Liability to council tax of owner of house occupied by six persons – Security locks on various internal doors – Whether for purpose of house in multiple occupation definition tribunal entitled to ignore purpose of installation – Effect of 1995 amendment putting elements of definition in the alternative – Appeal allowed
At all material times during the tax years 1994-95, the first year, and 1995-96, the second year, the appellant’s house in Kingston-upon-Hull had been let to six persons, previously unknown to each other, under an assured tenancy agreement. The respondent council issued a demand for council tax from the appellant on the basis that, pursuant to regulations made under section 8(1) of the Local Government Finance Act , that burden fell on the owner rather than the occupier because the house was in multiple occupation. As regards the first year such a house was defined in regulation 2 of SI 1993 no 551 as one: (a) which was originally constructed or later adapted for occupation by persons who did not constitute a single household; and (b) in which certain conditions as to the actual state of occupancy were satisfied. As regards the second year, by virtue of an amendment effected by SI 1995 no 620 (which substituted ‘or’ for ‘and’), the definition was satisfied if either (a) or (b) applied. In a decision dated August 3 1995 the respondent tribunal ruled that the applicant was liable for both years in issue. The applicant appealed, contending: (i) that the ruling was flawed as to both years because the tribunal had misconstrued subpara (a); (ii) that the ruling as to the first year was flawed on the further ground that the tribunal had failed to apply subpara (b).
Held The appeal was allowed as regards the first year only.
1 There was nothing to support the appellant’s contention that the construction or adaptation had to be effected with multiple occupation in mind. No such purposive element was expressed, nor did the wording of the regulation require such an implication. The tribunal was correct in looking at the facts at the time the alleged liability arose. Having applied the right test the tribunal could not be criticised for basing its finding solely on the presence of security locks on various internal doors.
2 As regards the first year, the reasons which the tribunal gave (and was bound to give under regulation 47(3) of the Valuation and Community Charge Tribunal (Amendments) Regulations 1993) made no reference to subpara (b) of the unamended definition then applicable. It was therefore impossible to tell whether the tribunal had directed itself correctly to that subparagraph, and to that extent the decision would be quashed.
Ivan Clarke (instructed by Payne & Payne, of Hull) appeared for the appellant ; John Dagnall (instructed by the solicitor to Kingston-upon-Hull City Council) appeared for the second respondents; the first respondent, Humberside Valuation Tribunal, did not appear and was not represented.
