Council tax — Rateable occupation – Floating vessel – Valuation list – Moored vessel used as dwelling – Respondent valuation officer entering vessel in valuation list in council tax band A – Whether appellant occupier of vessel in rateable occupation of hereditament such that properly included in list – Whether occupation having sufficient degree of permanence – Appeal dismissed
The appellant and his family lived in a former Thames tugboat that had been fitted out to provide normal domestic accommodation, including two bedrooms, a sitting room, a kitchen and a bathroom. In late 2008, they moved the boat along the coast from its previous mooring in Bristol to a riverside position in an estuary adjacent to a business park in Chivenor, North Devon. There was no established residential mooring at the new location; the vessel was secured by lines fore and aft to the riverbed or riverbank and rested on the riverbed at low tide, in a pit that the respondent had dug to ensure that it lay flat. There were no sewerage facilities or other land services save for a hope pipe to replenish water tanks.
In 2010, the respondent listing officer entered the vessel into the council tax valuation list, in band A, with effect from December 2008. The appellant appealed successfully to the valuation tribunal, which determined that the list entry should be deleted. The tribunal found that the respondent’s occupation of the area of riverbed and riverbank on which the vessel was moored lacked the necessary degree of permanence to qualify as a rateable hereditament, in light of the nature of the vessel and the overall circumstances of the mooring arrangements, including the way the vessel was secured without any formal laid-out mooring.
That decision was subsequently reversed by the High Court on an appeal by the respondent. The judge noted that there was no dispute that the vessel met the first three tests of rateable occupation, namely that the respondent and his family were in actual occupation of the vessel on an area of the riverbed, the occupation was exclusively for their own purposes and it had been of value to them. He held that the tribunal had erred in failing to attach importance to the duration of the occupation when considering the fourth test of sufficient permanence; he held that, where the vessel had remained in place for more than two years, the physical arrangements for mooring did not affect the permanent character of the occupation: see [2012] EWHC 415 (Admin); [2012] PLSCS 52. The appellant appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
Under the relevant legislation, the resident of a dwelling would be liable for council tax under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 if the dwelling was such as would have constituted a hereditament for the purposes of the General Rate Act 1967 had that Act remained in force. The answer to that otherwise incomprehensible question was to be found in the four tests laid down by the authorities; in addition to the first three requirements of actual occupation that was exclusive for the particular purposes of the occupier and of some value or benefit to him, there was a fourth requirement that the occupation should have the character of permanence and not be too transient: John Laing & Son Ltd v Assessment Committee for Kingswood Assessment Area [1949] 1 KB 344; (1948) 152 EG 482 applied. The occupier had to have put down some roots that tied him to indefinite occupation and made him a “settler” in the property rather than a wayfarer passing by. The settler would have adopted the property for his residence for settled purposes as part of the regular order of his life for the time being, whereas the wayfarer was an itinerant of no fixed abode.
Various factors would help identify whether the occupation had a sufficient degree of permanence. The intention of the occupier could be a relevant, although not an overriding, factor. The place itself might also give a clue, such that an established mooring might give more sense of permanence that dropping an anchor at a random spot. In that regard, and digging of a pit in which the respondent’s vessel could lie was more indicative of the permanence of the mooring that its transience. The character of permanence could not be determined solely by reference to the duration of occupation but required a consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the particular case. However, in the circumstances of the instant case, the respondent’s occupation for two years was the single most important factor in the balance and the valuation tribunal had erred in failing to recognise the cogency of that factor. On the facts of the case, the time that the respondent had spent moored in the estuary was not simply a factor of weight but the crucial and determinative factor. The duration of occupation was so overwhelming a factor that no reasonable tribunal, properly directed, could have reached any other conclusion than that the vessel was correctly entered in the valuation list: London County Council v Wilkins (VO) [1957] AC 362; (1956) 168 EG 68 applied.
