Daniels, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Barnet

Council tax liability and entitlement to discount are determined on a daily basis. A billing authority may therefore correct a discount retrospectively where later information shows that the discount previously allowed was excessive. The correction is not confined to the commencement of a financial year. A taxpayer’s entitlement depends on the circumstances existing on each relevant day. Where a taxpayer establishes sole residence, the applicable discount is the statutory single-person discount, rather than the higher discount for an unoccupied dwelling.

Mr Daniels brought a statutory appeal against a decision of the Valuation Tribunal dated 22 September 2006. The tribunal had upheld the London Borough of Barnet’s rescission of a 50 per cent unoccupied-property discount previously allowed in respect of the dwelling.

The tribunal found that Mr Daniels had been the sole resident, that the property was his main residence rather than a second home, and that his correct entitlement was a 25 per cent single-person discount. The central issue was whether the authority could correct the discount retrospectively.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The tribunal was entitled to uphold the authority’s retrospective correction of the discount. Costs were summarily assessed at £775 plus VAT.
2. Under the Local Government Finance Act 1992, council tax liability and the applicable discount are determined by reference to the circumstances existing on each day. The liability is not fixed once and for all at the beginning of the financial year.
3. The tribunal was entitled to find that Mr Daniels was resident in the property and therefore entitled to the 25 per cent single-person discount. His distinction between his “main home” and “main residence” did not alter the statutory question of residence.
4. The authority was entitled to correct the earlier 50 per cent discount retrospectively when the information showed that the property was Mr Daniels’s main residence. The adjustment was made only from 9 October 2003.
5. Regulation 24(1) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 supported recovery of the difference where the chargeable amount proved greater than the estimated amount. The statutory scheme therefore provided power to adjust the rate of discount included in a demand.
6. The complaint concerning the Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Act 1992 failed. There was no suggestion that the property was unfurnished, and nothing indicated that the tribunal had been influenced by that issue.

• Valuation Tribunal: On 22 September 2006, upheld the billing authority’s retrospective rescission of the 50 per cent unoccupied-property discount and determined that the correct entitlement was a 25 per cent single-person discount.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Dismissed the statutory appeal and summarily assessed costs at £775 plus VAT.