Council tax – County court – Jurisdiction – Claimant claiming repayment of allegedly overpaid council tax – Claimant making alternative restitutionary claim for unjust enrichment – Whether county court having jurisdiction to determine claim – Whether valuation tribunal having exclusive jurisdiction – Appeal dismissed
The appellant brought a claim to recover alleged overpaid council tax caused by the respondent council’s failure to provide single person discount in respect of his flat at 43 Chiswick High Road, Chiswick, London. The judge held that the county court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim since the valuation tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning council tax. On the appellant’s appeal, the judge dismissed his claim for want of jurisdiction.
The appellant appealed. The essence of his case was that he had overpaid council tax because he was entitled to single person discount which was not allowed in the demand notices which he was sent by the respondent, and therefore he was entitled to repayment of the excess amounts paid. The appellant’s primary case was that he could make the claim under regulations 31 and 55 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, which the county court had jurisdiction to entertain by virtue of section 16 of the County Court Act 1984; alternatively, he had a restitutionary claim for unjust enrichment either on the principle in Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1993] AC 70 or on the ground of mistake, which the county court had jurisdiction to entertain by virtue of section 15 of the 1984 Act.
The respondent contended that it was implicit in the statutory scheme that the valuation tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction over disputes as to the correct amount of council tax payable; thus the county court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the claim under section 16 of the 1984 Act and no common law claim within section 15 of the 1984 Act.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
(1) It was clear that section 16(1)(b) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 conferred jurisdiction on the valuation tribunal to entertain an appeal by a council taxpayer against the amount of council tax which was assessed by a billing authority such as the respondent. It was common ground that that included an appeal on the ground that single person discount had wrongly not been allowed. The legislation proceeded upon the basis that the primary remedy which the valuation tribunal would make in favour of a taxpayer, who successfully contended that they had been overcharged, was an order requiring the billing authority to recalculate the amount due. Repayment was only an ancillary remedy. Consistently with that, the tribunal’s usual practice was simply to order recalculation and not to order repayment: R (on the application of Morris) v Cheshire West & Chester Council [2012] EWHC 3016 (Admin) considered.
(2) Upon the analysis of the statutory scheme, the determination as to whether a taxpayer was entitled to single person discount was to be made in the first instance by the billing authority. Initially, the billing authority was required to make reasonable enquiries and then to make an assumption. The taxpayer was under a duty to correct an erroneous assumption under regulation 16 of the 1992 Regulations. Even if the taxpayer was not under such a duty, the taxpayer was plainly at liberty to draw an error to the billing authority‘s attention. It was then for the billing authority to determine whether any adjustment was required. If the billing authority refused or neglected to make an adjustment which the taxpayer believed they were entitled to, the taxpayer could appeal to the valuation tribunal under section 16(1)(b) of the 1992 Act, subject to compliance with section 16(4), which in essence required the taxpayer to notify the billing authority of their complaint and give it two months to reconsider the matter, and the time limits in regulation 21 of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009. If the taxpayer was successful on appeal, the valuation tribunal would make an order requiring the billing authority to recalculate the amount of council tax which was due. The valuation tribunal might also make an ancillary order for repayment of any sum which had been overpaid. It was only once there had been a determination, either by the billing authority itself under regulations 14 or 31 of the 1992 Regulations or by the valuation tribunal on appeal, that a sum should be repaid to the taxpayer, and the billing authority had not paid that sum, that regulation 55 conferred jurisdiction on the courts to entertain a claim to recover it. It was implicit that the jurisdiction of the valuation tribunal to determine the correct amount of council tax payable under section 16(1)(b) of the 1992 Act was exclusive. It followed that the county court had no jurisdiction over such issues under section 16 of the 1984 Act.
(3) The restricted right of recovery conferred by section 16(1)(b) of the 1992 Act was inconsistent with there being an unrestricted common law right. The appellant had no common law claim for unjust enrichment. The only remedy available to a taxpayer who wished to complain about allegedly overpaid council tax was to appeal to the valuation tribunal. That should not be a hardship for aggrieved taxpayers. The valuation tribunal was a specialist tribunal. Unlike the county court, it did not charge fees in this kind of case. Its procedures were informal, and well adapted to litigants in person. And the fact that it had no power to make an order for costs protected taxpayers from the risk of an adverse order if they were unsuccessful. The price which taxpayers had to pay for those advantages was the much shorter time limits than those which normally applied to claims at common law.
Charlotte Thomas (instructed by Lone & Co Solicitors, of Solihull) appeared for the appellant; Shomik Datta (instructed by Brian McKenna & Co, of Hounslow) appeared for the respondent.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
Click here to read a transcript of Lone v Hounslow London Borough Council