Stephen Knafler QC (instructed by Avon and Bristol Law Centre) appeared for the appellant; Galina Ward (instructed by the rating and valuation department of HMRC) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
Council tax — Rateable occupation – Floating vessel – Valuation list – Moored vessel used as dwelling – Respondent valuation officer entering vessel in valuation list in council tax band A – Whether appellant occupier of vessel in rateable occupation of hereditament such that properly included in list – Whether occupation having sufficient degree of permanence – Appeal dismissedThe appellant and his family lived in a former Thames tugboat that had been fitted out to provide normal domestic accommodation, including two bedrooms, a sitting room, a kitchen and a bathroom. In late 2008, they moved the boat along the coast from its previous mooring in Bristol to a riverside position in an estuary adjacent to a business park in Chivenor, North Devon. There was no established residential mooring at the new location; the vessel was secured by lines fore and aft to the riverbed or riverbank and rested on the riverbed at low tide, in a pit that the respondent had dug to ensure that it lay flat. There were no sewerage facilities or other land services save for a hope pipe to replenish water tanks.In 2010, the respondent listing officer entered the vessel into the council tax valuation list, in band A, with effect from December 2008. The appellant appealed successfully to the valuation tribunal, which determined that the list entry should be deleted. The tribunal found that the respondent’s occupation of the area of riverbed and riverbank on which the vessel was moored lacked the necessary degree of permanence to qualify as a rateable hereditament, in light of the nature of the vessel and the overall circumstances of the mooring arrangements, including the way the vessel was secured without any formal laid-out mooring.That decision was subsequently reversed by the High Court on an appeal by the respondent. The judge noted that there was no dispute that the vessel met the first three tests of rateable occupation, namely that the respondent and his family were in actual occupation of the vessel on an area of the riverbed, the occupation was exclusively for their own purposes and it had been of value to them. He held that the tribunal had erred in failing to attach importance to the duration of the occupation when considering the fourth test of sufficient permanence; he held that, where the vessel had remained in place for more than two years, the physical arrangements for mooring did not affect the permanent character of the occupation: see [2012] EWHC 415 (Admin); [2012] PLSCS 52. The appellant appealed.Held: The appeal was dismissed. Under the relevant legislation, the resident of a dwelling would be liable for council tax under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 if the dwelling was such as would have constituted a hereditament for the purposes of the General Rate Act 1967 had that Act remained in force. The answer to that otherwise incomprehensible question was to be found in the four tests laid down by the authorities; in addition to the first three requirements of actual occupation that was exclusive for the particular purposes of the occupier and of some value or benefit to him, there was a fourth requirement that the occupation should have the character of permanence and not be too transient: John Laing & Son Ltd v Assessment Committee for Kingswood Assessment Area [1949] 1 KB 344; (1948) 152 EG 482 applied. The occupier had to have put down some roots that tied him to indefinite occupation and made him a “settler” in the property rather than a wayfarer passing by. The settler would have adopted the property for his residence for settled purposes as part of the regular order of his life for the time being, whereas the wayfarer was an itinerant of no fixed abode.Various factors would help identify whether the occupation had a sufficient degree of permanence. The intention of the occupier could be a relevant, although not an overriding, factor. The place itself might also give a clue, such that an established mooring might give more sense of permanence that dropping an anchor at a random spot. In that regard, and digging of a pit in which the respondent’s vessel could lie was more indicative of the permanence of the mooring that its transience. The character of permanence could not be determined solely by reference to the duration of occupation but required a consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the particular case. However, in the circumstances of the instant case, the respondent’s occupation for two years was the single most important factor in the balance and the valuation tribunal had erred in failing to recognise the cogency of that factor. On the facts of the case, the time that the respondent had spent moored in the estuary was not simply a factor of weight but the crucial and determinative factor. The duration of occupation was so overwhelming a factor that no reasonable tribunal, properly directed, could have reached any other conclusion than that the vessel was correctly entered in the valuation list: London County Council v Wilkins (VO) [1957] AC 362; (1956) 168 EG 68 applied.Stephen Knafler QC (instructed by Avon and Bristol Law Centre) appeared for the appellant; Galina Ward (instructed by the rating and valuation department of HMRC) appeared for the respondent.Sally Dobson, barrister