Council tax reduction scheme “unlawfully adopted” and “discriminatory” against disabled people, High Court rules

In LL & AU v Trafford MBC [2025] EWHC 2380 (Admin), His Honour Judge Pearce granted permission and allowed the judicial review, brought by two women, on both grounds.

Represented by law firm Leigh Day, both claimants, who are disabled or caring for a disabled person, received large council tax bills with the introduction of the authority’s council tax reduction scheme.

Until 2025, the claimants had both received 100% reduction to their council tax bills. In March 2025, they each received full council tax bills with no reduction as a result of the changes.

They sought judicial review of the council’s determination (or alleged determination) to adopt the scheme on the following grounds:

• Ground 1 – since the defendant had not adopted the scheme in full council, it was invalid;
• Ground 2 – the scheme contained a design error in that certain income was in effect double counted. In consequence, the claimants argued that the scheme:

(a) failed to comply with the defendant’s obligation to enact only rational policy - “the Rationality Challenge;”

(b) failed to ensure that the defendant complied with Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 - “the Public Sector Equality Duty Challenge;”

(c) caused the defendant to be acting in a discriminatory fashion, contrary to its obligations under Section 29 of the Equality Act 2010 – “the Equality Act Discrimination Challenge;”

(d) caused the defendant to be acting in a discriminatory fashion, contrary to its obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 - “the Human Rights Act Discrimination Challenge.”

The council asserted that the scheme was lawfully adopted and that there was no error in the scheme, but that the error lay in the software used to calculate figures under the scheme.

The rolled-up hearing took place on 24 and 25 July 2025.

In its judgment, handed down last week (19 September), the High Court held that Trafford had failed to approve the scheme through the proper legal process – bypassing the full council vote required by law – and that the way the scheme treated disabled people and carers in receipt of certain benefits was “discriminatory”.  

The judge rejected the council’s arguments that the problem arose merely from trouble with its computer program, or that the double-counting should be overlooked because the council could use a power to give individual discretionary relief from council tax in problem cases.

Additionally, the judge found that the council breached the public sector equality duty (PSED) in failing to assess the impact of its new scheme on disabled people.

Concluding the case, His Honour Judge Pearce ordered for the scheme to be quashed, meaning that the previous year’s scheme will operate instead.

He said: “It follows that I grant permission on both grounds and allow the application for judicial review on both grounds. I quash the Scheme and grant declaratory relief consistent with this judgment.”

The claimants were represented by Carolin Ott and Sarah Crowe, human rights solicitors at Leigh Day, along with Tom Royston of Garden Court North Chambers and Jack Castle of Henderson Chambers.

Carolin Ott said: “This is a hugely important victory for our clients and for other Trafford residents who were wrongly deprived of support. The High Court has confirmed not only that the council adopted this scheme unlawfully, but also that it discriminated against disabled people and carers receiving certain benefits. Local authorities should protect their most vulnerable residents, and this judgment makes clear that Trafford Council failed to do so. The council must go back to the drawing board and ensure that a lawful and fair scheme is put in place.” 

Responding to the judgment, a spokesperson for Trafford Council said: "We are very disappointed by the ruling but will accept the judgement of the court. Throughout this process, we have acted in good faith and with the best intentions of our residents. This saw us develop a scheme which ultimately benefited many claimants across the borough and which remains one of the most generous in Greater Manchester. We are now analysing the details of the ruling before deciding on our next steps.”

Lottie Winson