Macattram v London Borough of Camden

For council tax purposes, a periodic tenancy arising after expiry of a fixed-term lease is a new leasehold interest, not a continuation of the expired term. A periodic tenancy is a material interest under section 6(6) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 only where the period for which it is granted is six months or more. Continued occupation for more than six months does not convert a shorter periodic tenancy into a material interest. A tribunal may invite submissions on relevant legal materials on its own initiative, provided the parties have an opportunity to respond. Returning keys may amount only to an offer to surrender, but acceptance may be inferred from the evidence.

The appellant challenged a Valuation Tribunal decision concerning liability for council tax on a flat leased to the respondent local authority. After the three-year lease expired, the Tribunal found that a monthly periodic tenancy arose by implication. It held that the tenancy was not a material interest under section 6(6) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, and alternatively that it had been surrendered when the keys were returned.

The appeal raised questions about the meaning of material interest, surrender by operation of law, procedural fairness, jurisdiction and the adequacy of the Tribunal’s reasons.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal correctly treated the monthly periodic tenancy as a new tenancy or leasehold interest, rather than a continuation of the expired three-year lease. The inference of a periodic tenancy following payment and acceptance of rent is based on a new agreement, even though the former lease’s terms may continue so far as applicable and consistent.
2. Section 6(6) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 refers to a leasehold interest “granted for a term of 6 months or more”. That wording concerns the initial grant of the tenancy. It does not include a monthly periodic tenancy merely because the tenancy has continued for more than six months. Treating such a tenancy as becoming a material interest retrospectively would create uncertainty about council tax liability, contrary to the scheme of section 6, which is intended to identify the liable person on each day with certainty.
3. The Tribunal was entitled alternatively to find that the tenancy had been surrendered. Returning the keys was capable of being an offer to surrender rather than an immediate surrender. The Tribunal considered the appellant’s solicitor’s letter and was entitled to infer that the appellant had accepted the tenancy’s termination in June 2007.
4. There was no procedural unfairness. The Tribunal correctly directed attention to section 6(2)(f), since a local authority could not itself be resident for the purposes of section 6(2)(b). It was entitled under regulations 8(1) and 17(1)(a) of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009 to invite submissions on relevant legal materials. Regulation 8(3) did not require reasons for a direction made on the Tribunal’s own initiative.
5. The Tribunal’s reasons were adequate. It was not required to reproduce the parties’ submissions or questions verbatim, and any errors or irrelevant matters identified by the appellant did not affect the decision.

The appeal was brought to the Administrative Court under regulation 51 of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009 from the Valuation Tribunal’s decision dated 30 March 2010. The appeal was dismissed.