Respondent living in property provided by employer — Respondent also owning property — Whether respondent’s property amounting to “sole or main residence” under section 6(5) of Local Government Finance Act 1992 — Appeal dismissed
The respondent had lived in tied accommodation during his employment. Upon retirement, he moved to a cottage that he owned but in which he had never resided. The local valuation tribunal held that he was liable for council tax in respect of the cottage for the period during which he had lived in the tied accommodation, on the ground that the cottage constituted his “sole or main residence” within the meaning of section 6(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. The respondent appealed.
The judge allowed the appeal on the basis that the tribunal had erroneously held itself bound by authority to find that two factors, namely that the taxpayer had security of tenure at the cottage and that he had a settled intention to return there, were of overriding importance.
The local authority appealed. They claimed that the weight to be attached to the relevant factors was not a matter of previous authority but was a matter for the tribunal, and that the judge had therefore erred in setting aside the tribunal’s decision on the ground that it had attached disproportionate weight to those two factors.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal had erred in its interpretation of previous authority. Although reference to decided cases could assist in the identification of what constituted a person’s main residence, a decision based upon the specific facts of each particular case was required.
However, the real issue, which the tribunal had failed to address, was whether, during the relevant period, the tied accommodation had been the respondent’s main residence for the purposes of section 6(5). In general terms, a person’s main residence would be the dwelling that a reasonable onlooker, with knowledge of the material facts, would regard as that person’s home at the material time. In the instant case, the main residence must have been the tied accommodation. No reasonable tribunal applying the proper test to the material facts could have come to any other conclusion.
Jonathan Easton (instructed by the solicitor to Horsham District Council) appeared for the appellants; the respondent appeared in person.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
