Balloting for ALMOs

Two members of the "Camden Defend Council Housing" campaign challenged the council's proposal to establish an arm's-length management organisation (ALMO). An options appraisal had ruled out large scale voluntary transfer or a Private Finance Initiative scheme. The council saw the ALMO as the only remaining means of enabling it to meet the government's 2010 decent homes target.

A judicial review was sought of both the council's tenant consultation process over the ALMO and questions on the ballot paper. The campaigners claimed the council had unlawfully failed to make a balanced presentation of the cases for and against the ALMO.

They also claimed the ballot question: "Camden council proposes to set up … [an ALMO] to manage and improve its housing. Do you agree with this proposal: yes/no", was unfair.

The judge dismissed the claim. He decided that no law required the council to set out both sides of the argument. Its obligation was to inform tenants of its proposals and invite their views. It was not necessary to set out the case against the proposals.

The court could only step in if the arrangements made were such that no reasonable council could think that its tenants were being informed of the reasons for – and the nature and implications of – its proposals.

As to the ballot question, even if it was for a court to determine whether the question was reasonable and appropriate, there was no substance to the criticisms in this case.