Salmon, R (on the application of) v Feltham Magistrates Court & Anor

The statutory scheme permits council tax to be demanded prospectively, despite liability being determined on a daily basis. Regulations made under the enabling provisions may require payments on account by reference to an estimate of future liability.

In enforcement proceedings, matters which could be appealed to a valuation tribunal cannot ordinarily be raised as a defence to a liability order. A judicial review court will not interfere with factual findings by magistrates unless the case falls within a very exceptional category. Article 6 does not convert disputes about the underlying council tax liability or the authority’s prior decisions into complaints about the fairness of the liability-order hearing.

The claimant sought judicial review of a liability order made by Feltham Magistrates’ Court for unpaid council tax relating to the first and second floors of a maisonette.

The Council treated the property as a prescribed house in multiple occupation, making the owner liable under the statutory scheme. The claimant argued that the regulations were ultra vires, that a tenant had offered to pay the council tax, that the property was not a house in multiple occupation, and that the proceedings breached Article 6. The Administrative Court had to determine whether those grounds justified quashing the liability order.

1. Ultra vires. The challenge to the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 failed. Although section 2 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 determines liability daily, Schedule 2 expressly permits regulations providing for payments on account, including payments during the financial year, calculated by reference to an estimate and assumptions about future liability. The regulations therefore validly authorised prospective collection.
2. Alleged tender. The evidence did not establish that the tenant had tendered the council tax and the authority’s reasonably incurred costs, as required by regulation 34(5). The magistrates were entitled to prefer the written evidence and were not required to treat an enquiry about payment as a sufficient tender. The claimant’s alternative argument concerning payment by a third party was unnecessary to decide, although the judge indicated that a genuine tender accepted by the authority would ordinarily remove any legitimate interest in continuing the application.
3. House in multiple occupation. The question whether the property was a prescribed house in multiple occupation, and whether the claimant was liable as owner, was appealable to a valuation tribunal under section 16. By paragraph 57(1) of the regulations, that matter could not be raised in enforcement proceedings before the magistrates. In any event, the evidence supported the designation.
4. Review of facts and Article 6. There was no basis for interfering with the magistrates’ factual findings. The claimant had not shown perversity, a decision no reasonable court could reach, or a decision completely contrary to the evidence. The complaints concerning evidence, the Council’s prior designation, and the failure to bill the tenant did not establish an unfair trial under Article 6.
5. The application was dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay the second defendant’s costs, subject to detailed assessment. Permission to appeal was refused because there was no realistic prospect of success.

The judgment does not state an earlier appellate decision. It records that Charles J granted permission to apply for judicial review on 1 November 2007.