× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Housing costs  →  Thread

Winder and Ors v Sandwell

 1 2 > 

Martin Williams
forum member

Welfare rights advisor - CPAG, London

Send message

Total Posts: 769

Joined: 16 June 2010

The High Court has today ruled, in a case in which the claimants were represented by CPAG, that council tax reduction schemes which have a rule requiring residence in the local authority area for a period of time in order to become eligible are unlawful.

Winder & ors v Sandwell MBC [2014] EWHC 2617 (Admin)

The fact that the High Court found these rules were ultra vires means that other LAs will also need to drop such rules.

See attached.

File Attachments

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3773

Joined: 14 April 2010

Great stuff Martin ...

Martin Williams
forum member

Welfare rights advisor - CPAG, London

Send message

Total Posts: 769

Joined: 16 June 2010

Nothing to do with me- all down to Mike Spencer (our solicitor) and the barristers involved (Tom Royston at Garden Court North and Richard Drabble QC at Landmark).

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

Declaratory relief again ... I can never get my head around what tgis acheives in practice.  Does it mean that no existing scheme has been quashed, but it will be unlawful to include such rules in Year 3 schemes from 2015?  Or can this decision be relied on to revisit current schemes (and indeed year 1 schemes) (a) in Sandwell and/or (b) elsewhere?

Paul_Treloar_CPAG
forum member

Advice and Rights Team, Child Poverty Action Group

Send message

Total Posts: 550

Joined: 30 June 2014

HB Anorak - it certainly does strike down the current scheme, and does mean that other councils running similar requirements in their schemes will have to look again at them.

From Garden Court Chambers press release:

The judgment will have major implications for tens of thousands of low income council tax payers previously denied support, not just in Sandwell but in other local authority areas where similar council tax reduction schemes operate. The Court has unequivocally found that a past residence requirement is outside a local authority’s statutory powers in a scheme of this kind, and has refused the Council permission to appeal.

Practitioners may wish to consider challenges to local authorities operating similar residence requirements in other types of schemes (for example, provision of welfare assistance).

Note that they think this could have an even wider impact on other local schemes such as LWAS.

CPAG press release also if you want to read.

Mr Finch
forum member

Benefits adviser - Isle of Wight CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 509

Joined: 4 March 2011

I’m a bit bemused at the VT’s idea that it can’t investigate the vires of aspects of a local scheme. This does not seem consistent with authority in other fields of the law (Boddington in the criminal law, and various cases in social security law).

If this were correct it could have potentially absurd results in any case where a Tribunal is hearing a case where the respondent is also in a position to enact subordinate legislation, and even more so where that subordinate legislation has not been approved by Parliament at all (as with council schemes). A respondent might claim that a particular rule was in its scheme when it was, for example, not written down anywhere. A basic job of the Tribunal must always be to decide whether any claimed rule is properly enacted into the scheme. But if you think about it, the test for whether it was ‘properly’ enacted can only ever come from the powers in the primary legislation, or else the argument becomes circular. The only way to decide whether a verbal rule was a valid part of the scheme would be to check whether the primary legislation allowed such amendments.

Would the VT enforce a rule in a local scheme that purported to take away the right of appeal, contrary to the enabling act? A rule that increased council tax for pensioners, or people with blonde hair?

Anyway, after that little rant, very well done to those who brought this JR and argued it so comprehensively. After the legal aid win, is it too much to hope that all length-of-residence tests are now finished?

Paul_Treloar_CPAG
forum member

Advice and Rights Team, Child Poverty Action Group

Send message

Total Posts: 550

Joined: 30 June 2014

MrFinch - 31 July 2014 04:20 PM

I’m a bit bemused at the VT’s idea that it can’t investigate the vires of aspects of a local scheme. This does not seem consistent with authority in other fields of the law (Boddington in the criminal law, and various cases in social security law).

If this were correct it could have potentially absurd results in any case where a Tribunal is hearing a case where the respondent is also in a position to enact subordinate legislation, and even more so where that subordinate legislation has not been approved by Parliament at all (as with council schemes). A respondent might claim that a particular rule was in its scheme when it was, for example, not written down anywhere. A basic job of the Tribunal must always be to decide whether any claimed rule is properly enacted into the scheme. But if you think about it, the test for whether it was ‘properly’ enacted can only ever come from the powers in the primary legislation, or else the argument becomes circular. The only way to decide whether a verbal rule was a valid part of the scheme would be to check whether the primary legislation allowed such amendments.

Would the VT enforce a rule in a local scheme that purported to take away the right of appeal, contrary to the enabling act? A rule that increased council tax for pensioners, or people with blonde hair?

Anyway, after that little rant, very well done to those who brought this JR and argued it so comprehensively. After the legal aid win, is it too much to hope that all length-of-residence tests are now finished?

Our legal officer Mike will hopefully be drafting a WRB article for the next edition that begins to look at some of these issues, so please bear with us for now, it’s all been a bit hectic as you can imagine.

Jon (CANY)
forum member

Welfare benefits - Craven CAB, North Yorkshire

Send message

Total Posts: 1362

Joined: 16 June 2010

This is just a side issue on this case, but as I read it: Sandwell attempted to meet the requirements for the transitional grant from central govt (para 21), which should have been worth £675,000 in Sandwell’s case. This is the grant which caused a lot of councils to keep minimum payments at 8.5% last year. And then they shot themselves in the foot, because it turned out that their new residence requirement disqualified them (para 25). Quite an expensive mistake all round.

Paul_Treloar_CPAG
forum member

Advice and Rights Team, Child Poverty Action Group

Send message

Total Posts: 550

Joined: 30 June 2014

Craven CAB welfare benefits - 06 August 2014 05:51 PM

This is just a side issue on this case, but as I read it: Sandwell attempted to meet the requirements for the transitional grant from central govt (para 21), which should have been worth £675,000 in Sandwell’s case. This is the grant which caused a lot of councils to keep minimum payments at 8.5% last year. And then they shot themselves in the foot, because it turned out that their new residence requirement disqualified them (para 25). Quite an expensive mistake all round.

Spot on, it’s a side issue to some degree as you say, but what a significant and expensive side issue, especially in a decision that seems to have been made very much on the hoof as it were. Private Eye’s Rotten Borough special perhaps…..???

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

Basildon has suspended it’s residence requirement until further notice! -

http://www.basildon.gov.uk/lcts

Jon Blackwell
forum member

Programmer - Lisson Grove Benefits Program, Brighton

Send message

Total Posts: 501

Joined: 18 June 2010

Daphne - 07 August 2014 10:21 AM

Basildon has suspended it’s residence requirement until further notice! -

http://www.basildon.gov.uk/lcts

And Tendring have done the same…

http://www.tendringdc.gov.uk/council-tax/local-council-tax-support-lcts-changes-april-2014

 

Paul_Treloar_CPAG
forum member

Advice and Rights Team, Child Poverty Action Group

Send message

Total Posts: 550

Joined: 30 June 2014

Thanks for the updates Daphne and Jon.

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3773

Joined: 14 April 2010

Blog post from Peter Kenway over at the NPI

Benefit recipients must not be pawns in policy games

Paul_Treloar_CPAG
forum member

Advice and Rights Team, Child Poverty Action Group

Send message

Total Posts: 550

Joined: 30 June 2014

And another blog from someone who I assume to be a local resident of Sandwell, be warned, some of the language is quite strong in its criticisms, as the title may indicate….

Lord Mayor of Sandwell - Hypocrite!