DAVID VAUGHAN v SOUTH OXFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL (2013)
QBD (Admin) (Judge McKenna) 06/06/2013
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COUNCIL TAX : PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE : INDIVIDUAL CLAIMING SOLE OCCUPANCY DISCOUNT IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY : WHETHER PROPERTY SOLE OR MAIN RESIDENCE : WHETHER VALUATION TRIBUNAL'S DECISION IRRATIONAL
A valuation tribunal had not erred in upholding a local authority's decision that a property was not an individual's sole or main residence for council tax purposes, and therefore that he was not entitled to a sole occupancy discount.
The
appellant (V) appealed against a valuation tribunal's decision to uphold the
respondent local authority's decision that a particular property was not his
sole or main residence for council tax purposes.
V had claimed that the property was his sole or main residence during a
particular period, and therefore that he was entitled to a sole occupancy
discount. The local authority determined that the property was not his sole or
main residence, and that it was in fact a long-term empty and unoccupied
property. V appealed against that decision unsuccessfully to the valuation
tribunal. In refusing V's appeal, the tribunal referred to a previous decision
relating to the property by a different valuation tribunal, as well as evidence
submitted by V in support of his appeal and evidence that the local authority
had relied upon when making its decision.
V argued that there was no evidence to support the tribunal's decision, and
submitted that the tribunal acted irrationally by taking into account
irrelevant matters whilst failing to take into account other relevant
considerations.
HELD: The tribunal clearly applied the correct test, namely whether the
property was V's sole or main residence, not least because it referred to the
test expressly at the beginning of its decision. The valuation tribunal was a
specialist tribunal, and the instant court had to be slow to conclude that it
had applied incorrectly such a well-established test. The tribunal was plainly
entitled to take into account the matters that it had, including the previous
valuation tribunal's decision; the tribunal made it clear that it knew that it
was not bound by that earlier decision, but it was plainly relevant to the
issue it had to determine, and the weight to be attached to it was a matter for
the tribunal. Further, there was no justification for criticising the tribunal
for failing to have regard to the matters V said were relevant; it was plain
that the tribunal gave proper consideration to them, but nonetheless decided
that they were insufficient to discharge V's burden of showing that the
property was his sole or main residence. There was nothing inconsistent in the
fact that the local authority and tribunal had accepted that V stayed in the property
on various occasions, and the tribunal's finding that it was not his sole or
main residence for council tax purposes. Accordingly, the tribunal's conclusion
was one which a properly-directed tribunal could make in the face of the
totality of the evidence, was not irrational, and could not be impugned.
Appeal dismissed
Counsel:
For the appellant: In person
For the respondent: E Crorie
Solicitors:
For the respondent: In-house solicitor
LTL 6/6/2013 EXTEMPORE | |
Document No. AC9401341 | |
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