High Court to hear judicial review of council tax rebate scheme in Haringey

The High Court will next week (5 February) hear an application for judicial review against the London Borough of Haringey over its council tax rebate scheme.

The case is one of five legal actions being brought on behalf of residents by law firm Irwin Mitchell against schemes being introduced by local authorities.

The litigation follows the Government’s abolition of council tax benefit. The funding for replacement local authority schemes was cut by 10%, leaving authorities to decide whether and how to make up the shortfall.

At the High Court, lawyers for the claimants will argued that:

• Haringey’s decision to reject a special government grant was irrational; and
• The consultations it undertook in deciding its rebate levels were unlawful.

Irwin Mitchell claimed that Haringey’s scheme would mean all residents who previously paid nothing, with the exception of disabled people, would have to pay 20% of their council tax.

Legal action has also been launched against four other local authorities in addition to Haringey, it said. The councils affected are Birmingham, Hackney, Rochdale and Sheffield.

The firm is also investigating policies being put in place by other local authorities across the country.

Irwin Mitchell questioned why some councils were not taking up the Government’s offer of a grant if they limited council tax rebates to 8.5%.

It claimed that some authorities were in breach of their obligations under the Equality Act 2010, and said it has asked them to quash their decisions and undertake fresh consultation with residents.

Alex Rook, a lawyer at Irwin Mitchell, said: “Residents are facing a postcode lottery as to how the new council tax rebate system will be implemented. People living across the road from each other but technically in different boroughs could face a significantly different council tax bill simply because different councils have different policies.

 “Some councils are passing on cuts from the Government to everyone other than pensioners, hitting the poorest hardest. One of our clients is a single mother caring for her severely disabled nephew and she is simply not going to be able to make these extra payments. Our clients are devastated at the thought of this additional burden when they are already struggling to pay for basics such as food and heating.”

Rook also suggested that one of the concerns emerging from the consultations held by councils was that they had not sufficiently presented the options to local residents, such as whether the authorities should use reserves, increase council tax or progress other options.

UPDATE: Judgment was reserved following the hearing on 5 February.