Croydon Council faces a legal challenge after a judge agreed that a case over the closure of its Access Croydon public enquiries office should proceed to judicial review. The dispute centres on the council’s decision to shut the face‑to‑face service in March 2025 and replace it with an appointment‑only, largely digital operation.
Background to the dispute
The claim has been brought by the Public Interest Law Centre (PILC) on behalf of a Croydon resident described as digitally excluded and living with a learning disability. PILC argues the change discriminates against people who cannot use online systems or who are unable to use council telephone lines for extended periods.
District Judge Alan Bates has permitted the case to proceed, signalling that the issues raised warrant examination at the High Court. The challenge was originally issued in August 2025, following the council’s abrupt closure of the public access point in the Fisher’s Folly building earlier that year.
Local impact and service changes
The closure removed a purpose‑built, public‑facing meeting space where residents could speak directly to council staff about council tax, parking permits, green waste fees, homelessness assistance and other enquiries. In place of that facility the council introduced a reduced enquiries service elsewhere in the building and moved most interactions online or to telephone lines that campaigners say are limited in opening times and can be unreliable.
- Closure: Access Croydon public office, Fisher’s Folly – March 2025
- Claimant: A Croydon resident who is digitally excluded and has a learning disability (represented by PILC)
- Legal step: Judge Alan Bates has allowed the case to go to Judicial Review
| Event | Date |
|---|---|
| Access Croydon office closure | March 2025 |
| Judicial review claim issued | August 2025 |
| Permission to proceed granted | July 2026 |
What is at stake
The case raises questions about how far local authorities can move services online without unlawful discrimination against those who lack internet access, digital skills or the ability to use phone systems. PILC has warned that a ruling in favour of the claimant could require councils to rethink the provision of in‑person services, particularly for vulnerable groups such as older people and those experiencing homelessness.
Croydon residents who rely on face‑to‑face support, or who find online systems inaccessible, will be closely watching the proceedings. The outcome could influence service design across other London councils that have adopted or are considering similar digital‑first approaches.
At present, the council has not published any new public statements about the case. The High Court process will determine whether the council’s changes were lawful and whether further remedies or reinstatement of face‑to‑face access are required.
Residents needing help with council services should continue to check Croydon Council’s official channels for guidance on how to access support, including details of appointment arrangements and any alternative contact methods available.
