Parry v Derbyshire Dales District Council No. 1

For council tax purposes, ownership of a dwelling does not itself make the owner resident there. A person must actually reside at the dwelling for it to be his or her sole or main residence. Whether residence has continued or resumed is a question of fact and degree, assessed by considering the material circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable onlooker. Security of tenure and an intention to return may be relevant, but neither is determinative. A prolonged absence, combined with residence elsewhere and no actual return, may end residence.

Gethin Parry appealed against the decision of the Derbyshire Valuation Tribunal, which had held that Ivanhoe Cottage was his sole or main residence between 1 December 2003 and 20 June 2004. He had moved to Spain for employment, rented accommodation there, obtained Spanish residency and paid Spanish taxes. The Cottage was let for two years. After the tenancy ended, he continued working and seeking work in Spain and did not return to live at the Cottage until June 2004.

The issue was whether he was liable as a resident with a freehold interest under section 6(2)(a) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, or only as owner under section 6(2)(f).

1. Appeal allowed. The Cottage was not the appellant’s sole or main residence during the relevant period. The Council was directed to assess his liability on the basis that he was owner, not resident.
2. Under section 6 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, ownership and residence are distinct concepts. An owner is not resident merely because he owns the dwelling or is legally able to occupy it.
3. Following Williams v Horsham District Council [2004] EWCA Civ 39, “sole or main residence” requires actual residence. The question is whether, in light of all material facts, a reasonable onlooker would regard the dwelling as the person’s home at the relevant time. The issue is one of fact and degree.
4. Security of tenure and the nature of the person’s interest may assist in deciding which of several places is the person’s main residence. They cannot establish residence where the person does not actually reside there. An intention to return is relevant only in context.
5. A person may remain resident during a holiday or temporary work absence, particularly where a spouse or family remains at the home or the person returns during leave. Those considerations did not apply here. The appellant lived in Spain for a prolonged period, did not return after the tenancy ended, and continued seeking employment there.
6. The removal of a legal impediment to occupation did not itself restore residence. Residence was a question of fact, not simply of law.

The Derbyshire Valuation Tribunal dismissed the appellant’s appeal on 4 October 2005. The High Court (Administrative Court) allowed the appeal and directed reassessment of council tax liability on the basis that the appellant was owner, not resident.