The boys appealed because the council had not consulted with police, a statutory requirement before making ASBO applications.
The council was not able to produce a signed certificate that there had been consultation (as suggested in the November 2002 Home Office guidance), nor any evidence from the police.
It relied instead on the minutes of multi-disciplinary liaison meetings at which the police had been represented. Evidence was given by a housing officer employed by a council-owned housing management company, who had taken the lead in making the applications.
A High Court judge dismissed the appeal. Although there had not been strict compliance, there had been compliance "in substance". However, he expressed a number of concerns.
First, the lead role in seeking the ASBOs had been taken by the management company rather than the council. Except in the unlikely event it had properly delegated its duty to consult, this duty remained with the council.
Second, there seemed to be a lack of awareness of the Home Office guidance. Third, the processes adopted were insufficiently structured and did not appear to comply with Home Office good practice.
Source
Housing Today
Reference
The judgment offers really useful guidance on the consultation requirements for any social landlord applying for a county court ASBO.