Daniels v Monmouth School

For a composite hereditament, council tax valuation must identify the relevant amount for the hereditament and apportion it between domestic and non-domestic use. Where a property comprises several separate hereditaments, those hereditaments must not be aggregated and valued as one composite hereditament merely because they form part of the same business or estate. The statutory scheme prevents valuation by lotting the hereditament, but does not require the separate hereditaments of a wider estate to be valued collectively.

The Listing Officer appealed under regulation 32 of the Council Tax (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993 against decisions of the East Wales Valuation Tribunal concerning buildings occupied by Monmouth School. The Tribunal had found that the school did not comprise a single hereditament, but nevertheless apportioned the value of the whole school estate when determining the domestic elements of individual composite hereditaments.

The issue was whether that approach was permitted by regulation 7 of the Council Tax (Situation and Valuation of Dwellings) Regulations 1992.

1. The appeal was allowed. The Valuation Tribunal’s decisions were quashed and the matters were remitted for redetermination on the proper basis.

2. The Tribunal’s finding that Monmouth School did not comprise a single hereditament was a finding of fact. It was therefore not open to challenge on an appeal confined to questions of law.

3. Regulation 7 of the Council Tax (Situation and Valuation of Dwellings) Regulations 1992 requires the value of a dwelling forming part of a composite hereditament to be taken as the portion of the relevant amount reasonably attributable to domestic use. The relevant amount is based on the value of the composite hereditament assessed on the statutory assumptions.

4. The Tribunal erred by combining separate composite hereditaments with other parts of the school connected through the same business, and by treating the school estate as one composite hereditament. Once the school had been found not to be a single hereditament, regulation 7 had to be applied to the individual hereditaments.

5. The approach was consistent with Atkinson v Lord [1997] RA 413, which recognised that the regulations prevent valuation by lotting the hereditament. They require valuation of the whole relevant hereditament followed by apportionment between domestic and non-domestic parts. An individual valuation of every part is not necessarily required, but the separate hereditaments cannot be aggregated contrary to the factual finding.

6. Gilbert v Hickinbottom [1956] 2 All ER 101 confirmed that whether geographically separate properties in common occupation constitute one hereditament is ordinarily a question of fact.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The Listing Officer’s appeal from the East Wales Valuation Tribunal was allowed. The Tribunal’s decisions were quashed and remitted for redetermination.
• East Wales Valuation Tribunal: The Tribunal found that Monmouth School was not a single hereditament, but apportioned the value of the whole school estate when assessing the domestic parts of individual composite hereditaments.