Carmarthenshire County Council, R (on the application of) v Evans

Eligibility for a council tax student disregard depends on satisfying each cumulative condition in paragraph 4(1) of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992. A course described as part-time may nevertheless qualify if the statutory requirements are met. The decisive requirement is the period for which students are normally required to attend. A reference to a course operating over a specified number of weeks is not, without more, evidence of a requirement to attend for that entire period. A tribunal commits an error of law if it misinterprets the evidence or treats a material disputed issue as undisputed. Its decision may then be quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

Mrs T J Evans appealed to the West Wales Valuation Tribunal after Carmarthenshire County Council refused her council tax student disregard discount. She was undertaking a four-year occupational therapy degree programme described as part-time.

The Tribunal allowed her appeal. In an amended decision, it treated correspondence from the course provider as establishing attendance for 33 weeks each year and stated that those facts were undisputed. The Council challenged that decision on the ground that the course did not satisfy the statutory definition of a full-time course, particularly the requirement of attendance for at least 24 weeks in each academic year.

1. Appeal allowed. The Tribunal’s decision was quashed and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel for further consideration.
2. Under paragraph 4(1) of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992, the course had to satisfy all three conditions: duration for at least one academic year; a normal requirement to attend for at least 24 weeks in each relevant year; and study, tuition or work experience averaging at least 21 hours a week during the attendance periods.
3. The Council conceded that the duration and hours conditions were satisfied. The appeal turned on the attendance condition in paragraph 4(1)(b).
4. The course provider’s letter stated that the programme was held over 33 weeks per year and that the equivalent study commitment was 27 hours per week. It did not state that students were required to attend the college for 33 full weeks each year. The Tribunal therefore misinterpreted the letter by treating it as establishing a 33-week attendance requirement.
5. The Tribunal also erred by stating that the relevant facts were undisputed. The Council had expressly disputed whether Mrs Evans was required to attend for at least 24 weeks in each academic year. Those errors were material errors of law. Because the evidence remained ambiguous, the appropriate course was remission rather than final determination of eligibility.

The judgment records the procedural history before the West Wales Valuation Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed Mrs Evans’s appeal against the Council’s refusal of the discount and issued an amended decision notice. The High Court then allowed the Council’s appeal, quashed the Tribunal’s decision and remitted the matter to a differently constituted panel.