Council tax — Self-contained unit — Listing officer deciding four units in care home for blind persons amounting to self-contained units to be assessed separately for council tax — Valuation tribunal overturning decision — Appeal allowed
The first respondent ran a purpose-built care home for the permanent residential care of blind and partly sighted persons over the age of retirement. Most of the residential units in the building consisted of a single room with kitchen facilities and an en suite bathroom. However, there were four units that also had either a separate living room or an additional bedroom. The second to fifth respondents occupied these units.
The appellant listing officer decided that the four units should be assessed separately for council tax purposes, on the basis that, although the care home as a whole was a single property for the purposes of the Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992, each of the four units amounted to a “self-contained unit” within the meaning of Article 3 of the order. Article 2 defined a self-contained unit as part of a building that had been constructed for use as separate living accommodation.
The respondents appealed to a valuation tribunal, which overturned the listing officer’s decision. The tribunal considered that the facilities in the building indicated that a range of needs could be supported, including those of residents seeking a more independent lifestyle. It found that although the four units could be capable of sustaining separate living accommodation, that was equally true of the other, smaller units, whose council tax status was not in dispute. Moreover, it took the view that the nature and character of the whole building was to be taken into account, and that, although the units could be used for separate living, the first respondent had not intended to create units for entirely independent living. The listing officer appealed. He contended that if a unit contained all that was necessary for living accommodation, then that was the end of the matter. The respondents contended for a two-step test under which it was then appropriate to look at the rest of the building and its facilities.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The propositions advanced by both parties were flawed. The Article 2 definition did not require the application of a two-step test. There was a single question of whether part of a building had been constructed or adapted for use as separate living accommodation. That question was to be answered in the light of all the objective circumstances, including the use or uses for which the remainder of the building was constructed. In the case of a care home for the blind, or the partially blind, the purpose for which the building as a whole was constructed was to accommodate and care for such people. If part of the building was constructed as separate living accommodation for the blind or partially sighted, then it was a self-contained unit, to be separately assessed for council tax purposes.
The valuation tribunal’s findings were flawed and internally inconsistent. They appeared to show that the four units had been constructed for use as separate living accommodation, and that it was a matter of choice for the residents of those units whether they were used as separate living accommodation. If so, that was a finding in favour of the listing officer. The tribunal had erred in taking into account the first respondent’s subjective intention not to create units for independent living: R (on the application of Coleman (Listing Officer)) v Rotsztein [2003] EWHC 1057 (Admin) applied. The question was not whether the units were intended, or could even be used for, entirely separate living, but whether they were constructed for use as separate living accommodation. It was not required that the units should be constructed, let alone used, for all facets of independent living. Finally, the tribunal should not have taken into account the fact that it could see no cogent distinction between the four units and the others. It had to make its own judgment about the four units under consideration, not make comparisons with the listing officer’s decision relating to units not in issue before it. Accordingly, the tribunal’s decision would be quashed and remitted to it for reconsideration.
David Forsdick (instructed by the solicitor to the Inland Revenue) appeared for the appellant; Christopher Boyle (instructed by Lawrence Graham) appeared for the first respondent; the other respondents did not appear and were not represented.
Sally Dobson, barrister
