R (Stirling) v Haringey London Borough Council

The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the London Borough of Haringey (Haringey) had properly consulted with interested parties before implementing a Council Tax Reduction Scheme (CTRS) which reduced the level of relief from council tax for certain residents. The primary issue was whether Haringey's consultation process met the statutory requirement to consult "such other persons as it considers are likely to have an interest in the operation of the scheme." The Court needed to decide whether Haringey's consultation, which did not mention alternative options for meeting the shortfall in government funding, was lawful and sufficient.

The Supreme Court found that Haringey's consultation process was inadequate. The consultation document and accompanying letter from Mr. Ellicott, Head of Revenues, Benefits, and Customer Services, implied that the reduction in relief from council tax was an inevitable consequence of government funding cuts, without mentioning other possible ways to address the shortfall, such as increasing council tax or cutting services. The consultation failed to provide interested parties with an understanding of the full range of options and reasons for Haringey's choices, which is essential for meaningful public participation in the decision-making process. The Court concluded that fairness required brief reference to other ways of absorbing the shortfall and the reasons for rejecting them. The consultation process was therefore found to be unlawful and insufficient.

The Court did not find it necessary to order Haringey to undertake a fresh consultation exercise for the forthcoming year, as it was unclear whether Haringey intended to revise its CTRS. However, if Haringey did intend to revise its CTRS, it would likely undertake the consultation in accordance with the Court's judgments.