Council tax — Eligibility for reduction on ground of resident disabled person — Regulation 3(1)(i) of Council Tax (Reductions for Disabilities) Regulations 1992 — Whether valuation tribunal erring in application of regulations — Appeal allowed
The respondent taxpayers each claimed entitlement to a reduction in council tax, pursuant to section 13(6) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, on the ground that a disabled person had their sole or main residence in their property. The relevant criteria were contained in regulation 3(1)(i) of the Council Tax (Reductions for Disabilities) Regulations 1992, which applied where a room, other than a bathroom, a kitchen or lavatory, “is predominantly used (whether for providing therapy or otherwise) by and is required for meeting the needs of any qualifying individual resident in the dwelling”.
The respondent in the first case was profoundly deaf, and lived alone in a house in which the living room was fitted with a hearing loop that was connected to other appliances, enabling him to hear the television and radio, as well as the speech of visitors, provided that he remained in that room. In the second case, the respondent lived in a household of five, including two people with Down’s Syndrome, each of whom had a bedroom in which they spent the majority of their time. The rooms had not been physically adapted in any way, although medical evidence indicated that the occupants needed a safe, private environment to which they could retreat, which the bedrooms provided. In both cases, the appellant council refused to grant a reduction in council tax, but their decision was reversed on appeal to the valuation tribunal. In the first case, the tribunal reasoned that the hearing loop was for the respondent’s well-being and that the living room was predominantly used for that purpose since he occupied the house. In the second case, the tribunal found that the bedrooms were predominantly used for meeting the needs of the disabled persons by providing a therapeutic environment. The appellants appealed, raising issues as to the correct interpretation of regulation 3(1)(i).
Held: The appeals were allowed.
1. Regulation 3(1)(i) required that the room was: (i) not a bathroom, kitchen or lavatory; (ii) predominantly used by a qualifying individual, whether for providing therapy or otherwise; and, (iii) essential or of major importance to that individual’s well-being by reason of the nature and extent of his or her disabilities. The third element had to add something to the previous two, although it did not require the disabled person to find it physically impossible or extremely difficult to live in the dwelling without the room, or that his or her health would suffer or the disability to worsen without it. The room had to be additional in the sense that it would not be required for the relevant purpose if the qualifying individual were not disabled: Howell-Williams v Wirral Borough Council (1981) 79 LGR 697, Luton Borough Council v Ball [2001] EWHC 328 (Admin) and R (Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council) v Perks [2003] EWHC 1749 (Admin) applied.
2. In the first of the two cases, the respondent used the living room because it was a living room, and would do so even if his hearing were unimpaired. The loop system, not the room, was essential to his well-being by reason of the nature and extent of his disability and consequently, the room was in no sense “additional”. In the second case, the bedrooms were not additional because the qualifying individuals would still have their own bedrooms while living with the respondent even if they had no disability, although they might spend less time in those rooms.
Ian Wightwick (instructed by the legal department of South Gloucestershire District Council) appeared for the appellants; Daniel Kolinsky (instructed by RNID Casework Services) appeared for the respondent in the first case; the respondent in the second case appeared in person.
Sally Dobson, barrister
