Listing Officer v Bryant & Ors

Whether accommodation is a self-contained unit depends on whether it was constructed or adapted for use as separate living accommodation. The inquiry concerns the physical characteristics of the accommodation, including the facilities provided, rather than the identity or needs of its occupants.

The absence of a bath or shower does not prevent accommodation from being self-contained. Communal facilities may be relevant, but communal living, dependency, the ownership or management arrangements, and the practicability of separate sale are not themselves relevant criteria. Where the only reasonable conclusion is that units are self-contained, the High Court may determine the statutory appeal rather than remit it to the valuation tribunal.

The Listing Officer appealed under regulation 32 of the Council Tax (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993 against a decision of the West Wales Valuation Tribunal concerning 11 bedsits occupied by elderly residents at Ty Gnoll, Neath.

The Tribunal had concluded that the bedsits were not self-contained units under article 2 of the Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992, and therefore should not be separately entered as dwellings under article 3. Each bedsit had a separate entrance, living area, kitchen, lavatory and washbasin, but no bath or shower; bathing facilities were shared. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had applied the statutory definition correctly.

Appeal allowed. The Tribunal had erred in law in four respects.

1. The absence of a bath or shower did not, by itself, prevent a unit from being constructed or adapted for use as separate living accommodation. The reasoning in R v London South East Valuation Tribunal and Neale, ex parte Moore [2001] RVR 92 supported that conclusion.
2. The Tribunal wrongly considered that the elderly nature of the residents and their possible need for assistance was relevant. Article 2 concerned the way in which the building had been constructed or adapted, not the identity of its occupants or the manner in which they used it.
3. The degree of communal living and dependency was not a relevant consideration. Communal facilities could be relevant insofar as they assisted in determining whether the physical accommodation had been constructed for separate living accommodation, but the characteristics of the occupiers could not answer that question. The court followed the approach stated in Beasley Listing Officer v National Council of YMCAs [2000] RA 429 and Batty v Burfoot [1995] 2 RA 299.
4. The existence of a single access point and the supposed difficulty of separate sale on the open market were irrelevant. Many unquestionably self-contained flats had one access point, subject to fire-escape requirements.

The court left open whether the physical facilities inside a unit should always be considered before communal facilities elsewhere in the building. On the facts, however, the bedsits were on the same side of the line as the units in Beasley Listing Officer v National Council of YMCAs. They were undoubtedly constructed or adapted for separate living accommodation despite lacking showers.

Under regulation 32(4) of the Council Tax (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993, the court could confirm, vary, set aside, revoke or remit the Tribunal’s decision. Since only one reasonable conclusion was open and there was no opposition, the court decided the matter itself and ordered an appropriate entry in the valuation list, restoring the position before the residents’ proposals.

1. West Wales Valuation Tribunal: concluded that the 11 bedsits were not self-contained and should not be separately entered in the valuation list.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the statutory appeal under regulation 32, set aside the Tribunal’s conclusion and ordered that the valuation list be amended in accordance with the Listing Officer’s proposals.