header-logo header-logo

Out for consultation: why our views matter

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll