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 Mr Wodjacallim on
-
Oooh, I don't know about that.
Local services might improve if one or two local worthies fell on their swords. Haringey being Haringey, this is very unlikely.
Anyone know how much these proceeding cost?
-
Permalink Reply by DavidJ on
-
According to the report I linked to above this policy is saving the Treasury about £1 billion a year - by shifting the cost onto the low paid of working age.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Anyone know how much these proceeding cost?
Patrick, as a Member, I've just put in a Query asking for full details (including the cost of the original Consultation that yesterday was judged to be unfair and unlawful); when I receive the response I'll publish here.
-
-
Anyone know how much these proceeding cost?
Patrick, I can now report the costs following response to my Member Enquiry:
Total cost of the original
Consultation, later found
to be unfair and unlawful: £23,000Stage 1 (High Court) £22,545
Stage 2 (Court of Appeal) £7,000
Stage 3 (Supreme Court) £30,365
Court fees stages 1 to 3 £1,015_________
Total LBH legal costs £60,925
Total (including cost of the unfair Consultation) £83,925
The Supreme Court also ordered the Council to
pay 85% of the Claimant's costs (to be assessed) ?Clive Carter
Haringey Councillor
Liberal Democrat Party
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
So about the same as the ASBO issued against nine boys in Duckett's Common last year. Not much really...
-
-
While the costs might be similar John, the ramifications of an ASBO are limited.
On the other hand, a decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court is a judgement of the highest Court in the land.
It may yet influence for the better, the quality of public consultations performed by local authorities throughout the country.
With luck, it might even de-politicise them.
-
Permalink Reply by Lynne on
-
See Inside Housing article
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/legal/court-rules-against-town-hall-...
Fair consultations- Haringey c consultations need to raise the bar! Better than leaving oneself open to costly challenges, I d also be interested to see the cost of this.
-
-
Lynne, I've attached a PDF of page 21, containing the column in today's Ham and High Broadway, by the Council Minority Group Leader.
It's titled, Consultations need to be properly done to gain public trust.
It's about the recent Supreme Court ruling (also, to the left, are letters reflecting concerns about some of the proposed changes to the 1936 television studios at Ally Pally).
At least some costs are above.
- Attachments:
-
-
Alex I'm glad you're not saying the Supreme Court was wrong!
At last Monday's Full Council meeting, we ran out of time and I didn't get a chance to ask to ask my scheduled, oral question. When this happens, the Council provides a written answer. I'd be interested to know what you think of it – I've reproduced below both my question and yesterday's answer:
FULL COUNCIL: 24 NOVEMBER 2014
Written answers to Oral Questions 3-6
ORAL QUESTION 3 -
TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL FROM COUNCLLOR CARTER:
Following the recent supreme court ruling against the council, what action are you taking to ensure that in future consultations are not "misleading’ and do not imply ‘that there were no possible alternatives to that choice.’
ANSWER The council has carefully considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in Moseley and the principles set out in the judgment will be of relevance to future consultation exercises. The council will ensure that any future consultation documents are formulated in light of these principles.
Clive Carter
Haringey Councillor
Liberal Democrat Party
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Seems to me there's a fundamental rottenness in how the people in charge of Haringey pretend to "consult". Let me give one example.
Martin Ball, Catherine MacArthur and I went to Coombes Croft Library for an advertised Budget "Consultation" event. Martin and I arrived a little before 11 am - the published start time. Catherine was already there and the Library manager had told her they knew nothing about this event. And library users had booked the space.
After the Manager had tried unsuccessfully to get some information, we phoned the Chief Executive's office. That didn't help either. Around 11:30 a man showed up and unrolled a poster. He had a laptop to show a short animation film from the Council's website. So he disappeared for a while to sort out how to access the Wifi.
I'm not blaming the Communications Unit. They do what they're told - no doubt with the best of intentions. The people responsible are Council "leaders" who peddle the inane guff on the posters and website. Empty slogans. Meaningless condescending phrases that say things like: "We want to invest in things that make a real difference not just for today but for tomorrow". "Enabling adults to live longer healthier lives". And: "Creating cleaner greener safer public spaces and streets". These examples of the Law of the Nonsensical Negative would be funny if the whole thing wasn't a tragedy for Haringey residents.
Oh, yes. I forgot. We can go online and "join a conversation" about "Building better housing and stronger communities". Translating from the Obfuscandian, that means you type directly into the Council bit bucket.
Meanwhile, our Dear Leader and her courtiers are meeting in secret conclave to slash services; and plan the sell-off of Council owned land and buildings. And that is what we should be "Having a conversation about." Except it will be too late. Labour councillors will have decided the cuts and probably been threatened with dire consequences if they break ranks, vote against. Or even speak out.
