I am writing an article for Disablity Alliance on the implications of the Court of Appeal decision in R (Sandwell MBC) v Perks and the West Midlands (West) Valuation Tribunal 2003. Does anyone have copies of the following relevant cases (or tell me where I can find them on the internet):Howell Williams v Wirral Borough Coucnil <1981> 79 LGR 697
Luton BC v Ball <2001> EWCH Admin 238. I am also interested in any information anyone has on responses of local authorities to the Sandwell Decision. Also, as the appealed decision was set aside by consent and ordered to be reheard by the Tribunal, is anyone aware if the case has been reheard and, if so what the outcome was?

Many thanks.

Could someone please give details of this judgment. Thanks

Gary,

This judgement has been touted, particularly in the IRRV, as significantly changing the law in respect of rooms used as bedrooms. My reading is that it does not, however a number of authorities are using it as grounds to review all existing band reductions where there is use as a bedroom.


I have copy of the judgement, which I can fax or email if you provide an address or fax number (I can't send an attachment with this message).

Paul Moorhouse

link to the sandwell judgement from the BAILII website

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/1749.html

(thanks to paul for alerting us to the link)

Paul

This is a case i argued succeffully at a the valuation tribunal.

I have the Howell Williams case and can let you have a copy.

Please feel free to give me a call (0121 569 5924) about this case which is a High Court decision and not the Court of Appeal.

In this case the client went unrepresented at the high court as they did not qualify for legal aid and the only argument put to the court was that on behalf of the authority. It remains my view that the a reduction was appropriate and we are looking for a local case to again take to a valuation tribunal and beyond to test this issue.

In short the high court decision is brief and accepts that there needs to be a "appropriative causative link between the disability and the requirement of the use of the room, because the use has to be essential or of major importance, because of the nature and extent of the disability." I have no difficulty with this principle and consider that this was established at the hearing beore the valuation tribunal, but this matter was not dealt with before the high court due to the lack of representation.

We are finding that most of the local Councils in our area have carried out a review of existing reductions following the Sandwell Judgement, with some of them applying the bedrooms aren't eligible argument.

Our problem is that in cases that have come to our attention, people have been unwilling (for various reasons) to challenge the Councils decision to remove the reduction.

Does anyone know if any of the large organisations are challenging this decision or are looking for test cases?

since you posted your message have you heard the set aside decision by the tribunal because I can not find this and have recently had a case turned down by a local authority based on the sandwell high court statement.
thanks

Steve, I undestand from Bal that the appellant actually 'threw in the towel' and didn't persue the issue after the High Court decision, so the situation is unresolved, althought a successful decision in the set aside case would have been helpful, i don't think that it is decisive to challenging a decision where the grounds are strong, check the article published in the Disabitly Rights Bulletin, Spring 2004 for the details of the arguments.

Good luck.

Paul.