Lease – Council tax – Fraud – Respondent council claiming appellant responsible for council tax on property divided into two flats – Appellant claiming entire property let to father and flats let to others from time to time – Valuation tribunal making implicit finding of dishonesty or fraud – Tribunal failing to put to appellant allegation of dishonesty – Whether tribunal erring in law – Appeal allowed
The appellant owned a house that had been divided into two flats. The respondent local authority informed her in writing that she was liable to council tax on the flats. The appellant appealed on the basis that she had granted a lease of the entire property to her father and she was therefore not liable for council tax on either flat for the period of the lease. She also maintained that each of the two flats had been leased to other individuals from time to time. The respondents rejected those submissions, concluding that both flats were houses in multiple occupation and that the appellant was liable for council tax. A decision letter to that effect was sent to the appellant; she denied having received it and it was not until six months later that the she appealed to the valuation tribunal.
The tribunal formed the view that the lease purportedly granted to the appellant’s father was defective because there was no consideration. Moreover, it found that there was no reliable tenancy for the whole of the relevant period since no occupiers or leaseholders had been traced and there was no evidence to indicate the whereabouts of the appellant’s main residence. The tribunal concluded that the appellant was liable for council tax as the head leaseholder or freeholder, and possibly the occupier, of the property.
The appellant appealed. She contended that the tribunal had erred in law in failing to accept a three-page document said to be the lease to her father and other documents that constituted leases of the flats to other individuals. The respondents argued that only the first page of the father’s lease had been supplied to them and that, in any event, the tribunal should have dismissed the proceedings because the appellant had received the decision letter and had appealed to the tribunal outside the two-month time limit.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The tribunal’s rejection of the appellant’s submission that the flats had been let to other individuals was an implicit finding of dishonesty or fraud on her part. The tribunal had erred in failing to suggest to the appellant that she had produced what amounted to fake or sham agreements so as to allow her an opportunity to respond to the accusation. Furthermore, the tribunal had erred in not providing a more detailed explanation as to why it had found against her on that aspect of the appeal and more generally. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to the tribunal to redetermine the appeal.
It was unclear whether all three pages of the purported lease to her father had been made available to the tribunal. Even if they had been, the tribunal would have had to accord that document no weight since it stated that the control of the property would remain with the landlord and the tenant would be responsible for managing the property. Looking at the document as a whole, it was clearly an agreement for the appellant’s father to manage the property on her behalf.
Finally, there was no indicatation that the appellant was a dishonest witness or that she had sought to manipulate the appeal process by lying about not receiving the decision letter and so she had not been out of time to appeal to the tribunal.
The appellant appeared in person; Steven Gasztowicz QC (instructed by the legal department of Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council) appeared for the respondents.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
