Appeal to be submitted this week in Haringey development vehicle case

An appeal is to be submitted this week over the High Court’s dismissal of a high-profile legal challenge to the London Borough of Haringey’s proposed development vehicle.

The Haringey Development Vehicle (HDV) was intended to create a partnership between the council and the private sector, with Lendlease named the preferred bidder for the role of 50/50 partner.

It would have been the largest local authority development vehicle of its kind, if it were set up. However, it is not expected to go ahead after recent political developments at the Labour-controlled council, where the Leader has resigned. The Labour party’s central committee has also recommended that the HDV should not proceed.

The claimant, local resident Gordon Peters, put forward four grounds of challenge in the High Court over the decision by the Cabinet at Haringey in July 2017 to - amongst other things - appoint Lendlease. These were that Haringey:

1. could not use a Limited Liability Partnership (“LLP”) for these purposes since the council was acting for a commercial purpose under s1 Localism Act 2011, and so had to use a limited company;
2. had failed in its statutory duty of consultation under s3 Local Government Act 1999;
3. had failed in its public sector equality duty under s149 Equality Act 2010; and
4. could only take this decision in full council and not by Cabinet alone, by virtue of rule 4(1)(b) Local Authorities (Functions and Responsibilities) (England) Regulations 2000 SI No.2853.

Mr Justice Ouseley rejected the claim, refusing permission on all grounds.

The High Court judge did find that the council had failed in its statutory duty of consultation under s3 Local Government Act 1999 in relation to setting up the HDV. He could not conclude, for the purposes of s31(3C) and (3D) Senior Courts Act 1981, that it was highly likely that, had there been s3 consultation in November 2015, the decision would still have been the same. But the judge refused permission to argue this ground because it was out of time.

An update posted yesterday (27 February) on Peters’ crowdfunding page on Crowd Justice said: “The argument to Appeal Court judges is submitted this week, for a further review and hearing of the earlier decision of Justice Ouseley, 8 February, not to grant relief and not to find in favour of the case to stop the HDV.

“It is of course vital - not just for Haringey, but for social housing across local authorities, and for democratic decision-making in councils - that we seek a judgement making the HDV unlawful. The judge himself admitted there was strength in the argument but was content to rule it out of time, which we dispute.”

Peters said: “But this costs money. Barristers are asking for a £10,000 cap on Review costs, the initial £20,000 having been spent towards Haringey costs. And court fees are requiring payment. I am therefore asking everyone who can to contribute a little more towards fulfilling this current target, cumulatively £27,000, and 13 more days from today, 27th February, to get that amount. It's getting closer. Please help.

“Without the amazing contributory work and donations of over 550 people - and other not recorded on the site - we would not be this far. The HDV has halted, politically, but is not yet stopped altogether. It really matters to get this ruling to put community and people back into housing policy and practice.”

See also: Peters v Haringey – the LLP debate solved? Alex Kynoch and Karl Edwards consider the lessons to be learned from Mr Justice Ouseley’s ruling.