Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Town to Appeal After Losing Police Costs Court Case
Friday, 8th Jul 2016 13:21

Town have lost their High Court claim that Suffolk Constabulary unlawfully charged them for policing costs in the roads surrounding their Portman Road stadium on match days between 2008 and 2013. The club are set to launch an appeal against the decision.

At a two-day hearing last month the club claimed it was unlawful that they were charged for the policing of closed roads such as Portman Road and Sir Alf Ramsey Way on matchdays and were suing for £200,000.

Suffolk Constabulary, who subsequently issued a counterclaim against Town for more than £96,000 in unpaid invoices, argued that the policing of the roads is inseparably linked to that inside the stadium and is therefore the club’s responsibility.

The judge ruled in Suffolk Constabulary’s favour, agreeing that they are entitled to recover the costs of policing those areas around the ground as the services provided amount to “special police services”.

In a statement, Town said: “The club, having considered the Court’s judgment in detail with our lawyers and other interested parties, is disappointed with the decision.

“It should be noted the Suffolk Police have admitted that they did overcharge the club for policing services prior to August 2011.

“The club has sought permission from the Court to appeal the decision and this has been approved and as a consequence we are now applying to the Court of Appeal to grant the hearing of an appeal.

“We will not be making any further comment on the matter in view of that pending appeal against the High Court’s decision.”

Suffol Constabulary said in a statement: “The judgement has acknowledged that policing football matches at Portman Road is something which needs to be paid for fairly and sensibly with appropriate policing costs being recovered.

"We will continue to work with the Safety Advisory Group to provide advice and allow the chair to determine how the club meets it obligation to achieve a Safety Certificate. We will vigorously defend any appeal, on behalf of the Suffolk tax payer.”

In 2012 the High Court ruled that West Yorkshire Police had overcharged Leeds United for "special police services" between 2009 and 2012, the Whites having argued that policing the roads and car parks around Elland Road is not their responsibility.

As a result of that ruling, Town were amongst a number of clubs to take similar action to reclaim cash previously paid - plus interest - for policing around stadia on matchdays. The Blues were charged from £5,926 to £25,242 per fixture.


Photo: Action Images



Please report offensive, libellous or inappropriate posts by using the links provided.



martin587 added 13:27 - Jul 8
Just accept the fact we lost the case.Pursuing this will only cost more money,something this club cannot afford.!,
-2

carsey added 13:39 - Jul 8
I don't see how the club can suggest they are not responsible for the crowds being in ad around Portman Road on matchdays - if there were no football there would be no crowds.
I'd also be interested to know who closes the roads of with the red and white posts and under what authority because my source tells me it is the club not the police. If that is so the should police it themselves or pay for it.
The police like all public sector employers have been hammered by the government cuts and just don't have the numbers or money to pay overtime. Hell you can't even get a cop when your house gets burgled these days.
-1

blues1 added 13:39 - Jul 8
Martin587, why should the club just accept it when Leeds won their case for exactly the same thing. Which clearly indicates this decision is wrong.
1

12th_Man added 13:51 - Jul 8
Never mind we are use to losing out on things move on
2

uefacup81 added 13:54 - Jul 8
Makes no sense as a ruling. The precedent is clear from Leeds United Football Club v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police ([2013] EWCA Civ 115) that the police are not entitled to charge for such services.

I'd be intrigued to see what logic/reasoning the Judge used in distinguishing the former case.
2

uefacup81 added 13:57 - Jul 8
Further to LUFC v CCWYP, there's the earlier case of West Yorkshire Police Authority v Reading Festival Ltd ([2006] EWCA Civ 524, [2006] 1 WLR 2005) which sets the precedent that Constabularies cannot charge for 'Special Policing Services' on land not owned by the organiser (Festival, Football Club etc.,) unless they are specifically requested.

For those that are interested, the full judgment from LUFC v CCWYP can be found here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/115.html
3

tractorboybig added 14:02 - Jul 8
Is a pity the club don't show the same resolve when trying to get players in.
6

MaySixth added 14:05 - Jul 8
Another boardroom shambles.
4

Wallingford_Boy added 14:12 - Jul 8
Serves the club right, trying to jump on the bandwagon and get some cash back, even though it seems pretty obvious the police were right to charge for this service!
2

uefacup81 added 14:21 - Jul 8
Wallingford Boy - the LUFC case (and the Reading Festival case) proved that WYP were wrong to charge for unrequested policing services on land not owned by the club. What's more, WYP did not appeal the original decision.

