The Collection (Management) Ltd v Jackson (VO)
Rating – Non-domestic rates – Local Government Finance Act 1988 – Concierge room forming part of luxury residential development owned by appellant – Respondent valuation officer entering concierge room in rating list – Whether concierge room rateable – Whether excluded from rating as domestic property within section 66(1) of 1988 Act – Whether appurtenant to living accommodation within section 66(1)(b) – Appeal allowed
The appellant company was the freehold owner of a luxury residential development of 15 houses in London NW8. It was owned by the long leaseholders of the individual houses and was entitled, pursuant to the leases, to recover a service charge in respect of its management and maintenance of the development. It retained a managing agent to perform those responsibilities and granted to it a bare licence to occupy such parts of the development, excluding the houses, as were necessary to enable it to perform its duties. Those duties included the provision of a concierge service; the concierges took care of security and access to the development, monitored and maintained utilities and provided additional services including holding keys, taking deliveries, hailing cabs and greeting visitors. The concierges provided 24-hour security and were based in a small concierge room on the site. The room contained a desk and chair with a computer, telephone and CCTV monitor, in addition to controls for the electronic front gate, traffic lights, air-conditioning chiller, water supply and sewage pump. From there, the concierges also monitored the intruder and fire alarm system and they could by contacted by residents of the houses using intercom equipment. The concierge room contained basic facilities including a sink, microwave, kettle and refrigerator plus a separate lavatory and washbasin.
The respondent valuation officer entered the concierge room in the 2005 rating list with a rateable value of £1,225, effective from February 2008. The valuation tribunal (VT) upheld the entry on appeal.
The appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal. It contended that the concierge room was not rateable since it was an appurtenance belonging to or enjoyed with the residential property and therefore properly characterised as domestic property on an application of section 66(1)(b) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The respondent submitted that the concierge room could not be regarded as appurtenant to any one of the individual houses.
Held: The claim/appeal was allowed/dismissed.
(1) In order to be an “appurtenance” for the purposes of section 66(1)(b) of the 1988 Act, land had to lie within the curtilage of the principal hereditament: Trim v Sturminster Rural District Council [1938] 2 KB 508, Martin v Hewitt (VO) [2003] RA 275 applied. The concierge room fell within the curtilage of the 15 houses collectively, notwithstanding that each individual house also had its own individual curtilage. Physically, the development was a coherent whole, bounded by the walls of the houses, the walls of the communal garden and the access gates. Within that physical boundary lay land and facilities that wholly served the residential accommodation, including centralised utility services. The concierge room lay entirely within that physical boundary. It was a small room, subservient in terms of size to the residential accommodation, and its use related to that residential accommodation. Moreover, on any transfer of the freehold of the development, it would pass without mention with the rest of the land and buildings: Head (VO) v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [2005] RA 177 and Allen (VO) v Mansfield District Council [2008] RA 338; [2008] PLSCS 209 applied; Winchester City Council v Handcock (VO) [2006] RA 265 distinguished. The concierge room could therefore be an “appurtenance” to the 15 houses collectively, for the purposes of section 66(1)(b), provided it satisfied the other requirements of an appurtenance to land used wholly or mainly for the purposes of living accommodation.
(2) In considering whether the concierge room was appurtenant to the living accommodation, it was necessary to consider who, if anyone, would be in rateable occupation of the room and for what purpose. The four tests of rateable occupation were actual occupation that was exclusive to the possessor, beneficial and not too transient: John Laing & Son Ltd v Kingswood Assessment Area Assessment Committee [1949] 1 KB 344 applied. It was not necessary that the concierge room be occupied by the occupiers of the residential occupation: Clymo (VO) v Shell-Mex [1963] RA 191 applied. On an application of the relevant tests, the paramount occupation of the concierge room was by the appellant. Although the concierges were in actual occupation, they occupied not on their own behalf but for the benefit of the appellant and the residents of the development. Their status as employees of the managing agent did not mean that the managing agent was in rateable occupation of the concierge room. The managing agent held a bare licence to occupy, which was terminable on notice, and the appellant was the person entitled to legal possession. None of the concierges’ functions could be described as activities of a managing agent, nor did the managing agent carry out any such activities from the concierge room. The appellant had complete control over use of the room and, in practice, determined and paid for the services provided by the concierges. The goods and equipment in the concierge room belonged to the appellant and were there better to enable the concierges to serve the residents and the appellant. With the exception of the maintenance of utilities, all the functions of the concierges could only be performed by someone on site. All of those functions served the living accommodation. The concierges were carrying out their functions under the supervision of the managing agent but at the direction of the appellant, and through it the residents. Accordingly, if the room were a non-domestic hereditament, the appellant would be in rateable occupation of it. In those circumstances, the concierge room was appurtenant to the living accommodation in the development. The room “belonged to” the development in terms of ownership and, if it were necessary to decide, was also enjoyed with it. It was domestic property and should be deleted from the rating list.
