Lever v London Borough of Southwark

For a dwelling to be job-related under paragraph 1(1)(a) of the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings) (England) Regulations 2003, it must be necessary for the proper performance of the employee’s duties that the employee reside in that particular dwelling. The provision is deliberately restrictive and must be read with paragraph 1(1)(b). Residence requires a degree of permanence; occasional stays connected with work do not suffice. A dwelling used as convenient overnight accommodation or a place to work will not qualify merely because staying there improves the performance of employment duties.

The appellant appealed under regulation 51 of the Valuation and Community Charge Tribunals Regulations 1989 against a decision of the London South East Valuation Tribunal dated 9 June 2008. The appeal was confined to questions of law. The appellant sought a second-home council tax discount in respect of a London flat used occasionally in connection with his directorship of an investment company. His principal home was in Gloucestershire. The central issue was whether the flat was a job-related dwelling within paragraph 1(1)(a) of the Schedule to the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings) (England) Regulations 2003.

1. The court extended time for bringing the appeal because substantial procedural confusion, for which the appellant was not responsible, had affected the filing of the notice.
2. Paragraph 1(1)(a) of the Schedule to the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings) (England) Regulations 2003 is deliberately restrictive. It must be read together with paragraph 1(1)(b). Under paragraph 1(1)(a), residence in the particular dwelling must be necessary for the proper performance of the duties of employment.
3. The provision is directed to dwellings connected with the duties themselves, such as accommodation in the grounds of a care home or school where residence is necessary for the performance of the employment. It is insufficient that living in London makes the duties easier or improves their performance.
4. The appellant’s periodic stays, ranging from twice a week to twice a month, did not amount to residence. Residence connotes a degree of permanence. On the facts, he resided at his Gloucestershire home and used the London flat for occasional stays connected with his directorship.
5. The tribunal had therefore made no error of law. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, summarily assessed at £1,750.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal from the London South East Valuation Tribunal was dismissed. Time for bringing the appeal was extended, and costs were summarily assessed at £1,750.
• London South East Valuation Tribunal: on 9 June 2008, the tribunal held that the dwelling did not fall within paragraph 1(1)(a) of the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings) (England) Regulations 2003.