Council tax: Liability

Council tax: Liability

Council tax sole or main residence - appellant owning cottage but living elsewhere with wife for work purposes - valuation tribunal finding appellant liable for full council tax on cottage as sole or main residence - whether tribunal erring in law - appeal allowed

Williams v Horsham District Council: QBD: Administrative Court (Mr Justice McCombe): 26 June 2003

The appellant owned the freehold of a cottage that fell within the respondent council's administrative area for council tax purposes.

Between January 1993 and July 1997, the appellant and his wife stayed not at the cottage, but in accommodation provided in connection with his employment as a housemaster at a college.

He occasionally visited the cottage to carry out maintenance, but never stayed overnight.

During the relevant period, the appellant paid full council tax to the respondents in respect of the cottage.

In 1998, he applied, under section 11(2)(a) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for a 50% rebate.

He contended that he had not been 'resident' at the cottage during the relevant period, as defined in section 6(5) of the Act, because it had not been his 'sole or main residence'.

The respondents refused the rebate, and the appellant appealed to a valuation tribunal.

The tribunal considered several authorities, and found that the appellant's case differed from them in two ways - his wife stayed with him in his work accommodation; and he never stayed overnight at the cottage.

However, the tribunal took the view that those factors were insufficient to tip the balance in the appellant's favour, given the importance of his intention to return and his security of tenure in the cottage.

The tribunal accordingly dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed.

The appellant in person; Jonathan Easton (instructed by the solicitor to Horsham District Council) for the respondents.

Held: The appeal was allowed.

The tribunal erred in regarding two factors as overriding criteria, and in elevating them above the status they deserved.

There was no justification for the view that despite the differences between the appellant's case and the cited authorities, the factors of security of tenure and the intention to return were somehow 'trump cards'.

The matter would accordingly be remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration - Ward v Kingston upon Hull City Council [1993] RA 71, Bradford City Council v Anderton [1991] RA 45, Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Stark [1998] RVR 80, Cox v London South West Valuation and Community Charge Tribunal [1994] RVR 171 and Bennett v Copeland Borough Council [2003] EWHC 990 (Admin); (2003) 100(12) LSG 33 considered.