Feller, R (on the application of) v Cambridge City Council

For council tax student-disregard purposes, the statutory conditions defining a full-time course are applied to the course itself, rather than individually to the student. Attendance does not necessarily require physical presence at a particular place. A course may satisfy the attendance requirement where students are subject to appropriate academic supervision and contact, even though substantial work is undertaken at home or elsewhere. The requirements concerning attendance and study must be satisfied in each academic year during which the course subsists.

Dr Feller, a full-time Cambridge PhD student, appealed against the Valuation Tribunal for England’s decision dated 15 October 2010 that he was not entitled to the council tax student disregard for part of the 2009–2010 academic year. The Tribunal considered that paragraph 4(1)(b) required attendance at a specified place and relied on R (Fayad) v London South East Valuation Tribunal [2008] EWHC 2531 (Admin). The central issues were whether the requirements in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 1 to the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992 applied to the course or to the individual student, and whether attendance required physical presence at an identified place.

1. Appeal allowed. The Tribunal had erred in law, and the statutory disregard should have been allowed. The Council was ordered to pay agreed costs of £10,090 including VAT.

2. Under section 11 and Schedule 1 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992, read with regulation 4 and paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 1 to the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992, the requirements defining a full-time course are applied to the course on which the claimant is enrolled. They are not applied as separate personal requirements to the particular claimant. The circumstances of an individual student may nevertheless provide evidence of the course’s normal requirements.

3. Paragraph 4(1) requires all three conditions to be met. The course must subsist for at least one academic year, normally require attendance for at least 24 weeks in each academic or calendar year, and normally require study, tuition or work experience averaging at least 21 hours per week during those periods of attendance.

4. “Attendance” in paragraph 4(1)(b) does not necessarily mean physical attendance at a particular place. In an academic context, a student may attend a course while subject to appropriate supervision and contact with academic authorities, even though substantial research or writing is undertaken in a library or at home. Paragraph 4(2), dealing with work experience, did not alter the meaning of attendance.

5. The attendance and study requirements must be satisfied in each academic year during which the course subsists. On the evidence, the Cambridge PhD course satisfied paragraphs 4(1)(b) and (c), and Dr Feller was enrolled on it at the relevant time.

6. The court respectfully differed from R (Fayad) v London South East Valuation Tribunal [2008] EWHC 2531 (Admin), which had treated attendance as requiring attendance at an identified place. The court found assistance in Wright-Turner v Department for Social Development (2002) NICA 2 and Flemming v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2002] EWCA Civ 641, [2002] 1 WLR 2322, concerning analogous statutory wording.

• Valuation Tribunal for England: On 15 October 2010, dismissed the appeal on the basis that paragraph 4(1)(b) required attendance at a specified premises or place.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Allowed the appeal and held that the requirements applied to the course, and that attendance did not require physical presence at a particular place.