Supreme Court to hear case on consultation and council tax reduction schemes

The Supreme Court will next week (19 June) hold a hearing on the proper approach generally to consultation and specifically the consultation carried out by a local authority in relation to its council tax reduction scheme.

The issues in R (on the application of Moseley) (in substitution of Stirling (Deceased)) v London Borough of Haringey are billed as:

  • The proper approach to consultations generally and consultations conducted pursuant to paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 1A to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 in respect of proposed ‘council tax reduction schemes’ (CTRS);
  • Whether a fair consultation requires that consultees be informed “not just of the proposals of the local authority but also of the reasons for the proposals and be given sufficient information to enable them to critically examine the thinking that led to the proposals”.

The background to the case is the replacement of council tax benefit by CRTSs in April 2013. Haringey consulted upon its scheme. Following the consultation, the Government announced a Transitional Grant Scheme (TGS).

The council then adopted a CTRS without re-consultation claiming that the TGS did not affect its draft scheme.

The appellant, a local resident, argued that the consultation was process was unfair and unlawful because:

  1. consultees had not been provided with sufficient information to understand that there were alternatives to the draft scheme; and
  2. the council should have re-consulted when the TGS was announced.

In the High Court Mr Justice Underhill rejected the challenge, ruling that the consultation was fair. He gave permission for appeal, however. The Court of Appeal subsequently upheld the judge’s ruling after an expedited hearing.

The case will be heard by a five-justice panel of the Supreme Court comprising Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson and Lord Reed.

Law firm Irwin Mitchell, which is representing a resident challenging the consultation by Haringey, acknowledged that the decision in question could no longer be quashed as the new system had already been implemented.

However, it said local residents hoped that they might still be able to influence the future of the rebate system.

They will ask the Supreme Court to order that Haringey redo the consultation again should they declare that the first consultation was unlawful.

Alex Rook, a lawyer at Irwin Mitchell leading the case, said: “Public consultation is extremely important to ensure there is proper local engagement and to make sure that people affected by decisions understand the background and can share their opinions to help shape local policies.

“We hope this case will provide clarity on the extent to which local authorities must consult with the public when introducing new policies such as this.”

Rook added: “This is understood to be the first time the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case about a council’s duty to undertake ‘public consultation.’ The importance of this issue should not be underestimated at the present time when local services are being cut back across the country.”