Siwak, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham

The claimant challenged the council's 17 November 2011 decisions about the future shape of tier 3 one-to-one "problem solving package" advice services on public law grounds, principally for alleged failure to comply with the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 and for failure to consult. The court held that the 17 November decision merely authorised officers to develop a model and did not finally determine that future provision would be in-house or exclude the voluntary sector, nor did it fix the timing for implementation. The court found that equality analysis was being carried out (multiple drafts of an Equality Impact Assessment existed) and that detailed public consultation would have been premature at that formative stage. The court also held there was no obligation at that time to consult or to treat commissioning of external providers as a foregone conclusion. A subsequent cabinet clarification on 15 March 2012 made clear no final decision had been taken and that consultation would follow, and the claim was dismissed.

The claimant, a Roma woman who had previously received assistance from the Newham Advice Consortium, brought judicial review proceedings challenging aspects of the defendant council's decisions about future advice services. The background was that the council had ended funding of the Newham Advice Consortium following budget decisions in early 2011 and was developing a new Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG) three-tier model, with tier 3 described as a one-to-one problem-solving package to be delivered from East Ham.

The claimant sought relief challenging the mayor-in-cabinet decisions of 17 November 2011 on two principal bases: (i) breach of the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 by failing to have due regard to impacts on protected groups when deciding that future tier 3 advice would be provided by council officers rather than commissioned from the voluntary sector; and (ii) failure to consult and to take into account relevant considerations, including the Best Value Statutory Guidance and the advantages of commissioning external advice.

The court framed the issues as whether the 17 November decision itself determined the final provider and timetable so as to engage the public sector equality duty and consultation obligations, whether the council had in substance had "due regard" to equality considerations, whether consultation was required at that stage, and whether relevant considerations had been ignored.

The judge concluded that the 17 November decision did not finalise the provider or service model but resolved an internal dispute about housing advice and authorised officers to develop the model further, with a requirement that the developed proposal be returned to the mayor in consultation with cabinet. The council had been preparing equality analysis (including a sixth draft Equality Impact Assessment of 8 November 2011) and the decision paper expressly contemplated further equality impact work and consultation once the scope was defined. The court considered consultation at that formative stage to be premature and potentially misleading. The judge distinguished earlier authorities relied on by the claimant as involving earlier or different fact patterns and observed the importance of not micro-managing local democratic decision-making. The court also held that the 15 March 2012 clarification by the deputy mayor cured any possible defect by stating explicitly that no decision had been taken and that consultation would inform the development of the IAG model. The claim was therefore dismissed.

The claim is dismissed. The court held that the 17 November 2011 decision did not itself adopt a final model excluding the voluntary sector or fix a hiatus in face-to-face services; equality analysis had been undertaken during formulation and consultation at that stage was premature; any potential defect was cured by the 15 March 2012 clarification that no final decision had been taken and that formal consultation would follow.