R (on the application of DANIELS) v BARNET LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (2007)
The above council tax discounts case has recently been reported. Forum members can see the full official judgement on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute website at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/1885.html
Key points of the case follow. Members are advised however that this summary should not be relied upon in legal proceedings as it is not a legal summary.
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF DANIELS v BARNET LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (2007)
[2007] EWHC 1885 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Lloyd Jones J) 15/5/2007
A local authority was entitled to rescind with retrospective effect a council tax discount in respect of an unoccupied property.
The appellant (D) appealed against a Valuation Tribunal’s decision to uphold the rescinding by the respondent local authority of a discount for an unoccupied property that had previously been granted. D had notified in 2003 that the property was unoccupied, whereupon the local authority increased D's discount on his council tax from 25 per cent for sole occupancy to 50 per cent for non-occupancy. A notice of reduction of the discount for non-occupancy to 10 per cent was given to D in 2006. D challenged to that notice, one ground being that the property was his main residence. Following this, the previous discount of 50 per cent was rescinded, a 25 per cent discount was reinstated, and the local authority sought recovery of the resulting shortfall. It was D’s view that (1) the local authority could not make such an adjustment with retrospective effect; (2) it was not common ground that the property was his main residence; (3) the tribunal had been misled by the failure of the local authority to draw attention to the Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992.
It was held that (1) The tribunal had been entitled to uphold the local authority's decision to change the discount with retrospective effect. The liability to pay was determinable each day and not on a once and for all basis at the commencement of each financial year. There was a power to make adjustment so as to correct the rate of discount allowed in any demand. (2) In the circumstances, the tribunal had been entitled to conclude that there was a resident in the dwelling. On that basis D would have been entitled to the 25 per cent discount which, it was common ground, he ought to retain. (3) It did not appear that the tribunal had been misled in any way, as there was nothing to suggest that the tribunal was influenced by considerations of whether or not the property was furnished.
Appeal dismissed
Copyright © 2025 · All Rights Reserved · Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation
Warning: Undefined array key "User_id" in /home/irrvnet/public_html/forumalert/inc_footer.php on line 4