HARLOW Council chiefs have been left reeling after a judge overturned their decision to drastically slash the budget of a prized local welfare group.
At the High Court today (Monday, March 9), Mr Justice Davis quashed the council's ruling to cut funding to the Harlow Welfare Rights and Advice service by £400,000, saying councillors had not gone far enough when assessing the council's equality obligations.
The judicial review was brought by Geraldine Meany, Patricia Glynn, and Greig Sanders, who have all used the HRWA for key welfare advice.
During the two-day hearing their barrister had argued the funding shake-up, rubber-stamped in this year’s budget, would hit the disabled and members of ethnic minorities the hardest as they make up a "disproportionately high number" of the HRWA's clients, the hardest.
The complaint was upheld as the judge said the council had a legal duty to consider such "equality duties" before approving cuts that would take a heavy toll on vulnerable people.
He said although the council had "generally" considered this issue, it was clear that it had not given the question "due regard" - as required by law.
Mr Justice Davis added the council had been faced with an increasingly fraught financial situation, confronted by a "perfect storm" of falling income, rising service demand and a meagre rise in Government grants and said councillors went through stringent analysis and planning before sanctioning the cuts - but did not go far enough.
The decision means the council must reconsider its funding cut for the service. The authority has also been ordered to pay two-thirds of the claimants’ court costs and has been told it is not allowed to appeal aginst the ruling.
Speaking after the ruling, Sue Jones, head of the HWRA, said she was now hoping for a more favourable outcome.
"It will mean an entirely fresh process with the slate wiped entirely clean,” she said.
"We can only hope they approach it with an open mind."
A spokesman for the council said this evening: “The council is very disappointed with the result of the judicial review and will await the transcript of the judgement prior to commenting further.”