South Tyneside Council v Aitken

Under a council tax reduction scheme, entitlement to disability or severe disability premium disapplies a standard percentage reduction. Enhanced disability premium does not. A person receiving employment and support allowance with the support component is treated as having limited capability for work-related activity and therefore falls within the enhanced disability premium provisions. In this context, “limited” can include a nil capability. The tribunal must apply the statutory definitions and cross-references; it need not determine independently whether the claimant can work.

South Tyneside Council appealed against a Valuation Tribunal decision allowing Mr Aitken’s appeal against a 30% reduction in his council tax support. The issue was whether, under the council’s local scheme based on the Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Default Scheme) (England) Regulations 2012, Mr Aitken’s receipt of employment and support allowance with the support component entitled him to exemption from the standard reduction.

The tribunal’s jurisdiction was confined to whether the calculation had been correctly undertaken. The central question was whether Mr Aitken fell within the disability or severe disability premium provisions, or instead within the enhanced disability premium provisions.

1. Appeal allowed. The Valuation Tribunal had erred in law, and its decision was overturned. The standard percentage reduction was to be applied to Mr Aitken’s council tax support.
2. Clause 32A of the local scheme made the maximum reduction for a person in class D subject to the standard percentage reduction. Clause 32(a)(7) disapplied that reduction for a person receiving disability premium or severe disability premium, as defined in Schedule 3, Part 3.
3. Schedule 3, Part 3 had to be read as a sequence. Paragraph 10.8 excluded a person from disability premium where he had, or was treated as having, limited capability for work. Paragraph 12 addressed enhanced disability premium and was linked to the employment and support allowance provisions in section 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007.
4. Receipt of employment and support allowance with the support component established that Mr Aitken was, or was to be treated as, a person with limited capability for work-related activity. The tribunal therefore did not need to assess his actual capacity for work. The word “limited” was capable of including a nil capability.
5. The tribunal failed to address paragraph 12 and its relationship with section 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007. It also wrongly concluded that Mr Aitken was within the defined disability premium. Although some conditions in paragraphs 9 and 10 were met, condition 10.8 was not.
6. No order as to costs was made.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Allowed South Tyneside Council’s appeal from the Valuation Tribunal’s decision of 8 April 2014. The tribunal’s decision was overturned and the standard percentage reduction was ordered to apply.
• Valuation Tribunal: Allowed Mr Aitken’s appeal against application of the standard reduction.