Property – Council tax — Valuation tribunal – Appellant owner denying liability for council tax on basis that property occupied by tenant – Tribunal allowing appeal in part – Whether tribunal erring in law by confirming council tax liability in part on evidence before it — Appeal dismissed
In 2007, the local authority (the interested party) issued the appellant with a council tax demand notice for the period 1 August 2002 to 17 January 2008 in respect of a property that he owned. The appellant disputed his liability, claiming that since the property had been occupied by a tenant during that period, the tenant should be responsible for the tax. The respondent tribunal allowed the appeal in part. It found that for part of the relevant period the property had been occupied by a tenant, but that for the remainder of the time the tenant had not lived at the property. No evidence had been produced to show that anyone else had lived in the property during that time; the appellant was therefore liable for council tax for that remaining period.
The tribunal refused the appellant’s application to review its decision because there was no statutory basis for such a review. The appellant therefore brought an appeal in the High Court, in accordance with regulation 51 of the Valuation and Community Charge Tribunals Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/439). The appellant contended that: (i) the tribunal had erred in ignoring or misdirecting itself as to clause 2 of the tenancy agreement, whereby the tenancy fell to be renewed automatically so that the property was to be regarded as being tenanted over the entire period in question; (ii) the tribunal had had insufficient evidence to conclude that the appellant was the liable for council tax; (iii) the evidence available was contradictory and the tribunal had therefore erred in relying on it; (iv) the appellant had been prejudiced by being presented with a bundle of documents by the respondent shortly before the hearing; and (v) the tribunal had erred in deciding that it lacked the jurisdiction to consider whether there had been late service of a retrospective demand for council tax, contrary to the Council Tax (Liability for Owners) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/551).
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
(1) The tribunal had had a copy of the tenancy agreement before it and it was clear from its substantive decision that the tribunal had carefully considered clause 2 of the agreement and questioned whether the tenancy had existed throughout the period in issue. In the circumstances, it had reached conclusions that it was entitled to reach.
(2) The argument regarding insufficient evidence was unsustainable. On the evidence before it, the tribunal had been entitled to find that the tenant had not continued to reside in the property: Regentford Ltd v Shepway District Council [2006] EWHC 3200 (Admin); [2006] RVR 377 applied.
(3) In the absence of any allegation of perversity, the court was not entitled to interfere with the fact-finding role of the tribunal.
(4) The tribunal had not erred in proceeding with the hearing because the appellant had not applied for an adjournment on receiving the additional documents and it was clear that the tribunal had not accepted the evidence presented by the respondent without a full and careful examination.
(5) The tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider whether the interested party had acted in breach of the 1992 Regulations by late service of a demand for council tax: Hardy v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council [2006] EWHC 1928 (Admin); [2007] RA 140 applied.
The appellant appeared in person; the respondent did not appear and was not represented; Clare Parry (instructed by the legal department of Enfield London Borough Council) appeared for the interested party.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
