Malik v London Borough of Tower Hamlets

For council tax liability, a tribunal need not use the word licensee if its findings necessarily establish occupation under a licence. A finding that a property was occupied by several people, contrary to the owner’s case that one person was its sole occupier, may support the inference that the additional occupiers were licensees. The court may uphold the tribunal’s decision where that inference is a necessary consequence of its factual findings. An alternative statutory basis that was not necessary to the decision need not be conclusively determined on appeal.

This was a statutory appeal from a Valuation Tribunal decision dated 29 January 2010. The Tribunal had found that 176 Vallance Road was a house in multiple occupation and that the owner was liable for council tax for the years 2003 to 2009.

The owner argued that the Tribunal had not expressly found that the additional occupiers were licensees and that the matter should be remitted. The central issue was whether the Tribunal’s findings and reasoning sufficiently established occupation under the relevant statutory regulations.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal’s decision sufficiently established the factual basis for liability.
2. The Tribunal had recorded the owner’s case that the property had been without tenants and that Mr Ahmed had been its sole occupier. It then expressly found that the weight of the evidence supported the conclusion that more than one occupier had been resident since 2003. That was a clear rejection of the owner’s evidence on sole occupation.
3. Although the Tribunal did not expressly describe the additional occupiers as licensees, that conclusion was a necessary inference from its findings. The property had been occupied by a number of people over the relevant period, and the evidence supported the conclusion that they occupied it as licensees, whether of Mr Ahmed, the owner, or both.
4. The finding therefore brought the property within Class C of Regulation 2 of the Council Tax (Liability for Owners) Regulations 1992. It was unnecessary to determine the respondent’s further argument based on paragraph (b)(i), although the court indicated that it favoured the submission that the point had an obvious answer and that remittal would serve no useful purpose.
5. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. Costs were to be taxed.

• Valuation Tribunal — On 29 January 2010, found that the property was a house in multiple occupation and that the owner was liable for council tax for 2003 to 2009.
• High Court (Administrative Court) — Dismissed the statutory appeal and ordered that costs be taxed.