Wilson v Josephine Coll (Listing Officer)

For council tax purposes, the existence of a hereditament and its valuation are distinct questions. A dwelling remains a hereditament where, having regard to its character, it could be rendered suitable for occupation by a reasonable amount of repair. The fact that the repairs would be uneconomic does not determine whether the hereditament continues to exist. The statutory assumption that a dwelling is in reasonable repair applies to valuation and is irrebuttable, but it does not answer the prior existence question. A tribunal errs in law if it treats disrepair as incapable of affecting the valuation-list entry regardless of its extent, without deciding whether the property is capable of repair for occupation.

The appellant challenged the Valuation Tribunal for England’s decision of 30 September 2010, which upheld the continued inclusion of a vacant, substantially disrepairing dwelling in band B of the valuation list. The property had been vacant since June 2007 and had previously been subject to a class A exemption.

The appeal under regulation 43 of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009 raised a point of law concerning whether uneconomic repairs prevented the property from remaining a hereditament, and how that issue interacted with the statutory valuation assumption of reasonable repair.

1. Appeal allowed and case remitted. The tribunal had erred in law by treating the question as one of principle and concluding that a dwelling could not be deleted from the valuation list because of disrepair, regardless of its extent.
2. The existence or continued existence of a hereditament must be distinguished from the valuation of an existing hereditament. Regulation 6(2)(e) of the Council Tax (Situation and Valuation of Dwellings) Regulations 1992 makes an irrebuttable assumption of reasonable repair for valuation purposes. It does not determine whether a hereditament exists.
3. The relevant question is whether, having regard to the character of the property, it could be occupied as a dwelling if a reasonable amount of repair work were undertaken. The critical distinction is between a truly derelict property, incapable of being repaired for its intended purpose, and a property which could be made suitable for occupation by repair. The repairs need not be economically worthwhile.
4. Post Office v Nottingham Council [1976] 1 WLR 624 supplied the relevant capability-for-occupation approach. R v East Sussex Valuation Tribunal, ex parte Silverstone [1996] RVR 203 concerned the irrebuttable valuation assumptions, not the existence of a hereditament. Burke v Broomhead [2009] EWHC 1855 (Admin) did not decide the existence issue because that status was undisputed.
5. Under regulation 43(4), the court had power to confirm, vary, set aside, revoke or remit the tribunal’s decision. The outcome was not inevitable on the facts, so the normal course was followed: the decision was set aside and remitted for redetermination according to law.
6. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs in the sum of £1,888, including travel costs.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal allowed and matter remitted for redetermination.
• Valuation Tribunal for England: by decision dated 30 September 2010, dismissed the appeal and directed that the property remain in the valuation list at band B.