The two claimants LL and AU have done a service to many others in their position by persisting in hard fought litigation - and great job in a complex case by all team at @leigh-day.bsky.social

(This also appears to be first case from a senior court holding s.19A EA 2010 breached.)

Trafford will have to revisit all 2025 council tax reduction decisions. Other councils will need to consider how they approach scheme creation. All public authorities will need to consider the lessons on the pitfalls of introducing automated decision making

Scheme was attempting to facilitate more automatic decision making, but effect was council didn’t understand sufficiently how it worked, and may have let 'tail wag dog' – fitting scheme to computer rather than other way round.

- Ultra vires because the full council didn’t vote on it – scheme adoption unlawfully delegated

- Irrational and discriminatory because its rules double-counted some income, particularly disability related income

- Breached PSED because council didn’t understand or evaluate disability impact

The decision is R (LL and AU) v Trafford Council [2025] EWHC 2380 (Admin) (19 September 2025). Read it here: files.gcnchambers.co.uk/wp-content/u...

I once worked in a CAB which had a bath upstairs. But we escaped tough questions from the media about it.

Nov 2025: www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/united-...

@cpaguk.bsky.social @rightsnet.org.uk @nawra.bsky.social

Judgment here: www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/u...

The AAC hear appeals against decisions of the Disclosure and Barring Service, eg to stop people from working as care workers. If you look for cases where the DBS is respondent you will see there are quite a lot www.gov.uk/administrati...

They are all subject matter descriptors (in social security cases, you see suffixes like ‘PIP’ or ‘UC’ which are both probably self explanatory to you). I *think* the two you ask about will be ‘Health and Social Care’ and ‘Vetting’