Listing Officer, R (on the application of) v Royal National Institute for the Blind & Ors

Whether part of a building is a self-contained unit depends on whether it was constructed or adapted for use as separate living accommodation. No two-stage test is required. The question must be answered by reference to all objective circumstances, including the use for which the remainder of the building was constructed. Subjective intention, actual use and practical difficulties in selling part of the building are not relevant. The absence of bathing facilities and the terms of planning permission are not decisive. In a purpose-built care home, the facilities and design serving visually impaired residents may be relevant to whether accommodation was constructed for separate living. A unit need not be designed or used for every aspect of entirely independent living.

The Listing Officer appealed from the Somerset Valuation Tribunal’s decision of 27 January 2003. The tribunal had allowed the Royal National Institute for the Blind’s appeal against the separate council tax assessment of four residential units at Kathleen Chambers House, a purpose-built care home for blind and partially sighted residents.

The parties agreed that the domestic property was a single property for the purposes of the Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992. The issue was whether each unit was a self-contained unit under Article 3, applying the definition in Article 2.

1. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the Valuation Tribunal’s decision was quashed. The matter was remitted to a freshly constituted tribunal for further consideration.

2. Article 2 required the court to decide whether the relevant part of the building had been constructed or adapted for use as separate living accommodation. No two-stage test was required. The question was to be answered in the light of all objective circumstances, including the use for which the remainder of the building had been constructed.

3. In a purpose-built care home for blind or partially sighted residents, the relevant objective circumstances included the design and facilities provided for their accommodation and care, such as textured surfaces, handrails and speaking lifts. If the relevant part had been constructed for use as separate living accommodation for those residents, it was a self-contained unit and had to be separately assessed.

4. The tribunal’s findings were flawed and internally inconsistent. Its finding that independent living could be accommodated in the units was substantially a finding that they had been constructed for use as separate living accommodation. Its reliance on the RNIB’s subjective intention was erroneous. The statutory question concerned construction for use as separate living accommodation, not an intention to provide, or actual provision of, entirely independent living.

5. The tribunal should not have compared the four units with other units which were not in issue. It had to determine independently whether the disputed units satisfied the statutory definition.

6. The court declined to substitute an order restoring the Listing Officer’s decision because the correct approach might still lead the tribunal to allow the RNIB’s appeal. The respondents were ordered to pay £4,000 towards the appellant’s costs. Permission to appeal was refused because the matter was a second appeal and the court lacked jurisdiction to grant permission.

• Somerset Valuation Tribunal: On 27 January 2003, allowed the RNIB’s appeal against the Listing Officer’s decision to separately assess four units for council tax.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Quashed the tribunal’s decision and remitted the matter to a fresh tribunal for further consideration.