Where is it obvious that the police are wrong? Or are you just being a massive Joey?
-1

HighgateBlue added 14:32 - Jul 8
Given that everyone claims to be an expert on football, it's scarcely surprising that everyone also purports to be an expert in matters of statutory interpretation. It is not obvious either way - otherwise why would the high court itself grant permission to appeal to the court of appeal? The Judge accepts that it's arguable that he was wrong. In the Leeds case, the club always accepted that some of the matchday services were special police services, and were therefore to be paid for. In relation to a wider area of land, the judge found /on the facts/ that policing in certain areas did not constitute special police services. In our case, the two sides differed as to what the appropriate test was. As I understand it, Green J accepted the other side's assertion that the proper test was one of whether the relevant land was controlled by the club rather than whether it was public or private land. He also rejected the club's contention that they didn't exercise control over the highway land.
2

HighgateBlue added 14:36 - Jul 8
uefacup81, I don't follow your point that WYP did not appeal the original decision - you have pasted a link to the court of appeal judgment in respect of the Chief Constable's appeal of the original decision.
2

uefacup81 added 14:38 - Jul 8
HighgateBlue

I wonder if part of the contention arises from the definition of 'control'. If 'carsey' is correct in their assertions about the Club being responsible for closing the roads around the stadium to vehicles, then that would definitely suggest a degree of control being exerted.

On the other hand, there is nothing to suggest that the club control, or have any ability to control, who/how many enter the area on foot. I would argue, given that the club have no means/ability to stop 'risk elements' from accessing the area around the stadium, that policing on Portman Road/SAR Way should be seen in the same light as policing at the rail station, or in the town centre on match days?
1

CitrixBlue added 14:38 - Jul 8
Jeez, we can't even beat the local old bill, what chance do we stand against the likes of Newcastle, Leeds and QPR this coming season.
8

uefacup81 added 14:39 - Jul 8
HighgateBlue

Regarding the appeal assertion - my mistake! I clearly misread the original judgment. That said, given that the judgment has been made, and then affirmed in the Court of Appeal, one could argue that it is made stronger/weightier for it, having been tested?
0

Wallingford_Boy added 14:40 - Jul 8
UEFA81 - They were policing an area that relates directly to the football, how can it NOT be billed to ITFC?!?!?!
2

uefacup81 added 14:51 - Jul 8
Wallingford

It was argued (and proven in the LUFC/Reading Festival cases) that the police were not entitled to charge for these services, despite them being linked to the events in question, because:

a) They were not requested by the organisers of the events
b) They fell within the police's general remit of providing protection to the general public

In the LUFC case, supporting evidence for this was given in the fact that West Yorkshire Police did not charge LUFC for their increased presence at Leeds station on matchdays, despite it being needed as a direct result of there being a football match on.
1

uefacup81 added 15:26 - Jul 8
Martin587

Care to defend your point, or are you just going to down-arrow anyone who dares to disagree with you?
-1

martin587 added 15:27 - Jul 8
It would cost a fortune to fight the case,and that's money we supposedly don't have.
2

uefacup81 added 15:32 - Jul 8
Martin

The club will have defined budgets for various areas of its operations. Part of this set up will include a legal/administrative budget. It could even be that the club/Marcus Evans Group has a legal team retained, which would mean costs are reduced/minimal.

Likewise, if ITFC win the case they should be able to recover costs from Suffolk Constabulary.

Bottom line, regardless of whether we appeal or not, the playing budget won't have been touched in order to fund this case.
0

martin587 added 15:33 - Jul 8
blues1,Just because Leeds won there case,it does not mean we would automatically win ours,there are all sorts of differing factors that arise in the aquastion don't you think.Best to move on unless the Club have to he money to spare and they can guarantee to win the case.!!
1

jas0999 added 16:26 - Jul 8
I would prefer that the club dedicates as much time into signing some quality players. Particularly attacking midfielders and wingers, to which we laughably have none of the latter.

4

gypo added 16:45 - Jul 8
So why then when the police tell us to move a Norwich game from a three o'clock sat to a 12 on a Sunday do we take any notice then.
2

sidtheswan added 17:16 - Jul 8
This is giving me a headache can we just stick to slating off MM it's a lot less complicated or maybe we could just get Judge Reiner to sort it out !
1

Dissboyitfc added 17:54 - Jul 8
The crowds are there because of the football game, simple, just pay up!

Cant imagine the cobbolds or sheepshanks behaving in such a manner.
1


You need to login in order to post your comments

Blogs 295 bloggers

Ipswich Town Polls

About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© TWTD 1995-2024