Domblides v Listing Officer (Rev 1)

On an appeal under regulation 32 of the Council Tax (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993, the High Court determines questions of law only. Council tax banding does not ordinarily require the listing officer or tribunal to assign a precise value to the dwelling. The task is to place it within the appropriate statutory band at the 1991 valuation date.

The regulations leave the tribunal to assess the appropriate evidence. It may rely on comparable properties, previous tribunal decisions and the established tone of the list. As time passes, consistency and the accumulated body of tribunal decisions may justify giving those decisions increasing weight. A disagreement with the tribunal’s assessment of evidence does not establish an error of law or perversity.

The claimant appealed under regulation 32 of the Council Tax (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993 against the decision of the Wiltshire Valuation Tribunal dated 17 September 2007. The tribunal had dismissed his proposal to alter the banding of his newly built dwelling from band F to band E.

The claimant relied principally on a general house-price index, applied retrospectively to the purchase price, and on general evidence from an estate agent. The listing officer relied on previous valuation tribunal decisions concerning comparable properties. The central issues were whether a precise 1991 valuation was required and whether the tribunal had erred in law by preferring the listing officer’s evidence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The decision of the Wiltshire Valuation Tribunal was confirmed. The claimant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, summarily assessed at £8,100.
2. The appeal jurisdiction under regulation 32 was confined to a question of law. The High Court had no jurisdiction to reconsider the factual weight given to valuation evidence unless the tribunal’s conclusion was legally erroneous or perverse.
3. Under the Local Government Finance Act 1992, the relevant question was the band into which the dwelling fell by reference to its hypothetical 1 April 1991 value. The statutory scheme did not require a precise spot valuation of the individual dwelling. The broad valuation bands could be applied without determining an exact figure, although a precise valuation might be necessary in a borderline case.
4. The statutory and regulatory framework did not prescribe a particular valuation technique. The tribunal was entitled to reject or give little weight to a general regional index as unreliable evidence of the value of an individual property. It was also entitled to rely on previous valuation tribunal decisions concerning comparable properties.
5. The court accepted the principles identified in Atkinson and Others v Lord [1997] RA 413 (CA), including that the valuation officer need not invariably determine an exact value and that the regulations did not prescribe a valuation method. The reasoning in Stubbs v Hartnell (unreported (HC)) and the related Court of Appeal decision supported the limited scope of High Court intervention and the tribunal’s specialist role.
6. The use of previous decisions reflected the accepted concept of the tone of the list. Although those decisions rested on underlying valuation evidence, their relevance increased with the passage of time from the 1991 valuation date, particularly because consistency between comparable dwellings was an important statutory policy.
7. The tribunal was entitled to conclude that the listing officer’s schedule of comparable properties was more reliable than the claimant’s indexation evidence. That conclusion was a matter of expert judgment and disclosed no error of law or perversity.

• Wiltshire Valuation Tribunal: On 17 September 2007, dismissed the claimant’s appeal against the listing officer’s refusal to alter the dwelling’s valuation band.
• High Court (Administrative Court): On 1 December 2008, dismissed the appeal under regulation 32 and confirmed the tribunal’s decision.