Local Government Finance in UK Law

The liability that the Council was seeking to enforce was an existing liability under the Council Tax Regulations to pay a sum on account of Mr Mohammed's (future) liability to pay council tax. The liability to pay council tax for the rest of the financial year after 25 th November 2005 was contingent upon Mr Mohammed continuing to occupy the premises each day until the end of that financial year (as the Regulations assumed he would).

The position in respect of the next financial year, from 1 st April 2006 to 31 st March 2007, was different. As at 25 th November 2005, Mr Mohammed had no accrued liability to pay the council tax itself, as that liability arose day by day under the Local Government Finance Act.

Fairness is a protean concept, not susceptible of much generalised enlargement. But its requirements in this context must be linked to the purposes of consultation. Such are two valuable practical consequences of fair consultation. But underlying it is also a third purpose, reflective of the democratic principle at the heart of our society.

In the present context, the local authority is discharging an important function in relation to local government finance, which affects its residents generally. The statutory obligation is, "before making a scheme", to consult any major precepting authority, to publish a draft scheme, and, critically, to "consult such other persons as it considers are likely to have an interest in the operation of the scheme".

Section 27(1)(a) of the 2014 Act imposes a duty on a local authority to keep under review, among other things, its social care provision for children with disabilities. In the absence of such material, and despite my misgivings about the practical consequences of a such a view, I am driven to the conclusion that they must bite, where, as here, a local authority makes a decision which will necessarily affect the scope of the provision referred to in section 27.

I readily accept that throughout the process the Council was giving consideration to how to address the needs of the disabled. In that sense its decisions taken in relation to adult social care were decisions which were relevant to its performance of the s 49A duty.

I now turn to the second question posed at paragraph 6 above – was the discharge of the section 111 power, the decision to adopt the Sports Strategy, “concerned with” the Council's budget, borrowing or capital expenditure? At one end of a scale, any decision that could, even indirectly, result in expenditure or borrowing might be said to be “concerned with” those matters. Yet that would not be a realistic application of those words in the context in which they appear.