Earl, R (On the Application Of) v Winchester City Council

For council tax purposes, a person qualifies as a student only if both statutory requirements are met: the person must be enrolled, at the material time, for the purpose of undertaking the relevant course, and that course must be a full-time course within the statutory definition. The assessment focuses on the course for which the person is actually enrolled, rather than simply on the character of the wider programme. A student repeating only part of a course may therefore fall outside the exemption where the repeat course does not require the prescribed periods of study, tuition or work experience.

The claimant appealed against the Valuation Tribunal’s dismissal of his challenge to Winchester City Council’s decision that he was liable for council tax during the 2011–2012 academic year. He had failed a double module in the first year of a two-year full-time diploma course and spent the relevant year repeating that module, with three hours of lectures and recommended private study of ten hours per week.

The central issue was whether, despite his original enrolment on the full-time diploma course and his intended continuation on it, he was enrolled at the material time on a full-time course of education within the meaning of the statutory council tax exemption.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Valuation Tribunal had been right to dismiss the claimant’s appeal. The High Court also dismissed the appeal.
2. Students are relieved from council tax liability by Local Government Finance Act 1992, section 6(4) and paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, as applied through Regulation 4 of the Council Tax Discounts Disregards Order 1992. The requirements of both paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Order must be satisfied.
3. Paragraph 4 is directed at the course, rather than at the individual student. The relevant question under paragraph 3 is first to identify the course of education for which the person was enrolled at the material time. The next question is whether that course satisfies paragraph 4.
4. The claimant was enrolled to undertake a course leading to completion of the failed double module. That course formed only part of the wider full-time diploma course. It required three hours of lectures and recommended private study of ten hours per week, and therefore did not satisfy the requirement in paragraph 4(1)(b)(ii) of an average of at least 21 hours per week. The claimant was consequently not enrolled on a full-time course during the relevant year.
5. The university’s description of the claimant’s status was not determinative. The court disregarded the contradictory university evidence and determined the statutory question itself. The question of council tax benefit was outside the issue before the court.

• Valuation Tribunal: By written decision dated 7 January 2013, dismissed the claimant’s appeal against the council’s decision.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s conclusion.