Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2013] All ER (D) 211 (May)
Neutral Citation: [2013] EWHC 1239 (Admin)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court
Judge:

Mr Justice Wyn Williams

Representation The appellants appeared in person.
  Jane Hodgson (instructed by Legal & Constitutional Services) for the respondent.
Judgment Dates: 16 May 2013

Catchwords

Local Government - Council tax - Liability - Valuation Tribunal determining appellants responsible for council tax in relation to property of which registered owners - Respondent's case being that premises in multiple occupation - Appellants' case being that whole of premises let to bona fide tenants who accordingly were responsible for council tax - Appellants relying upon copies of tenancy agreements - Respondent's evidence casting doubt on genuineness of tenancy agreements - Tribunal concluding premises in multiple occupation and appellants accordingly responsible for council tax - Appellants appealing - Whether tribunal erring - Whether premises in multiple occupation - , - Council Tax (Liability of Owners) Regulations 1992, reg 2, 2A.

The Case

Local Government Council tax. In February 2012, the Valuation Tribunal determined that the appellants were responsible for council tax in respect of a property in relation to which they were the registered owners. The respondent's case was that the premises were in multiple occupation and that council tax was payable by the registered owners. The appellants' case was that, throughout the relevant period, the whole of the premises were let to bona fide tenants and accordingly it was those tenants who were responsible for council tax. The appellants relied upon documentation including copies of tenancy agreements. The respondent relied on evidence which cast doubt upon the genuineness of the tenancy agreements. The tribunal concluded that, during the period, the premises were in multiple occupation and that accordingly, the appellants were responsible for paying the council tax due for the period. The appellants appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that tribunal had been entitled to conclude that it was not satisfied that the agreements were genuine in the face of the evidence which tended to prove the contrary.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.