Manchester United supporters drop threat of judicial review of council decision to reduce away tickets at Chelsea match

Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST) has withdrawn its threat of a judicial review claim over the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham's decision to reduce the number of tickets available for the club’s fans at an upcoming match with Chelsea.

The trust initially argued that the council had "no rational reason" to reduce the ticket allocation for away fans, adding that the council "uncritically" accepted the advice of the Metropolitan Police Service.

But it has now made the decision to withdraw the challenge – just five days after sending its letter before action – after receiving the council's defence.

The disagreement began after the Metropolitan Police Service said it would only police the match if there was a reduction in the number of tickets available to visiting Manchester United fans, as it classed the fixture as a 'High Risk' match.

An emergency Safety Advisory Group (SAG) was convened, which subsequently agreed to allocate 2,370 seats to away fans instead of the full 3,000, based on a risk assessment conducted by the police force.

Ten days before the match was set to take place, MUST sent an 'extremely urgent' letter before action to the London borough, calling for a response to be made within 48 hours of receipt.

MUST advanced three grounds of argument in the letter. Under ground one, the trust claimed that the council's decision to reduce the ticket number based on advice from the police was irrational as the risk assessment used did not take into account risk reduction mitigations. The council "therefore did not, itself, take into account the risk reductions mitigations offered by MUFC".

Under the irrationality argument, MUST also claimed that the council failed to consider the potential aggravation to any risks posed by excluding MUFC fans who had already bought tickets (as suggested by MUFC during the SAG).

Ground two argued that the council "seems to have relied entirely" on the police's risk assessment, despite having its own health and safety experts. 

"[In] light of the significant mitigation offered by MUFC and the rigid application of factors by the MPS matrix risk assessment tool, it should have therefore reached its own assessment as to the appropriate risk assessment", the letter before claim noted.

The final ground argued that the council's decision was procedurally unfair to MUFC supporters who had already bought tickets, made travel plans, and invested "considerable resources" in attending the match.

It was unfair for the council to take the decision without hearing from any MUFC support, and "doubly unfair" as it was taken based on the MPS' risk assessment matrix, which is itself not based on any publicly accessible criteria, MUST claimed.

In a statement published yesterday (17 October), the trust announced that it had received formal legal responses to its letter from both the Metropolitan Police and Hammersmith & Fulham Council with a "much more detailed chronology of the events" that led to the decision.

According to MUST, the defence said there was no "decision" to be legally challenged as the conclusion was reached by consensus amongst the parties involved.

MUST's lawyers advised the trust that this defence makes pursuing a judicial review more difficult and the chances of success "much less certain".

Explaining its reasoning for abandoning the legal challenge, MUST said: "With the game now only five days away pursuing it now would risk creating more uncertainty for match-going fans and in the event that the decision was reversed the Club would potentially have to re-sell an additional 600+ tickets at very short notice."

It later added: "Given the greater uncertainty of success, the short time remaining before the game and the cost risk we have taken the decision not to proceed to a court hearing on this occasion."

Adam Carey