Regentford Ltd, R (on the application of) v Shepway District Council

On a statutory appeal concerning council tax liability, the tribunal had to reach its own decision on the evidence and determine liability on the balance of probabilities. It could not treat the local authority’s refusal to amend its records as decisive. A Land Registry check was relevant but could not conclusively determine liability. A reference to the need for irrefutable evidence did not necessarily impose a higher standard of proof when read in context. Tribunals must give clear and properly reasoned decisions, identifying the principal findings on contested factual issues.

Regentford Ltd, the freehold owner of a shop and five flats, appealed under regulation 51 of the Valuation and Charge Tribunal Regulations 1989 against a tribunal decision concerning council tax liability. It argued that long leases made another company liable for Flats 1 and 3, and that assured shorthold tenants were liable for Flats 2, 4 and 5.

The tribunal dismissed the appeals. The central issues were whether it had applied the correct approach to the evidence concerning Flats 1 and 3, and whether it had imposed an excessive burden of proof concerning Flats 2, 4 and 5.

1. Flats 1 and 3. The statutory appeal succeeded. The tribunal had failed to determine for itself, on all the evidence, whether Regentford had established on the balance of probabilities that other persons were liable for the council tax. Its reasons suggested that the council’s unwillingness to amend its records was treated as sufficient to dismiss the appeal. That was the wrong question. The tribunal had to decide the legal liability issue itself.
2. The tribunal was entitled to take account of the absence of a Land Registry change of ownership, but that circumstance could not be conclusive. It also failed to explain why the documentary evidence produced by Regentford was insufficient.
3. Flats 2, 4 and 5. This limb of the appeal failed. The reference to the absence of irrefutable evidence did not, in context, demonstrate that the tribunal had applied a standard higher than the balance of probabilities. The tribunal had been entitled to rely particularly on Regentford’s signed statement that the flats were empty when the alleged tenancies began, together with the other evidential deficiencies.
4. The tribunal’s reasoning on Flats 2, 4 and 5 was discernible but insufficiently clear. Tribunals must give properly reasoned decisions, especially where facts are contested, identifying the principal findings so that the parties can understand the result and assess its validity.
5. The tribunal’s decision concerning Flats 1 and 3 was set aside and remitted for rehearing. Regentford succeeded in part and was awarded its costs of the appeal, summarily assessed at £3,547.

The judgment describes a statutory appeal from a decision of the Kent Valuation Tribunal dated 26 August 2005. The Administrative Court allowed the appeal in part, set aside the decision concerning Flats 1 and 3, remitted that issue for rehearing, and upheld the result concerning Flats 2, 4 and 5.