Rotherham Action Group Ltd, R (on the application of) v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Rotherham Action Group Ltd, R (on the application of) v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

The defendant complied with its statutory duty under section 81(4)(a) of the Housing Act 2004 by considering alternative courses of action, including a voluntary landlord accreditation scheme, and rationally preferred a mandatory selective licensing scheme for areas with more entrenched problems. The decision was not perverse or irrational.

Parties
Claimant: Rotherham Action Group Limited; Defendant: Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Selective Licensing, Local Authority Powers, Statutory Interpretation, Judicial Review, Consultation Requirements
Administrative Law Housing Law Selective Licensing Local Authority Powers Statutory Interpretation Judicial Review Consultation Requirements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rotherham Action Group Limited

Claimant

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant properly considered alternative courses of action as required by section 81(4)(a) of the Housing Act 2004 before designating selective licensing areas.
  2. 2 Whether the decision to reject a voluntary landlord accreditation scheme in favour of mandatory selective licensing was perverse or irrational.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant complied with its statutory duty under section 81(4)(a) of the Housing Act 2004 by considering alternative courses of action, including a voluntary landlord accreditation scheme, and rationally preferred a mandatory selective licensing scheme for areas with more entrenched problems. The decision was not perverse or irrational.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed