Tweet
The LGO was unpersuaded by the representations made in the letter before claim (pre-action protocol for judicial review) arguing that the Ombudsman had erred in law in determining that there was insufficient evidence to find the offending Council had acted with fault, and therefore decided against investigating the concerns.
In summary, the LGO's legal firm backed up the Ombudsman's decision on the basis that the Council, which had been shown manifestly to have obtained a Council Tax Liability Order erroneously, was not at fault for deciding against applying to quash the Order because it was under no legal obligation to (disregarding the duty to exercise discretion with good judgement).
Also that the case law relied on showed the courts had consistently recognised the Ombudsman's wide discretion and would only interfere in the clearest cases of unlawfulness (a significantly high threshold to satisfy) which the LGO's lawyer considers has been nowhere near achieved in the representations and so any claim for Judicial Review will be bound to fail.
The punch line however is the threat of costs to deter a claim (para 5.16, LGO's letter of response)
"....should you issue Judicial Review proceedings and should these be unsuccessful at the permission stage or at a substantive hearing, the Ombudsman will seek an order that you pay the costs of the proceedings. Otherwise, the costs of the proceedings would have to be borne from public funds. Typically the cost if the Ombudsman files an Acknowledgment of Service is approximately £2,000. Should the matter go to a substantive hearing then those costs will be considerably higher.
It looks like the LGO has all the cards stacked in its favour, but it would be interesting to know what the costs, described as "considerably higher" would likely to be on top of the £2,000 for filing an Acknowledgment of Service? Also does anyone know whether an individual has ever been successful in a judicial review claim against the LGO?
In summary, the LGO's legal firm backed up the Ombudsman's decision on the basis that the Council, which had been shown manifestly to have obtained a Council Tax Liability Order erroneously, was not at fault for deciding against applying to quash the Order because it was under no legal obligation to (disregarding the duty to exercise discretion with good judgement).
Also that the case law relied on showed the courts had consistently recognised the Ombudsman's wide discretion and would only interfere in the clearest cases of unlawfulness (a significantly high threshold to satisfy) which the LGO's lawyer considers has been nowhere near achieved in the representations and so any claim for Judicial Review will be bound to fail.
The punch line however is the threat of costs to deter a claim (para 5.16, LGO's letter of response)
"....should you issue Judicial Review proceedings and should these be unsuccessful at the permission stage or at a substantive hearing, the Ombudsman will seek an order that you pay the costs of the proceedings. Otherwise, the costs of the proceedings would have to be borne from public funds. Typically the cost if the Ombudsman files an Acknowledgment of Service is approximately £2,000. Should the matter go to a substantive hearing then those costs will be considerably higher.
It looks like the LGO has all the cards stacked in its favour, but it would be interesting to know what the costs, described as "considerably higher" would likely to be on top of the £2,000 for filing an Acknowledgment of Service? Also does anyone know whether an individual has ever been successful in a judicial review claim against the LGO?
Comment