South Gloucestershire Council v Titley & Anor

A council tax disability reduction requires more than occupation of a room by a substantially and permanently disabled person. Under regulation 3, the relevant room must be predominantly used by the qualifying individual and must itself be essential or of major importance to that person’s well-being because of the nature and extent of the disability.

The room must be additional in the relevant sense: it would not be required for that purpose if the person were not disabled. Equipment placed in an ordinary living room does not make the room qualifying where the equipment, rather than the room, is required because of the disability. A bedroom used as a sanctuary will likewise fail where the person would have required that bedroom in any event.

South Gloucestershire Council appealed against two decisions of the Severnside Valuation Tribunal. The tribunals had allowed council tax reductions under regulation 3(1)(a)(i) of the Council Tax (Reductions for Disabilities) Regulations 1992.

Mr Titley, who was profoundly deaf, used a living room containing a hearing loop system. Mr Clothier’s adult household members, both qualifying individuals, used separate bedrooms as therapeutic and private sanctuaries. The central issue was whether those rooms were required for meeting the disabled residents’ needs, or whether the disability required only equipment or additional use of rooms that would otherwise have been needed.

1. The appeals were allowed. The tribunal decisions were quashed. Mr Titley’s case was remitted for consideration of his alternative application based on his use of a second bedroom as a study. No order as to costs was made by consent.
2. Regulation 3(1)(a)(i) requires a room which is: (a) not a bathroom, kitchen or lavatory; (b) predominantly used by a qualifying individual, whether for therapy or otherwise; and (c) essential or of major importance to that individual’s well-being by reason of the nature and extent of the disability. The third requirement must add something to the first two.
3. The relevant room must be additional in the sense that it would not be required for the relevant purpose if the person were not disabled. This requirement reflects the statutory scheme, including the treatment of additional bathrooms, kitchens and wheelchair space. The regulations do not require proof that, without the room, the disabled person would find it physically impossible or extremely difficult to live in the dwelling, or that health would suffer.
4. Mr Titley’s living room did not qualify. He used it as a living room and would have done so without impaired hearing. The hearing loop, rather than the room, was essential to his well-being because of his disability. The reasoning in Howell-Williams v Wirral BC (1981) 79 LGR 697 applied.
5. Mr Clothier’s case was closer but produced the same result. Although the bedrooms provided therapeutic and private environments, Michelle and Michael would each have needed a bedroom if they had not been disabled. Neither room was therefore additional.
6. The court agreed with the causative-link approach stated in R (Sandwell MBC) v Perks [2003] EWHC 1749 Admin, while also relying on the reasoning in Luton BC v Ball [2001] EWHC Admin 328.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeals from decisions of the Severnside Valuation Tribunal were allowed. The tribunal decisions were quashed, and Mr Titley’s alternative application was remitted.