Lewes District Council - costs

[Jim in the West]

Just got the following email from LDC....it doesn't really answer the questions I've been asking, but throws some light on the process. It would be great if LB or The History Man could provide an update on when the thing is actually likely to take place...

"As far as Lewes District Council is concerned, the challenge we have made is to the High Court and challenges the decision made by John Prescott. No other party need be involved in this challenge. Lewes District Council has submitted sufficient evidence for the challenge and there is no requirement for other parties to submit evidence. Should the city council and/or the football club wish to submit evidence, that is their choice but down to them to cover the costs of submitting that evidence.

The £65,000 figure (an estimate of our costs and those of the ODPM should we lose) is based on the charge for High Court time. Our legal advice suggests that the High Court will decide on this matter within one day, possibly two. £65,000 will cover that time. If, however, we anticiapte the Council's contribution exceeding the threshold set out in the Council's Financial Procedure Rules, (currently £25,000), we will need to report to Council and obtain Council approval for any additional spend."

 

[Curious Orange]

If, however, we anticiapte the Council's contribution exceeding the threshold set out in the Council's Financial Procedure Rules, (currently £25,000), we will need to report to Council and obtain Council approval for any additional spend."

Interesting.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Reckon the club should start charging them interest on costs if they don't start their pathetic 'action' within a reasonable time.

What IS a reasonable time anyway? Have they even set the wheels in motion?

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Not being funny,65k. Omg. Just what are we paying for?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Originally e-mailed to Jim in the West by Lewes District Council
"As far as Lewes District Council is concerned, the challenge we have made is to the High Court and challenges the decision made by John Prescott. No other party need be involved in this challenge. Lewes District Council has submitted sufficient evidence for the challenge and there is no requirement for other parties to submit evidence. Should the city council and/or the football club wish to submit evidence, that is their choice but down to them to cover the costs of submitting that evidence.

The £65,000 figure (an estimate of our costs and those of the ODPM should we lose) is based on the charge for High Court time. Our legal advice suggests that the High Court will decide on this matter within one day, possibly two. £65,000 will cover that time. If, however, we anticiapte the Council's contribution exceeding the threshold set out in the Council's Financial Procedure Rules, (currently £25,000), we will need to report to Council and obtain Council approval for any additional spend."

The first paragraph is completely ridiculous. There was no obligation on LDC to name anyone other than Prescott as a defendant. But they chose to involve the City Council and the Football Club.

They now seem to be trying to cover their backs by suggesting that the case might drag on because of the active involvement of these two extra defendants.

And if they are now opening up the possibility that a protracted case might lead them to reconsider whether to keep it going, I would simply urge the Albion to book three days of High Court time to force their hand.

Lewes DC could end up being laughed out of Court - all because of the stupid way they have handled this. If their case collapses, because they can't afford to see it through, then they will lose any credibility they have, even in the eyes of their supporters.

They should reconsider their position NOW, before they make complete fools of themselves.

 

[The Large One]

Just curious, like, and certainly not disbelieving you, but where is the text from Lewes District Council which actually names the Albion and the City Council as co-defendants?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Just curious, like, and certainly not disbelieving you, but where is the text from Lewes District Council which actually names the Albion and the City Council as co-defendants?

As far as I know, it's not been 'published' by LDC, but I have seen it.

It will be a public document, however. I guess you might be able to apply to the High Court for a copy.

 

[The Large One]

As far as I know, it's not been 'published' by LDC, but I have seen it.

It will be a public document, however. I guess you might be able to apply to the High Court for a copy.

If the Albion are named defendants, will Martin Perry have a copy? Or Alan McCarthy for that matter?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

If the Albion are named defendants, will Martin Perry have a copy? Or Alan McCarthy for that matter?

Let's just say that - before making my five minute 'presentation' of the petition to the LDC Cabinet meeting on 11 January, I was particularly careful to check out the facts, before claiming that the City Council and the Football Club had been named as defendants.

I didn't ask Alan McCarthy.

 

[BensGrandad]

Could LDC justify the fact that their action is against ODPM and they had only named Brighton Council and us out of courtesy to keep us aware of the situation, a bit far fetched I know but could this be an argument.

They quote their legal costs based on 2 days why should our estimate be 50% higher for the same hearing.

Before anybody accuses me I am not suggesting the figure of £90k is wrong or any wrong doings are happening just curious as to why the large difference.

 

[The Large One]

Let's just say that - before making my five minute 'presentation' of the petition to the LDC Cabinet meeting on 11 January, I was particularly careful to check out the facts, before claiming that the City Council and the Football Club had been named as defendants.

I didn't ask Alan McCarthy.

Point taken.

 

[Rangdo]

Could LDC justify the fact that their action is against ODPM and they had only named Brighton Council and us out of courtesy to keep us aware of the situation, a bit far fetched I know but could this be an argument.


Before anybody accuses me I am not suggesting the figure of £90k is wrong or any wrong doings are happening just curious as to why the large difference.

Spin I would imagine. They are underestimating and we are overestimating.

With regards the first point they have taken a legal course of action in naming the defendants. Consequently there is a procedure to follow for those named. Their justification makes no odds.

 

[Curious Orange]

Could LDC justify the fact that their action is against ODPM and they had only named Brighton Council and us out of courtesy to keep us aware of the situation, a bit far fetched I know but could this be an argument.

They quote their legal costs based on 2 days why should our estimate be 50% higher for the same hearing.

Before anybody accuses me I am not suggesting the figure of £90k is wrong or any wrong doings are happening just curious as to why the large difference.

