West End Street Traders' Association & Anor, R (on the application of) v City Of Westminster

Under section 22 of the City of Westminster Act 1999, charges on street traders may be fixed on an aggregate basis, taking one year with another, to recover the reasonable costs of services provided for the body of licence holders. The statutory requirement of reasonableness qualifies the valuation of the service provided to the group, not the precise benefit or usage of each individual trader. A trader cannot avoid contributing merely because he does not personally use a service available to the trading community.

A representative body is entitled to information reasonably required to assess whether proposed charges are reasonable and lawful, but the request does not extend to disproportionate or overly detailed material. Charges may be based on justified assumptions, provided the authority is satisfied that the claimed expenditure was reasonably incurred. The claim was dismissed.

West End Street Traders’ Association and another challenged Westminster’s decision to introduce revised street-trading charges under the City of Westminster Act 1999. The changes reduced some market charges but substantially increased charges for certain isolated pitches, including the withdrawal of a discount for pitches said not to generate refuse.

The claim alleged that Westminster had misunderstood its charging powers, acted inconsistently with its user-pays policy, relied on inadequate evidence, failed to provide information required by section 22(11), and acted irrationally. The central issues were whether charges could be imposed on the body of licence holders for generally available services, and whether the consultation and evidential process was lawful.

1. Claim dismissed. Westminster’s revised charges were within its statutory powers and were neither unlawful nor irrational.
2. Section 22(2) of the City of Westminster Act 1999 authorised charges sufficient in the aggregate, taking one year with another, to cover the reasonable costs of refuse collection and disposal, attributable street cleansing, administration and enforcement. The court adopted Sedley J’s explanation in Regina v London Borough of Tower Hamlets ex parte Tower Hamlets Combined Traders Association, [1994] COD 325, that the legislation aimed to ensure that the cost of running street markets fell fairly on traders and that the trading account balanced over time.
3. The services identified in section 22(2) were supplied for the body of street and market traders. The word “reasonable” qualified the valuation of the service provided to that group, rather than the benefit received by each individual trader. Accordingly, Westminster could charge traders who chose not to use refuse services, since the service remained available to all.
4. Section 22(5) confirmed that additional services could, following a majority request in a market or area, be charged to all traders in that market or area. The statutory scheme therefore did not require individualised charging according to actual personal use.
5. The information duty in section 22(11) extended to information reasonably required to assess whether proposed charges were reasonable and lawful. Westminster had supplied sufficient explanations and breakdowns. It was entitled to proceed on justified assumptions, provided the Committee was satisfied that the expenditure claimed had actually been incurred.
6. The different treatment of refuse and enforcement charges was not irrational. Refuse provision was available to all traders, whereas enforcement costs were targeted according to the location and nature of unlawful trading. Future enforcement differentials should nevertheless be reassessed annually if charges were based on past experience.
7. The ambiguous reference to pitches reflecting a “prime location” did not invalidate the decision because the Committee was expressly told that charges could not lawfully be based on location or commercial value. The court also observed that Westminster should continue considering whether the system could be made fairer, particularly for traders generating no refuse.