× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Housing costs  →  Thread

Supreme Court finds that Haringey’s consultation on council tax reduction scheme was unlawful

Ros
Administrator

editor, rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 1323

Joined: 6 June 2010

However,  in R (on the application of Moseley (in substitution of Stirling Deceased)) v London Borough of Haringey, Court declines to order local authority to undertake a fresh consultation exercise because this would be disproportionate in the circumstances -

http://supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2013_0116_Judgment.pdf

rightsnet news story to follow…

Ros
Administrator

editor, rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 1323

Joined: 6 June 2010

Bryan R
forum member

Folkestone Welfare Union

Send message

Total Posts: 233

Joined: 22 April 2013

I suspect that most council’s proposed changes to its Council Tax Benefit scheme were unlawful as they probably failed to outline alternative methods of dealing with cuts to funding.

My local council’s consultation on changes to its council benefit scheme did not include any details of alternative methods of compensating for the shortfall created from 2013-14, when the central government reimbursement to local authorities was reduced from 100% to 90% of the benefit.


My Council made no reference in their consultation to other options for meeting the shortfall, for example by raising council tax, reducing funding to council services or deploying capital reserves.

I see in the main judgment, Lord Wilson (with Lord Kerr’s agreement) ruled that where a public authority has a duty to consult before taking a decision, whether such duty is generated by statute, as in this case, or arises as a matter of common law, the same common law requirements of procedural fairness will inform the manner in which the consultation should be conducted. Fairness, he ruled, may require that interested persons be consulted not only upon the preferred option but also upon discarded options.
Haringey’s consultation, he said, was premised on the assumption that the shortfall would be met by a reduction in council tax relief and no other option was presented.  I think if one looks at one’s own council you too will find this to be true as well in the vast majority of cases.

In his concurring judgment, Lord Reed allowed the appeal but drew a distinction between statutory and common law consultations. Where the duty to consult is imposed by statute, the scope of the duty varies according to the statutory context, he said. The purpose of this particular statutory duty was to ensure public participation in the local authority’s decision-making process; it was not to ensure procedural fairness as under the common law. Meaningful participation in these circumstances required that those consulted be provided with an outline of the realistic alternatives. In the absence of specific statutory provision, reference to alternative options will be required where this is necessary in order for the consultees to express meaningful views on the proposals.  If you were a consultee were you allowed to ‘express meaningful views on the proposals’? Probably not.

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3773

Joined: 14 April 2010

Lewisham has reopened its Council Tax Support consultation in light of “recent case law”

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/news/Pages/Council-Tax-reduction.aspx