I haven't been able to get hold of a single document with detailed, actual figures. What have they been told would happen if there's some genuine public consultation? The sky will fall? Boils? Lice? A plague of locusts?
Anyone want to bet that the cuts won't include social care, children's and youth provision; staff terms and conditions - no doubt through "efficiencies" produced by contracting out to the private and voluntary sector. I could well be the most surprised Haringey resident of all, if the cuts package doesn't include some Barnet-style privatisation planned by the carefully assembled senior team of ex-Barnet staff.
Are there alternatives? Perhaps HoL members can tap urgently into their networks of friends and colleagues in other places; and report back on what other local councils are doing?
-
-
Seems to me there's a fundamental rottenness in how the people in charge of Haringey pretend to "consult".
Alan, I'm afraid I have to agree with you.
Apart from its sheer cynicism, the consultation about Council Tax Relief Scheme – the subject of the Supreme Court Judgement – was in truth not so different from other consultations authorised by Majority Group bosses, some of which have one or more common features:
- Tick-boxing
- A marketing exercise
- Gathering data on residents
- The need to be seen to consult
- False choices or tendentious questions
- Seeking justification for a policy that will anyway be implemented
- Poor-to-hopeless methodology (including self-selecting samples)
- Disproportionately seeking data about the respondent rather than their opinion
- The need to be able at a later date – to point to a Consultation that was performed
- Don't always meet the four criteria for a legal public consultation (starting with consultation at the formative stage – see Para 25 in the Supreme Court Judgement)
The Council Tax Relief Scheme is not the first Haringey-controlled Consultation to be the subject of upper Court action.
The one most familiar to me, is the one that ostensibly was performed in the name of the Charity Commission, but in reality – as a High Court Judge recognised – where the 'running' was made by (Alexandra Palace) Trustees: i.e. the Council, against which he awarded costs, due to their conduct. That was about the Council's attempt in 2006/7 to sell Ally Pally to a casino promoter once described in The Evening Standard as a (former) "Slum Landlord."
On occasion, a consultation is dubbed an "exhibition", which is an escape clause in case it is challenged. It's like quantum physics, where an object can be in two places at once!
(It must be allowed that on occasion, there are sincere exercises that genuinely attempt to consult residents.
IMO, there need to be fewer, better consultations, more sincere and about meaningful matters.
-
-
I've never been afraid to agree with you, Clive. But only when you're right, of course.
Though I'm not sure you've yet grasped the mis-selling that's been perpetrated on the people of Haringey by the Dear Leader and her fawning acolytes. Or perhaps I'm overestimating them? And giving them credit for at least the intelligence to realise they're selling policies which almost certainly don't work.
The budget consultation farrago isn't a one-off; or even a few "bad applies". It's a consistent pattern. Take a look at the figures for the "consultation" on the proposed "regeneration" for the Haringey Council Estate, Imperial Wharf. Consider who has been advising tenants and running the "consultation" on Chesnuts Estate in Tottenham Hale - staff from Homes for Haringey, the landlord!
On these issues I tend to look to Helena Kennedy for some sensible advice. Writing on the lessons from the Scottish Referendum, she argues that:
"... people need to be heard, that democracy is about real engagement with reliable information and a proper opportunity to debate it."
"... if you want people to really consider the consequences of changes you need to give them a genuine opportunity to participate. You can do that with deliberative polls, where people meet and hear the arguments and express their views. You can do it with people’s juries, where there are challenging questions and alternatives and a commitment to following through on the results. People should be able to organise around the issues in their own communities. Instead, we are back to top-down control."
Claire Kober is top-down control. That's all she knows and all she can do.
Clive, I'm sure you've had a laugh at her Leader's Sermon in the latest Haringey Pravda Magazine. (To adopt your now accurate description). Our Claire tells us she's "not prepared to sit back and manage decline". Quite True. She leans forward, stands up and eagerly sets about making the decline happen as quickly as possible.
Though she does mention the nasty things - £70 million cuts - she refers to these in the Tory way as "savings". The rest of the column includes the usual meaningless blather about "challenges", and "difficult choices". Ah but then she points to the sunshine ahead when we have "high-quality responsive council services that enable our residents and our borough to thrive and flourish".
All done in the kindest, gentlest way of course. Alerted by Charlotte Pell's blog I've recently spent a few minutes reading the back of shampoo bottles. Tried and trusted by parents, Good for you and your family, our unique formula gently removes those troublesome Asbo tangles and bags of street rubbish. Leaving our borough socially cleansed, shining and healthy. This product has been tested on Tottenham.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
