header-logo header-logo

27 September 2018 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7810 / Categories: Features , Public , Housing
printer mail-detail

Out for consultation: why our views matter

Nicholas Dobson explains why the government was wrong to reduce Housing Possession Duty Schemes without proper consultation

  • The Lord Chancellor acted unlawfully in deciding to reduce the number of Housing Possession Court Duty Schemes without sufficient evidence and in breach of the public sector equality duty.

At first glance, consultation seems straightforward enough. In the public law context, this essentially suggests fairly sounding out those likely to be affected by potential proposals at the outset, so that their views can be taken properly into account before anything is taken forward. But what looks like easy terrain can often turn out to be a quagmire for public authorities.

What have become known as the Gunning principles of consultation (from R v Brent London Borough Council, ex parte Gunning , [1985] 84 LGR 168) have been endorsed as a ‘prescription for fairness’. These are that:

  • consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage;
  • the proposer must give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit of intelligent
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll