Claimant owning premises let for multiple occupation – Defendant authority serving notices requiring premises to be put into proper repair – Premises vacated – Defendants withdrawing notices – Claimant billed for council tax – Valuation tribunal finding claimant liable to pay – Claimant appealing – Whether premises exempt – Class G of Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992 – Claim dismissed
The claimant owned premises that he let as a house for multiple occupation within the Housing Act 1985. In June 1998 the defendant authority served notices upon the claimant, pursuant to sections 189 and 352 of the Act, requiring works to be executed to render the property fit for the number of occupants within it. The premises were subsequently vacated, and the defendants withdrew the notices. The property has remained vacant since that time.
In June 2001 the valuation tribunal rejected the claimant’s appeal against the defendants’ decision that the claimant was liable to pay council tax on the property. The claimant contended that the premises fell within the terms of Class G of the Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992. Class G provides exemption for an “unoccupied dwelling, the occupation of which is prohibited by law, or which is kept unoccupied by reason of action taken under powers conferred by or under any Act of Parliament, with a view to prohibiting its occupation”. The claimant submitted that his property was kept unoccupied by reason of the action taken by the defendant in June 1998, and by reason of the threat of further action should the premises become occupied by tenants in future.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
1. Class G of the 1992 Order was not applicable. The notices served by the defendants in 1998, when properly interpreted, did not amount to action that prohibited the occupation of the premises, nor did they amount to action taken with a view to that. Rather, they amounted to action taken with a view to the premises being put into a proper state of repair.
2. The instant case could be contrasted with powers open to the defendants, for example, under section 264 of the 1985 Act, to make a closing order in relation to premises and which could properly be said to amount to action taken with a view to prohibiting occupation.
The claimant appeared in person; Ranjit Bhose (instructed by the solicitor to Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council) appeared for the defendants.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
