b'to put up the rent for a single, unoccupied, council dwelling by 18,000 per week. The court, not surprisingly, decided this was a decision which no reasonable authority could reach. When a decision is challenged the motives behind a particular course of action, as recorded in the background papers, committee reports, etc, will be scrutinised to see whether irrelevant or improper considerations have been taken into account. Examples of improper motive 2.4 A case involving the use of improper motives for income generation is R v Manchester City Council, ex p Donald King (1991) 89 LGR 696. This involved Manchester Councils decision to substantially increase the fees for street trading licences by more than 1000%. Although the Council had power to charge such fees as they consider reasonable for the grant or renewal of a street trading licence under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, the court decided that the statute did not authorise the Council to use its licensing powers as an income-producing asset. The powers had to be exercised within the policy and objects of the Act, which meant that the level of fees must be related to the cost to the Council of operating the street trading scheme. The Council were also criticised by the court for not having paid sufficient regard to the ability of the street traders to absorb the additional cost of the increased fee. In failing to take account of these material considerations the Council had acted unlawfully. In R v Birmingham City Council, ex p Dredger and another [1994] 6 Admin LR 553, (1993) Times, 28th January (the Birmingham case), a Councils decision to increase stall charges for market traders was susceptible to judicial review because it affected the traders common law right to earn a living. The court said it would be repugnant to arrive at a decision which meant the Council, in a monopoly position to administer ancient markets, were the sole arbiters of the level of rent, and accordingly in a position effectively to exclude traders altogether if they wanted to. The above cases can be contrasted with the approach taken by the court in Ricketts v Havering LBC (1980) 79 LGR 146. There, the Councils proposed increased market stall charges (acting under powers contained in the Food and Drugs Act 1955) were challenged by stallholders who believed the increases were too great and that the application of profits by the Council to purposes unconnected with the market was ultra vires. The court decided the case in favour of the Council stating that the Council was right to regard the market as a potentially profit-making operation and that such profits could be applied for the benefit of ratepayers generally. The determining factors were the care the Council took in considering the issues surrounding the proposed increase and the reasonableness of its actions. There had been full consultation with the traders and the increases were not by any means destructive of the market operation. A failure to consult or have sufficient regard to comments made by persons who could be said to have a legitimate expectation to be consulted before taking a particular course of action is a common trap for councils. In the Birmingham case, above, it was the market traders association who had not been consulted properly, their actions subsequently being found to be unlawful following challenges by those affected or aggrieved by their actions. 39'