Appellant owning sole property purchased for investment purposes — Appellant leading nomadic lifestyle — Whether appellant “resident” of property for the purposes of section 6(2)(a) of Local Government Finance Act 1992 — Appeal dismissed
The appellant owned a property that he leased out on an informal basis. He did not himself reside, nor had he ever resided, in the property, having purchased it for investment purposes only. The respondent council assessed the appellant as liable to pay council tax on the property. He appealed to the Bedfordshire Valuation Tribunal, which held that he was a “resident” of the property within the meaning of section 6(2)(a) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.
The appellant challenged that decision. He submitted that although the occupants of the property did not have a formal tenancy, they had nevertheless reached an oral agreement with him and benefited from exclusive possession of the property.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
Authorities demonstrated that the time spent away from a dwelling was not the main criterion in establishing whether that dwelling was a person’s sole or main residence. In the instant case, the appellant’s intention never to live in the property was irrelevant. His “nomadic” lifestyle meant that no other property could be considered as his main or sole residence, and he retained a legal freehold interest in the property which meant that he was able to take up residence there at any time. The tribunal had found, on the evidence, that no oral agreement for exclusive possession had been reached between the appellant and the occupiers of the property. He was therefore a resident of the property for the purposes of assessing council tax.
The appellant appeared in person; Peter Oldham (instructed by the solicitor to Copeland Borough Council) appeared for the respondents.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
