley case highlights that the lack of a legal duty to provide accessible shelter could be a vulnerability in any future challenge in the UK.

How the ADA compares to UK equality law

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all public services. In the UK, the Equality Act 2010 provides similar protections. The Berkeley plaintiffs argue that the city’s encampment removals disproportionately harm people with disabilities because they do not provide accessible temporary housing, do not offer reasonable adjustments during the clearance process, and destroy mobility aids, medication, and other essential items.

If a similar challenge were brought in London, a court would need to assess whether boroughs are making “reasonable adjustments” for disabled rough sleepers. Under the Equality Act, public bodies have a duty to make such adjustments. The current practice of clearing tents without prior assessment of each individual’s needs could be vulnerable to a legal challenge, particularly if claimants can show that the removal caused them to lose assistive devices or medical supplies.

Practical implications for London boroughs

The Berkeley case is still at an early stage, but it serves as a reminder that local authorities in London should review their encampment protocols. Specifically, they should ensure that:
– Clearance notices are given in advance and in accessible formats.
– Personal property is stored safely and returned promptly.
– Alternative accommodation is offered that is physically accessible and suitable for individuals with mental health conditions.
– There is a documented process for identifying and accommodating disabled rough sleepers during each sweep.

Some London boroughs, such as Camden and Westminster, have already moved toward a “no‑tent” approach combined with rapid rehousing offers. But the lack of a consistent, legally defensible standard across all 32 boroughs leaves the door open for potential litigation.

What remains unclear

It is not yet known whether the Berkeley case will succeed at trial. The city of Berkeley has argued that its removals are necessary for public health and safety, and that it offers shelter placements before each sweep. The court will have to weigh those claims against the constitutional and disability‑rights arguments.

For London, there is no equivalent pending class action. The legal costs and the need for a representative claimant group make such a suit unlikely in the short term. However, the reasoning in the Berkeley case could influence how UK courts interpret the interaction between the Equality Act and the Housing Act, especially in a future test case brought by a legal charity such as Shelter or the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Summary of key facts

Why this matters for London readers

Londoners who work in housing, planning, or social policy should monitor the Berkeley case because it may set a precedent for how courts balance city‑cleaning powers against the rights of vulnerable individuals. If the plaintiffs prevail, it could encourage similar arguments in the UK. Even if they lose, the case forces local authorities to examine whether their own practices meet the legal standards already in place.

Until a London‑specific case emerges, the best course of action for boroughs is to conduct a disability‑access audit of their encampment clearance procedures and to publish clear, accessible policies. The Berkeley case is a reminder that legal compliance is not just a U.S. concern.

Source: Smart Cities Dive – “Encampment removal lawsuit elevated to class action against Berkeley, California” – https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/encampment-removal-lawsuit-elevated-class-action-against-berkeley-calif/826033/