Bello (on the application of) v London Borough of Lewisham

A challenge to council tax liability, including identity or responsibility for the dwelling, must be brought under section 16 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to a valuation tribunal. It cannot be raised in magistrates’ enforcement proceedings under Part VI of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, because regulation 57 excludes matters capable of appeal under section 16. Judicial review of a later enforcement order cannot provide an indirect route to challenge the original liability order out of time. Permission to appeal will be refused where the proposed appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.

Mr Bello sought judicial review of an order made by Greenwich Magistrates’ Court requiring him to pay £410.39 in council tax arrears within 28 days or face 90 days’ imprisonment. The order enforced a liability order made on 28 May 1996 concerning council tax for premises at 140 New Cross Road, Lewisham.

Mr Bello argued that he was not the person liable, that he did not own or control the premises, and that he had not received notice before the magistrates’ order. Mr Justice Turner refused judicial review on the grounds that the liability issue belonged before a valuation tribunal and that the challenge was out of time. The central issue on the application for permission to appeal was whether those conclusions disclosed an arguable appeal.

The application for permission to appeal was dismissed. Lord Justice May held that the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

1. Proper forum for liability challenge. Section 16 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 provides the route to a valuation tribunal for a person aggrieved by a billing authority’s decision that he is liable to pay council tax in respect of a dwelling. The challenge based on Mr Bello’s identity and alleged responsibility for the premises therefore had to be brought through that statutory appeal route.
2. Limits of magistrates’ enforcement jurisdiction. Part VI of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 establishes the magistrates’ enforcement procedure. Regulation 57 prevents a matter capable of appeal under section 16 from being raised in proceedings under that Part. The magistrates’ court was therefore not the competent forum to investigate the factual dispute about identity and liability.
3. Time and procedural points. The judicial review application was in time insofar as it challenged the magistrates’ order of 13 July 1999. It was, however, hopelessly out of time insofar as it sought to challenge the underlying liability order made on 28 May 1996. The late receipt of documents in the judicial review proceedings did not materially assist the proposed appeal.
4. Additional procedural defect. The magistrates whose order was challenged had not been joined as respondents. That was an additional difficulty with the judicial review application. The bankruptcy point also had no direct bearing on either the 1996 liability order or the 1999 enforcement order.

The application for permission to appeal was refused, with the formal order that it be dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2001] EWCA Civ 49, Lord Justice May refused permission to appeal and dismissed the application.
• High Court, Administrative Court: Mr Justice Turner refused the judicial review application on 9 October 2000. He held that the liability challenge belonged before a valuation tribunal under section 16 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and that the challenge to the underlying liability order was out of time.