Leeds And District Allotment Gardeners Federation & Ors , R (On the Application Of) v Leeds City Council

Under section 10 of the Allotments Act 1950, a local authority must set allotment rent at the amount which a notional tenant might reasonably be expected to pay for the land on the actual terms of letting, excluding rent. The authority must consider that statutory formula and all relevant circumstances in a broad, commonsense way. The statute does not prescribe a particular valuation method and does not require the authority to subsidise allotments. However, service costs cannot be the sole basis for fixing rent. Some valuation exercise, commonly involving properly understood comparable rents, will ordinarily be required. A decision-maker’s failure to consider the statutory test is unlawful. A scrutiny body with power only to release or refer back an executive decision cannot validate that flawed decision.

The claimants, acting for allotment holders in Leeds, challenged the Executive Board’s decision to introduce phased rent increases from October 2014. The increases were designed principally to eliminate the Council’s subsidy after identified cost savings. The papers placed before the Executive Board did not refer to section 10 of the Allotments Act 1950, the statutory rent formula, comparable rents or other valuation evidence.

The Council relied on delay, the Local Government Ombudsman as an alternative remedy, and the Scrutiny Board’s release of the decision for implementation. The issues were whether the rent-setting decision was lawful, whether the claim was prompt, whether an alternative remedy existed, and what relief should follow.

1. Statutory rent test. Section 10 of the Allotments Act 1950 requires the Council to determine the rent which a notional tenant might reasonably be expected to pay for the land on the actual letting terms, excluding rent. The Council must consider all relevant circumstances in a broad, commonsense way and give them such weight as it considers appropriate.
2. The repeal of section 11 removed any obligation to subsidise allotment holders. It did not remove the obligation to comply with section 10. Service costs may be relevant, but cannot be the only factor. Some valuation exercise was required; comparable rents fixed under the same formula would ordinarily be the most usual source of assistance.
3. The Executive Board’s decision was unlawful because the report and preceding process did not mention section 10 or show that the Board had considered the statutory rent formula. The court did not decide whether the proposed rent itself complied with that formula.
4. The Scrutiny Board could not validate the decision. Under section 9F(5) of the Local Government Act 2000, it could release the executive decision for implementation or refer it back, but had no power to make the original rent-setting decision.
5. The claim was brought promptly. The Local Government Ombudsman was not a suitable alternative remedy for issues concerning the construction of section 10 because a non-binding recommendation could not prevent an unlawful rent from being set.
6. The rent decision was quashed at least for periods after October 2015. Relief concerning the October 2014 rent was reserved for the hand-down hearing. The resolution terminating the existing association leases was not quashed.