Hakeem, R (on the application of) v Valuation Tribunal Service & Anor

An appeal from a valuation tribunal lies to the High Court only on a question of law arising from the tribunal’s decision. It is not an appeal from the billing authority’s original decision and does not enable the High Court to re-try the evidence. A valuation tribunal considers the council-tax liability issue afresh and may evaluate the evidence. Its factual conclusions cannot be disturbed absent an error of law or perversity. Questions concerning whether demand notices were served as required by the relevant regulations fall outside the valuation tribunal’s jurisdiction and belong to the Magistrates’ Court.

The claimant challenged a valuation tribunal’s decision concerning liability for council tax on a property in Enfield. The tribunal accepted that the tenant was resident, and liable, for part of the period, but concluded that the claimant, as owner, was liable after the tenant ceased to reside there. It refused the claimant’s application for review.

The claimant appealed under regulation 51 of the Valuation and Community Charge Regulations 1989. He argued that the tribunal misunderstood the tenancy, relied on insufficient and contradictory evidence, acted unfairly in receiving late evidence, and wrongly declined jurisdiction over late service of demand notices and retrospectivity. The central issues were whether the tribunal had made an error of law and whether it had jurisdiction to determine compliance with regulations 18 and 19.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appeal was against the valuation tribunal’s decision, not the billing authority’s original decision. Under regulation 51, the High Court could intervene only if the tribunal’s decision disclosed an error of law. The court was not conducting judicial review of the council’s decision.
2. The valuation tribunal considers council-tax liability afresh and rehears and evaluates the evidence, as explained in Regentford Ltd v Shepway District Council [2006] EWHC Admin 3200. The tribunal had done so here. It was entitled to consider whether the tenancy continued beyond August 2003 and whether another person was resident. Its treatment of the tenancy agreement and residence issues disclosed no error of law.
3. The tribunal was entitled to conclude that the claimant had not produced satisfactory evidence that the tenant continued to reside at the property, and that there was no conclusive evidence of multiple occupation or of the claimant’s own residence. An evidential challenge to a fact-finding tribunal cannot justify intervention absent perversity, which was not alleged.
4. The late-evidence complaint also failed. The claimant had not sought an adjournment, and the tribunal had considered the evidence critically, accepting only part of the billing authority’s case.
5. The valuation tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide whether demand notices had been served as soon as practicable under regulations 18 and 19 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992. That issue was for the Magistrates’ Court. The jurisdiction could not be created by the fact that the issue had not previously been raised there. The court followed Hardy v Sefton [2006] EWHC 1928 Admin.
6. Permission to appeal was refused because there was no real prospect of success. The interested party was awarded its reasonable and proportionate costs.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal from the London North West Valuation Tribunal dismissed. Permission to appeal refused and costs awarded.
2. London North West Valuation Tribunal: Substantive appeal allowed in part on 16 April 2009. The tribunal found the tenant liable for 1 September 2002 to 30 August 2003 and the claimant liable as owner for 31 August 2003 to 17 January 2008. Review refused on 14 July 2009.
3. London Borough of Enfield: The billing authority decided on 10 October 2007 that the claimant was liable for council tax from 1 August 2002 to 17 January 2008.