Hanson, R (on the application of) v Middlesbrough Borough Council

For a council tax disability reduction, a facility is required to meet a disabled resident’s needs where it is essential or of major importance to the resident’s well-being by reason of the nature and extent of the disability. “Major importance” is not equivalent to physical impossibility or extreme difficulty without the facility. It is sufficient that the facility is seriously important and of real significance. The statutory test must not be supplemented by requirements that the adaptation be detectable to a potential purchaser, or that it eliminate rather than reduce risk. The causative link between the disability and the facility remains essential.

Mr and Mrs Hanson appealed under section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 against the Teesside Valuation Tribunal’s dismissal of their appeal under section 16 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. They sought a council tax reduction under the Council Tax (Reductions for Disabilities) Regulations 1992 for an en suite bathroom created to meet Mrs Hanson’s needs as a person with serious visual impairment.

The Tribunal accepted the importance of the facility but applied an “extremely difficult” test and considered that a potential purchaser could not detect the adaptation. The central issue was the proper meaning and application of the statutory requirement that the facility be essential or of major importance to the disabled resident’s well-being by reason of the disability.

1. Appeal allowed. The court allowed the appeal from the Teesside Valuation Tribunal and ordered the Council to pay £370 expenses.
2. Regulation 3 of the Council Tax (Reductions for Disabilities) Regulations 1992 imposes two requirements. The additional facility must be either essential or, although not essential, of major importance to the disabled resident’s well-being. That importance must be caused by the nature and extent of the disability.
3. The Tribunal erred in law by equating “major importance” with being physically impossible or extremely difficult to live in the dwelling without the facility. “Major importance” is a distinct and less demanding alternative to essentiality. It means that the facility must be seriously important and of real significance, rather than of minor importance.
4. The Tribunal also erred by treating the absence of detectable adaptation from the perspective of a potential purchaser as relevant. That imposed an additional hurdle not found in the Regulations. The Tribunal further made a material factual error in treating the property as already having an en suite bathroom.
5. A reduction in risk may be of major importance even where the risk is not eliminated. The characterisation of a grip rail as an accessory rather than a constituent feature was immaterial, and the availability of another bathroom did not determine the issue.
6. The judge determined the issue rather than remitting it. The en suite bathroom, including its grip rail and bidet, was of major importance to Mrs Hanson on account of her blindness, and the required causative link was established.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — The appeal under section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 was allowed. The Tribunal’s decision was displaced and the Council was ordered to pay £370 expenses.
2. Teesside Valuation Tribunal — The Tribunal dismissed the Hansons’ appeal against the Council’s refusal of a council tax disability reduction.