Listing Officer v Aristides & Anor

Whether a building is a self-contained unit for council tax purposes is determined objectively by reference to what was constructed or adapted, not by the developer’s subjective intention or the building’s actual use. The statutory phrase applies equally to construction and adaptation. The absence or removal of cooking facilities is not necessarily decisive; its significance depends on the circumstances. A valuation tribunal errs in law if it treats intended temporary occupation as controlling and fails to assess the physical characteristics of the unit.

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. The Tribunal had concluded that a detached studio in the respondents’ grounds was merely incidental to the main house and should be treated as part of one dwelling. The studio had living, kitchen, bathroom and bedroom facilities, although its cooker and cooking point were later removed. The central issue was whether, under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and the Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992, the studio was a self-contained unit requiring separate listing.

1. The appeal was allowed. Under regulation 32 of the Council Tax (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993, the High Court could intervene only on a question of law. Findings of fact remained for the Tribunal unless affected by legal error.
2. Section 3(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 permits an order to treat one dwelling as two or more dwellings. Article 3 of the Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992 requires a single property containing more than one self-contained unit to be treated as comprising as many dwellings as there are such units.
3. The definition of self-contained unit in Article 2 requires an objective assessment of whether the building or part of the building was constructed or adapted for use as separate living accommodation. The same approach applies to both construction and adaptation. Subjective intention, actual use and the impracticability of selling part of the property are irrelevant. Planning permission and the absence of a bath or shower are not decisive: per R (On the application of) Williams (Listing Officer) v Royal National Institute for the Blind & Ors [2003] EWCH 1308, Coleman (Listing Officer) v Rotsztein [2003] EWHC 1057 and Jorgensen (Listing Officer) v Gomperts [2006] EWCH Admin 1885.
4. The Tribunal had materially misdirected itself by treating the respondents’ original intention to use the studio temporarily as determinative. On the facts found, the studio retained living, kitchen, shower, cloakroom and bedroom facilities after the cooker was removed. The Tribunal had itself regarded that removal as a matter of minor consideration. No remission was therefore necessary. The only proper conclusion was that the studio was a self-contained unit and should be separately listed.

• West Wales Valuation Tribunal: on 17 March 2006, concluded that the studio was incidental to the main house and should be treated as part of one dwelling.
• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the Listing Officer’s appeal on the question of law and held that the studio was a self-contained unit requiring separate listing.