Branwood v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

The claimant judicially reviewed Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council's decision (19 December 2012) to adopt a Local Council Tax Support (LCTS) scheme under s.13A and Schedule 1A of the relevant local government legislation. The court considered two main legal issues: whether the consultation was unlawful for want of proper consultation and whether the council breached its public sector equality duty (PSED) under s.149 of the Equality Act 2010.

The court applied established consultation principles (timing at formative stage, sufficient information to enable intelligent response, adequate time, and conscientious consideration of responses) derived from authorities such as Coughlan and the Court of Appeal's guidance in the Haringey litigation. It found Rochdale's consultation to be adequate: consultees were given clear information, received personal letters and questionnaires, and the council conscientiously considered the responses.

On the PSED challenge the court applied the s.149 principles: due regard is substantive, proportionate and context-sensitive, there is no formal requirement to record every permutation of impact, and the duty is not met by slavish forensic exercise. The Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) and associated reports were held to show that Rochdale had given due regard to equality matters, considered protected groups, modelled impacts and sought to minimise adverse effects. The claimant's criticisms were characterised as insufficiently material to show a failure of s.149. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted but substantive relief was refused.

Background and relief sought. The claimant, a disabled working-age council tax benefit recipient living in a Band 'A' property in Rochdale, challenged the council's decision to adopt an LCTS scheme which capped council tax reductions and removed certain rebates, producing a worse financial position for the claimant. The claimant sought judicial review of the 19 December 2012 decision on grounds of unlawful consultation and breach of the public sector equality duty under s.149 Equality Act 2010.

Procedural posture. The matter was heard on an urgent rolled-up basis (permission and substantive relief together) on 25 February 2013. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted at the hearing but substantive relief was refused; the reasoned judgment set out the court's analysis.

Issues framed by the court.

• Whether Rochdale's consultation process complied with the legal duty to consult (formative stage, adequate information, adequate time and conscientious consideration of responses) in the context of Schedule 1A paragraph 3(1) of the statutory scheme.
• Whether Rochdale complied with its PSED duties under s.149 Equality Act 2010 in formulating and adopting the LCTS scheme.

Court's reasoning on consultation. The court applied the four Coughlan/Gunning criteria and the more specific guidance in the Haringey litigation. Rochdale had considered alternatives internally, provided clear and tailored information to consultees (including a personal letter and questionnaire), allowed a ten-week consultation period, gathered and analysed responses, and conscientiously considered outcomes before the cabinet and full council. The absence of a free-text 'comments box' was not decisive because consultees could respond by letter and the consultation produced a high response rate. The claimant's remaining procedural complaints were rejected.

Court's reasoning on PSED. The court summarised relevant s.149 principles: due regard is substantive, context-sensitive and non-delegable; there is no formal requirement to perform an exhaustive equality impact assessment cataloguing every protected group permutation. Rochdale produced an EQIA that modelled impacts by age, disability, family circumstances and income; it considered a range of options and explained the reasons for rejecting some because of disproportionate impacts. The council sought to minimise adverse effects, retained existing disregards for some vulnerable groups, and collected diversity data through consultation. The court found the EQIA and decision-making showed conscious, proportionate engagement with s.149; the claimant's criticisms were either speculative or insufficient to show a failure of due regard.

Outcome and observations. The claimant was materially worse off under the adopted scheme but that alone did not establish illegality. The court emphasised proportionality in PSED compliance and cautioned against judicial micro-management of difficult budgetary decisions where the authority had applied considered and documented analysis.

The claimant was granted permission to apply for judicial review but her application for substantive relief was refused and the claim dismissed. The court held that (i) Rochdale's consultation complied with the legal requirements (formative stage, adequate information, sufficient time and conscientious consideration of responses) and (ii) Rochdale had given substantive 'due regard' under s.149 Equality Act 2010 as evidenced by a reasoned EQIA and decision-making materials; the claimant's procedural and equality-based criticisms did not demonstrate illegality.