McKenzie (Listing Officer), R (on the application of) v Marshall

In a challenge to council tax banding, the tribunal must determine whether the dwelling was placed in the wrong band from the outset. It must value the dwelling as at 1 April 1991 using the statutory assumptions, including the dwelling’s actual later-built character and relevant restrictions. A later change in value must not be confused with an initial misvaluation. If the valuation is within the lower band, the alteration takes effect from the date of the original entry in the list; otherwise the appeal must be dismissed. Where the tribunal’s findings do not reveal which considerations determined the result, the High Court should set aside the decision and remit it for reconsideration under the correct legal framework.

This was a statutory appeal by the Listing Officer from a Valuation Tribunal decision concerning the council tax band of a dwelling at 23 Oakleigh Drive, Swaffham. The Tribunal had concluded that the property belonged in Band B rather than Band C, but ordered the alteration to take effect from 17 May 2005, when estate management arrangements changed.

The parties agreed that the Tribunal had no power to select that date. The central issues were whether the Tribunal’s findings established an initial misvaluation or a later material reduction, whether post-listing events had been properly considered, and whether the High Court should determine the correct order or remit the matter.

1. Appeal and statutory task. The Tribunal erred in ordering the alteration to take effect from 17 May 2005. The relevant question was whether the dwelling had been placed in the wrong band from 1 January 2004. That required valuation as at 1 April 1991 on the statutory assumptions.
2. The hypothetical valuation had to use the property’s actual location and character as at 1 January 2004. It also had to assume that common parts were in reasonable repair and that the purchaser would contribute to their upkeep. Other value-affecting matters, including the section 106 restrictions, possible contamination and planning restrictions on occupancy, could be taken into account. The principle that statutory valuation assumptions must be applied even when the assumed conditions do not exist was supported by R v East Sussex Valuation Tribunal ex parte Silverstone [1996] RVR 203. The relevance of restrictions and contamination was supported by Re the Appeal of Grampian Valuation Joint Board Assessor [2003] RA 167.
3. If the resulting 1 April 1991 value did not exceed £52,000, the list should be altered to Band B with effect from 1 January 2004. If it exceeded £52,000, the appeal should be dismissed. The Tribunal’s reasons did not disclose what weight it gave to the pre-existing restrictions, common-part obligations and later management-company liabilities, or whether it would have reached the same result without the May 2005 events.
4. It was therefore inappropriate for the High Court to make a final order. The Tribunal’s decision was set aside and remitted for reconsideration under the proper legal framework. The reconsideration was to be conducted by the same constitution or an entirely new constitution, not a mixture of original and new members.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The statutory appeal was allowed to the extent that the Valuation Tribunal’s decision was set aside and remitted for reconsideration. The Tribunal was not to be constituted as a mixture of original and new members.