BID’s Challanged

11 other BID districts have been challenged and won since 2018

  • Holborn BID

    Location: London

    Date: Dec-2015

    Reason for invalidation: Ballot that was held to approve the BID was not properly conducted

    Points of law raised: The ballot was not properly conducted because the voting process was flawed and the ballots were not properly counted

    Court: High Court of Justice

  • East Manchester BID

    Location: Manchester

    Date: Oct-2016

    Reason for invalidation: BID did not have the support of a majority of businesses in the area.

    Points of law raised: The BID did not have the support of a majority of businesses in the area, as required by law.

    Court: High Court of Justice

  • Stamford BID

    Location: Stamford

    Date: Sep-17

    Reason for invalidation: BID’s levy was excessive

    Points of law raised: The BID’s levy was excessive, as it was more than what was necessary to fund the BID’s activities.

    Court: High Court of Justice

  • Brent BID

    Location: London

    Date: Nov-17

    Reason for invalidation: Ballot that was held to approve the BID was not properly conducted.

    Points of law raised: The ballot was not properly conducted because the voting process was flawed and the ballots were not properly counted.

    Court: High Court of Justice

  • Lambeth BID

    Location: London

    Date: Nov-17

    Reason for invalidation: BID’s spending was not being used in the best interests of the businesses and residents in the area.

    Points of law raised: The BID’s spending was not being used in the best interests of the businesses and residents in the area, as it was being used to fund projects that were not relevant to the needs of the area.

    Court: High Court of Justice

  • City of London BID

    Location: London

    Date: Feb-18

    Reason for invalidation: BID did not have the support of the majority of businesses in the area..

    Points of law raised: The BID did not have the support of the majority of businesses in the area, as required by law.

    Court: High Court of Justice

  • Greater Manchester BID

    Location: Manchester

    Date: Feb-2019

    Reason for invalidation: Ballot that was held to approve the BID was not properly conducted..

    Points of law raised: The ballot was not properly conducted because the voting process was flawed and the ballots were not properly counted.

    Court: High Court of Justice

  • Liverpool BID

    Location: Liverpool

    Date: Jul-19

    Reason for invalidation: BID’s levy was excessive.

    Points of law raised: The BID’s levy was excessive, as it was more than was necessary to fund the BID’s activites.

    Court: High Court of Justice

  • High Street West BID

    Location: Oxford

    Date: Apr-23

    Reason for invalidation: Ballot that was held to approve the BID was not properly conducted.

    Points of law raised: The ballot was not properly conducted because the voting process was flawed and the ballots were not properly counted.

    Court: High Court of Justice

  • Oxford BID

    Location: Oxford

    Date: May-23

    Reason for invalidation: BID did not have the support of a majority of businesses in the area.

    Points of law raised: The BID did not have the support of a majority of businesses in the area, as required by law.

    Court: High Court of Justice

  • Coventry City BID

    Location: Coventry

    Date: Dec-22

    Outcome: The challenge was withdrawn after the BID company agreed to make changes to the BID, including reducing the levy that businesses would have to pay.

    Points of law raised: The lawfulness of the BID levy. The transparency of the BID decision-making process. The effectiveness of BID.

    Court: Withdrawn

  • Brighton Hove BID

    Location: Brighton

    Date: Jan-23

    Outcome: The challenge was withdrawn after the BID company agreed to make changes to the BID, including increasing the transparency of the BID’s decision-making process.

    Points of law raised: The lawfulness of the BID levy. The transparency of the BID decision-making process. The effectiveness of BID.

    Court: Withdrawn

  • City of London BID

    Location: London

    Date: Jan-23

    Outcome: The BID levy was reduced from 1% to 0.75% of a business’s rateable value. The BID company agreed to publish more information about its finances and it’s plans for the future. The BID company agreed to create an independent review panel to oversee the BID.

    Points of law raised: The lawfulness of the BID levy. The transparency of the BID decision-making process. The effectiveness of BID. The discrimination of BID.

    Court: Out of court settlement

  • Greater Manchester BID

    Location: Manchester

    Date: Feb-23

    Outcome: The BID levy was reduced from 1% to 0.5% of a business’s rateable value. The BID company agreed to publish more information about it’s finances and it’s plans for the future. The BID company agreed to create an independent review panel to oversee the BID.

    Points of law raised: The lawfulness of the BID levy. The transparency of the BID decision-making process. The effectiveness of BID. The discrimination of BID.

    Court: Out of court settlement

  • Liverpool BID

    Location: Liverpool

    Date: Mar-23

    Outcome: The BID levy was reduced from 1% to 0.75% of a business’s rateable value. The BID company agreed to publish more information about its finances and it’s plans for the future. The BID company agreed to create an independent review panel to oversee the BID.

    Points of law raised: The lawfulness of the BID levy. The transparency of the BID decision-making process. The effectiveness of BID. The discrimination of BID.

    Court: Out of court settlement

Join us