A property search report company has failed in its test-case challenge to the powers of local authorities to charge for information required to prepare reports.
This afternoon, Hickinbottom J dismissed the judicial review claim by OneSearch Direct Holdings Ltd against York City Council’s refusal to allow it access to property records.
The company had sought a declaration J that the council is acting unlawfully and preventing fair competition because it also sells such search reports.
The company argued that property search reports perform a vital function, which is reinforced by the government’s introduction of home information packs (HIPs).
Much of the information needed for HIPs comes from local authority records, including information relating to water, drainage and nearby planning proposals.
However, the council wants to package and sell the property information that it holds for an overall set price, whereas OneSearch wants access to that same information in order to supply its own packages at its own price.
Michael Fordham QC, for OneSearch, said that the question for the court was: “Is it lawful for a local authority to maintain a policy of not allowing access to its property records to those who want to compile search material?”
He accused York of failing in its public law duty to act reasonably and not frustrate the purpose of the Local Authorities (England)(Charges for Property Searches) Regulations 2008, which provide a new legal basis for charges to be levied for access to property records and answering property enquiries.
Dismissing the challenge, Hickinbottom J ruled: “I do not consider that it can be said that the decision of the council to refuse access to unrefined information is, in all the circumstances, contrary to the purposes or intention of any statutory provision, such as to make that decision unlawful.”
R (on the application of OneSearch Direct Holdings Ltd (formerly SPH Holdings Ltd) (t/a OneSearch Direct) v
Michael
