Council under fire over ‘flawed’ legal advice in costly court fight

Judge John Behrens said he was “far from satisfied” that a Leeds Council Scrutiny Board had been given “full and proper legal advice” when it met to discuss planned rises in allotment rents.

It was later revealed that the council had spent more than £53,000 of taxpayers’ money fighting the legal battle which it lost.

Allotment holders had objected to plans to increase rent on the city’s allotments from £37 to £58 a year.

Judge Behrens said members of the public had been excluded from part of the scrutiny board meeting in September 2013 after legal advice was sought.

But he said meeting minutes, which were three pages long, contained no details of the legal advice sought or given.

He also said Leonie Wallace, from “legal services”, had given “opinions” that were “not legal advice at all”.

Judge Behrens had been asked to analyse a dispute between the Leeds and District Allotment Gardeners Federation - which had complained that rent rises were unfair - and the council at a High Court hearing in Leeds.

The judge ruled against the council - which had decided to “substantially” increase allotment rents - in August.

He said a decision made by the council’s executive board had been legally flawed and said the scrutiny board had not validated that “unlawful” executive board decision.

Details of his concerns about advice given are contained in his full written ruling on the case, which has now been published on a legal website.

“The scrutiny board met on September 25 2013,” says Judge Behrens in his ruling.

“At an early stage legal advice relating to the executive board was sought and the public were excluded from the meeting.

“The minutes do not contain details of the legal advice that was sought or given.

“There is no contemporaneous note or other documentary evidence relating to the advice given to the scrutiny board.”

But he said details of what board members had been told had emerged in a witness statement analysed during the High Court hearing.

“Many of the opinions given are not legal advice at all,” said Judge Behrens.

“It is not clear why Leonie Wallace should be giving advice about the research carried out by Parks and Countryside or its attempts to compare allotment services with other recreational activities...

“It is not clear what qualifications Leonie Wallace had to express the opinion that the weekly rate of £1.38 was reasonable.

“Her opinion on reasonableness was certainly not an expression of legal advice.”

The judge adds: “I am far from satisfied that the scrutiny board had full and proper legal advice.”

Last night a spokesman for the city council it had now submitted an application seeking to appeal the court’s judgement.

The spokesman said: “Leeds City Council has now submitted an application seeking to appeal following a judgement at the High Court in August regarding proposed increases in allotment charges, and will not be commenting any further at this current time.”

Earlier this month it was revealed that the council had spent around £23,000 on its own legal costs and a further £30,000 went on paying the other side’s costs.