Public Safety Charitable Trust v Milton Keynes Council

For mandatory charitable relief from non-domestic rates, the question whether a hereditament is wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes requires consideration of both the purpose and the actual extent of use. Mere occupation for a charitable purpose is insufficient where the premises are substantially unused.

A magistrates’ court determining a liability order must accept the hereditament as described in the rating list. Any challenge to the listing must proceed through the statutory valuation-list appeal process. The description must be construed objectively and neutrally, rather than narrowly for the ratepayer’s benefit.

Three appeals by way of case stated concerned liability orders for non-domestic rates on commercial premises occupied by the Public Safety Charitable Trust. The Trust installed small transmitters providing free wi-fi and public-safety Bluetooth messages, while leaving most of the premises unused.

In the Milton Keynes and South Cambridgeshire cases, relief under section 43 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 had been refused and liability orders made. In the Cheshire West and Chester case, the magistrates’ court had refused the Council’s application after treating most of the transmitters as part of the main hereditament. The central issues were the meaning of “wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes” and the proper treatment of the separately listed wi-fi hereditament.

1. Mandatory relief. The appeals in the Milton Keynes and South Cambridgeshire cases were dismissed. The Council’s appeal in the Cheshire West and Chester case was allowed.
2. Construction of section 43(6). Following Kenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council [2013] EWHC 54 (Admin), the statutory test requires consideration of both the purpose of use and the extent or amount of actual use. The court declined to adopt an interpretation focused only on the purpose of use. The substantial relief afforded by the provision is intended to depend on extensive and real use of the premises for charitable purposes.
3. The words “wholly or mainly” retain meaning under that interpretation. A building may be wholly used for a purpose even though parts are not constantly occupied, but premises that are mainly redundant will not satisfy the test merely because their only positive use is charitable.
4. “Occupation” for the purpose of liability under section 43(1) is distinct from “use” under section 43(6). Minimal occupation by installing and maintaining transmitters does not make the whole hereditament wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes.
5. Rating-list description. The validity or designation of a hereditament cannot be challenged in liability-order enforcement proceedings. Until altered through the statutory proposal and appeal procedure, the rating-list description is conclusive. It must be construed objectively and neutrally, without a presumption in favour of a narrow construction.
6. The wi-fi hereditament was properly understood as comprising the entire wi-fi network at the site, not merely one transmitter. The main hereditament therefore excluded the network. The Cheshire West and Chester case was remitted to the magistrates’ court for reconsideration on that basis and under the correct legal approach.

• Magistrates’ courts: Liability orders were made against the Trust in the Milton Keynes and South Cambridgeshire cases. The application for a liability order was rejected in the Cheshire West and Chester case.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeals were heard by way of case stated. The first two appeals were dismissed, the Council’s appeal in the third case was allowed, and that case was remitted for reconsideration.