Elena Butterfield, of Harrods Estates Ltd, appeared for the appellant; Sarabjit Singh (instructed by HM Revenue and Customs) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
Rating – Non-domestic rates – Local Government Finance Act 1988 – Concierge room forming part of luxury residential development owned by appellant – Respondent valuation officer entering concierge room in rating list – Whether concierge room rateable – Whether excluded from rating as domestic property within section 66(1) of 1988 Act – Whether appurtenant to living accommodation within section 66(1)(b) – Appeal allowedThe appellant company was the freehold owner of a luxury residential development of 15 houses in London NW8. It was owned by the long leaseholders of the individual houses and was entitled, pursuant to the leases, to recover a service charge in respect of its management and maintenance of the development. It retained a managing agent to perform those responsibilities and granted to it a bare licence to occupy such parts of the development, excluding the houses, as were necessary to enable it to perform its duties. Those duties included the provision of a concierge service; the concierges took care of security and access to the development, monitored and maintained utilities and provided additional services including holding keys, taking deliveries, hailing cabs and greeting visitors. The concierges provided 24-hour security and were based in a small concierge room on the site. The room contained a desk and chair with a computer, telephone and CCTV monitor, in addition to controls for the electronic front gate, traffic lights, air-conditioning chiller, water supply and sewage pump. From there, the concierges also monitored the intruder and fire alarm system and they could by contacted by residents of the houses using intercom equipment. The concierge room contained basic facilities including a sink, microwave, kettle and refrigerator plus a separate lavatory and washbasin.The respondent valuation officer entered the concierge room in the 2005 rating list with a rateable value of £1,225, effective from February 2008. The valuation tribunal (VT) upheld the entry on appeal.The appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal. It contended that the concierge room was not rateable since it was an appurtenance belonging to or enjoyed with the residential property and therefore properly characterised as domestic property on an application of section 66(1)(b) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The respondent submitted that the concierge room could not be regarded as appurtenant to any one of the individual houses.Held: The claim/appeal was allowed/dismissed. (1) In order to be an “appurtenance” for the purposes of section 66(1)(b) of the 1988 Act, land had to lie within the curtilage of the principal hereditament: Trim v Sturminster Rural District Council [1938] 2 KB 508, Martin v Hewitt (VO) [2003] RA 275 applied. The concierge room fell within the curtilage of the 15 houses collectively, notwithstanding that each individual house also had its own individual curtilage. Physically, the development was a coherent whole, bounded by the walls of the houses, the walls of the communal garden and the access gates. Within that physical boundary lay land and facilities that wholly served the residential accommodation, including centralised utility services. The concierge room lay entirely within that physical boundary. It was a small room, subservient in terms of size to the residential accommodation, and its use related to that residential accommodation. Moreover, on any transfer of the freehold of the development, it would pass without mention with the rest of the land and buildings: Head (VO) v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [2005] RA 177 and Allen (VO) v Mansfield District Council [2008] RA 338; [2008] PLSCS 209 applied; Winchester City Council v Handcock (VO) [2006] RA 265 distinguished. The concierge room could therefore be an “appurtenance” to the 15 houses collectively, for the purposes of section 66(1)(b), provided it satisfied the other requirements of an appurtenance to land used wholly or mainly for the purposes of living accommodation.(2) In considering whether the concierge room was appurtenant to the living accommodation, it was necessary to consider who, if anyone, would be in rateable occupation of the room and for what purpose. The four tests of rateable occupation were actual occupation that was exclusive to the possessor, beneficial and not too transient: John Laing & Son Ltd v Kingswood Assessment Area Assessment Committee [1949] 1 KB 344 applied. It was not necessary that the concierge room be occupied by the occupiers of the residential occupation: Clymo (VO) v Shell-Mex [1963] RA 191 applied. On an application of the relevant tests, the paramount occupation of the concierge room was by the appellant. Although the concierges were in actual occupation, they occupied not on their own behalf but for the benefit of the appellant and the residents of the development. Their status as employees of the managing agent did not mean that the managing agent was in rateable occupation of the concierge room. The managing agent held a bare licence to occupy, which was terminable on notice, and the appellant was the person entitled to legal possession. None of the concierges’ functions could be described as activities of a managing agent, nor did the managing agent carry out any such activities from the concierge room. The appellant had complete control over use of the room and, in practice, determined and paid for the services provided by the concierges. The goods and equipment in the concierge room belonged to the appellant and were there better to enable the concierges to serve the residents and the appellant. With the exception of the maintenance of utilities, all the functions of the concierges could only be performed by someone on site. All of those functions served the living accommodation. The concierges were carrying out their functions under the supervision of the managing agent but at the direction of the appellant, and through it the residents. Accordingly, if the room were a non-domestic hereditament, the appellant would be in rateable occupation of it. In those circumstances, the concierge room was appurtenant to the living accommodation in the development. The room “belonged to” the development in terms of ownership and, if it were necessary to decide, was also enjoyed with it. It was domestic property and should be deleted from the rating list.Elena Butterfield, of Harrods Estates Ltd, appeared for the appellant; Sarabjit Singh (instructed by HM Revenue and Customs) appeared for the respondent. Sally Dobson, barrister
