Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
The Supreme Court: Council loses case on Council Tax consultation
TODAY, the Supreme Court held Haringey's Consultation on Council Tax Relief Scheme to have been unlawful and overturns Court of Appeal:
Judgement (UK Supreme Court).
Attention of any readers is drawn in particular to Lord Wilson's Paragraph 31 and to Lord Reed's Paragraph 42.
Clive Carter
Haringey Councillor
Liberal Democrat Party
Tags for Forum Posts: Supreme Court, consultation, judgement
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
- Underhill J and Pitchford LJ nevertheless proceeded to conclude, as did Sullivan LJ and Sir Terence Etherton on the assumption that they were wrong to discern an absence of need to refer to other options, that Haringey's consultation exercise had been lawful because the other options would have been reasonably obvious to those consulted. It is clear that no conclusion to that effect can be drawn from the fact that, from the 36,000 households to which a hard copy of the consultation document was delivered, there were at least ten responses that services should be cut and at least 11 responses that council tax should be increased. On the contrary the apparently infinitesimal number of such responses arguably runs the other way. Assuming, however, that Underhill J and the Court of Appeal were entitled to conclude that the other options would have been reasonably obvious to those consulted, two matters arise. The first is to question whether it would also have been reasonably obvious to them why Haringey was minded to reject the other options. I speak as one who, even after a survey of the evidence filed by Haringey in these proceedings, remains unclear why it was minded to reject the other options. Perhaps the driver of its approach was political. At all events I cannot imagine that an affirmative answer can be given to that question. The second matter is the need to link the assumed knowledge of those consulted with the terms of Haringey's presentation to them in the consultation document and the covering letter. With respect to them, Underhill J and the Court of Appeal gave insufficient attention to the terms both of the document and of the letter, which, as I have demonstrated in paras 17 to 21 above, represented, as being an accomplished fact, that the shortfall in government funding would be met by a reduction in council tax support and that the only question was how, within that parameter, the burden should be distributed. This limited approach to the relevant question was entirely consistent with Mr Ellicott's report in July 2012 (see para 9 above) and, Haringey's response dated 6 November 2012 to The Rev. Nicolson (see para 22 above). Haringey's message to those consulted was therefore that other options were irrelevant and in such circumstances I cannot agree that their assumed knowledge of them saves Haringey's consultation exercise from a verdict that it was unfair and therefore unlawful.
- Underhill J and Pitchford LJ nevertheless proceeded to conclude, as did Sullivan LJ and Sir Terence Etherton on the assumption that they were wrong to discern an absence of need to refer to other options, that Haringey's consultation exercise had been lawful because the other options would have been reasonably obvious to those consulted. It is clear that no conclusion to that effect can be drawn from the fact that, from the 36,000 households to which a hard copy of the consultation document was delivered, there were at least ten responses that services should be cut and at least 11 responses that council tax should be increased. On the contrary the apparently infinitesimal number of such responses arguably runs the other way. Assuming, however, that Underhill J and the Court of Appeal were entitled to conclude that the other options would have been reasonably obvious to those consulted, two matters arise. The first is to question whether it would also have been reasonably obvious to them why Haringey was minded to reject the other options. I speak as one who, even after a survey of the evidence filed by Haringey in these proceedings, remains unclear why it was minded to reject the other options. Perhaps the driver of its approach was political. At all events I cannot imagine that an affirmative answer can be given to that question. The second matter is the need to link the assumed knowledge of those consulted with the terms of Haringey's presentation to them in the consultation document and the covering letter. With respect to them, Underhill J and the Court of Appeal gave insufficient attention to the terms both of the document and of the letter, which, as I have demonstrated in paras 17 to 21 above, represented, as being an accomplished fact, that the shortfall in government funding would be met by a reduction in council tax support and that the only question was how, within that parameter, the burden should be distributed. This limited approach to the relevant question was entirely consistent with Mr Ellicott's report in July 2012 (see para 9 above) and, Haringey's response dated 6 November 2012 to The Rev. Nicolson (see para 22 above). Haringey's message to those consulted was therefore that other options were irrelevant and in such circumstances I cannot agree that their assumed knowledge of them saves Haringey's consultation exercise from a verdict that it was unfair and therefore unlawful.
-
-
- As Lord Wilson has explained, those requirements were not met in this case. The consultation document presented the proposed reduction in council tax support as if it were the inevitable consequence of the Government's funding cuts, and thereby disguised the choice made by Haringey itself. It misleadingly implied that there were no possible alternatives to that choice. In reality, therefore, there was no consultation on the fundamental basis of the scheme.
-
-
They have basically accused the council of politically motivated deception. Should Cllrs Kober and Goldberg be considering their positions? It's an honest question.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
John, I'm sure that this Decision will merit a cover story and full discussion in that paragon of investigative journalism, Haringey People.
Not!
-
Permalink Reply by Mr Wodjacallim on
-
Careful John !
You might get another harassment warning, especially if Sergeant XXXXX 67YR is on duty. He/She is one of the people in Haringey who decides to issue warnings without a thorough investigation as required by Metropolitan Police procedures.
-
Permalink Reply by DavidJ on
-
Thinking of politically minded deception it might be worth remembering the fact that this stems from the Con-Lib Dem goverment's scheme to push the funding of Council tax rebate onto local councils. The did this at the same time as imposing a 10% cut on the money available to those councils to pay for this. As this analysis points out this 10% is rather notional and the real figure is much greater, whilst councils have no control of eligibility (the greater the levels of poverty in the borough the more you have to pay).
This is a policy designed to shift the burden of tax onto the poor. I don't know if Haringey could come up with better ways of resisting this (quite possibly) - but it is best to remember where the policy is coming from - the con-dem coalition.
-
-
worth remembering the fact that this stems from
best to remember where the policy is coming from
Short-memory syndrome is a defining feature of the most tribal of loyalists of the previous Government. Cuts and austerity are wished and welcomed by no one.
Although some of the most blinkered believe that retrenchment suddenly began after the 2010 election, the memory of others might stretch back as far as October 2008, to the financial crisis, the gigantic Bank bailout and to the parlous state of the public finances.
-
-
There are political choices to be made. This policy is a very clear example of a choice to shift the burden of tax onto the poor, whilst at the same trying to evade the responsibility for that policy by having local councils enact the policy. It is a policy that falls more harshly on boroughs with higher populations of low income groups.
Do you wish to defend this?
-
-
Where was the option in the consultation to raise council tax? Nowhere. Can you imagine what the press would have done with that? "Red Haringey raise council tax!". The UK Labour Party were behind this. The poor of Haringey, who voted so overwhelmingly Labour at the local elections in May, have been used as pawns in the great game of national politics and newspaper headlines. Very poor.
-
-
I personally agree - a council tax increase would have been preferable. But bear in mind the capacity for increases have been severely limited by coalition caps. Indeed local Lib-Dems have been happy to take credit for the frozen council tax in Haringey.
The sham consultation was shoddy - but it should not distract people from this much shoddier and dishonest tax increase for the poor - imposed by the coalition but foisted on councils to do the dirty work (knowing full well that labour boroughs and voters would suffer the most).
-
-
Supt Lee Presland has moved on. I'm fine. Thanks.
-
-
They promoted him then?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