My understanding is that LDC have in-house solicitors - presumably they have a Legal Department - so they can keep their costs down that way.

If LDC had wanted B&HCC and B&HAFC to be kept informed of the High Court proceedings out of courtesy they would have named them as interested parties, and not defendants.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Some spin doctoring is being done here. LDC are saying that although BHAFC and B&H City Council are named as co-defendants there is no need for them to submit evidence and thus incur legal costs. What they are really saying is the legal costs are nothing to do with them and if the High Court advises them otherwise or the case will take longer to be heard they can save face by reporting back to reconsider what to do next. Their estimated costs of £65k might be correct for 2 days court time, £90k might be correct for us for a 3 day hearing. Perhaps the Government is thinking along the lines of 2 or 3 weeks, I sincerely hope so.

 

[Jim in the West]

Some spin doctoring is being done here. LDC are saying that although BHAFC and B&H City Council are named as co-defendants there is no need for them to submit evidence and thus incur legal costs. What they are really saying is the legal costs are nothing to do with them and if the High Court advises them otherwise or the case will take longer to be heard they can save face by reporting back to reconsider what to do next. Their estimated costs of £65k might be correct for 2 days court time, £90k might be correct for us for a 3 day hearing. Perhaps the Government is thinking along the lines of 2 or 3 weeks, I sincerely hope so.

I think some of the "gap" in the figures is because apples are being compared to oranges. I'm pretty sure that LDC made their decision ref the £65k (and their ceiling of £25k) BEFORE the club announced it's estimates of it's own costs. The £25k estimate was made on the basis of their own, plus the ODPM's costs. Provided B&HAFC (and also possibly B&H City Council) defend themselves, the costs (even for just a two day hearing) are very likely to be well in excess of £65k. The interesting thing is that I very much doubt whether Falmer PC, or the other parties funding the £65k, will stump up much more cash. So, if we assume that the actual costs end up at a relatively conservative £100,000, all of the extra £35k will need to be found by LDC - their exposure is thus more than doubled. I have been corresponding with Sarah Nield* at LDC for many weeks now, and it is proving impossible to get any sensible answers out of her to some straightforward questions. My belief is that LDC haven't properly considered the financial consequences of the total costs exceeding £65k. If this is, indeed, the case, then I think there could be some significant issues surrounding the risks being taken by LDC. Fortunately, I have no experience of local government finance, so I can't be sure of this, but perhaps Lord B can throw some light on the position.

The other issue is that I believe the club's costs are NOT just the costs of representation at a High Court hearing - but also involve preparatory costs. Again, I'm not 100% sure of this, but would be surprised if this isn't the case.

As I have got virtually nowhere in correspondence with LDC officers, I have written to all Conservative & Independent councillors on LDC to see whether they can ask the same questions, and hopefully get some answers. From the initial (two) responses, it's clear that there is an awful lot of trust being placed in the council leader.....trust that is very probably misplaced.

I think there's a lot of value in turning up the pressure on LDC here, and (subject to any comments from Lord B), I would suggest any residents of LDC on here (Yorkie - I'm sure you are one, and there must be several others) should be asking the same questions.


*Sarah Nield is assistant Freedom of Information Officer.

 

[The Large One]

Good work, Jim.

As soon as the Albion announced that their costs were going to be around £90,000, alarm bells should have been ringing at Lewes District Council. They may (wrongly) think that they don't have to cough up the Albion's fees if (sorry, when) they lose, that figure should at least have acted as some sort of indicator as to what the government's costs. While the government's costs may not be in the public domain yet, as soon as it is, expect the two faces on each of the Lewes District Councillors to go ashen grey.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

My assessment is that LDC have done no serious work to assess the financial risks that they are taking.

They can control their own costs - and I would guess that they are satisfied that their own legal representation will cost them no more than £25,000.

But they are gambling on winning the case - and they assume that they will therefore not be required to contribute anything towards the costs of the other parties.

I'm not a planning lawyer. But it seems to me that the law is fairly murky in the areas where LDC is venturing to make its case. The ODPM took a very long time to reach its decision and I am certain that their lawyers pored over every aspect of the decision letter. There are plenty of examples of murky aspects of the law being 'clarified' by High Court judgements in ways that surprise even experienced observers. A number of recent High Court judgements relating to developments in National Parks have been in favour of developers (eg the Pembrokeshire case and the more recent New Forest case).

Falmer could very easily fall the same way. And that's when the magnitude of the financial risk that LDC is taking will become apparent - to say nothing of the political risks that they are taking (which include the assumption that Falmer Parish Council will actually be able to fund their 'share' of the costs).

Jim has done some excellent work in keeping the pressure on LDC. I agree with his analysis that it would be helpful if more Lewes district residents joined in. But I also expect that LDC will continue to avoid the issues that we are raising.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Wasn't one of the LDC wallahs going to resign if the costs went over 25K? Or does that just apply to THEIR costs? And would he stick to his word anyway?

 

[Curious Orange]

My assessment is that LDC have done no serious work to assess the financial risks that they are taking.

That much was obvious when their plan to mitigate the financial risk was stated as being to not lose. That wouldn't be an acceptable mitigation for making a business decision, so I don't see why it should be acceptable for a decision being made by a public authority.

 

[desprateseagull]

are LDC banming on either..

1= their request for a review wins, and it all goes tits up,

or

2= more info called in, costs go up, DC request deferal of case to get approval / raise cash for the extra fees , so delaying Falmer even further...

bunch of *********