Council tax – Second-home discount – Paragraph 1(1)(a) of schedule to Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings)(England) Regulations 2003 – Respondent council refusing to grant second-home discount to appellant on London flat used on company business – Whether appellant qualifying where business requiring stays in London – Whether para 1(1)(a) requiring link between employment and particular property – Whether appellant meeting requirement of “residence” – Appeal dismissed
The appellant was a director of an investment company. His home was in Gloucester but he used a flat in London when on company business. He claimed a second-home discount in respect of council tax on the flat but, in 2008, a valuation tribunal upheld the view of the respondent council that he was not entitled to receive it. The tribunal held that the appellant did not come within para 1(1)(a) of the Schedule to the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings)(England) Regulations 2003 since his use oft the flat was not necessary for the proper performance of his employment within the meaning of that provision. It considered that para 1(1)(a) required a link between the duties of employment and the particular property in which the employee was living, such that it would be impossible to carry out those duties were he living in a different property. The appellant did not qualify because he could operate equally well from other properties in London and the property in question was a matter of personal choice rather than dictated by his employment.
On appeal from that decision, the appellant contended that it was sufficient, for the purposes of para 1(1)(a), that it was necessary for him to stay in London for the purposes of the company’s business and that he stayed in the property provided by the company.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
Para 1(1)(a) was intentionally restrictive and required that residence in the dwelling in question should be necessary for the proper performance of the duties of employment; was intended to refer to dwellings that were connected with the duties of employment. Further, the word “reside” connoted a degree of permanency and the appellant’s periodic use would not suffice for that purpose. The appellant “resided” at his first home in Gloucester and merely used the London flat for occasional stays in connection with his directorship.
The appellant appeared in person; Simon Butler (instructed by the legal department of Southwark London Borough Council) appeared for the respondents.
Sally Dobson, barrister
