London Borough of Ealing v Notting Hill Housing Trust & Anor

For the Class B council tax exemption, the applicant must provide evidence addressing each statutory condition. A charitable social housing provider is not entitled to a judicially created presumption that the charitable-purpose conditions are satisfied, nor is the burden of proof reversed. The normal requirement can usually be met by a short written representation addressing all four conditions and verified as true to the representor’s belief. Evidence must nevertheless support the circumstances of the last occupation, including where the property was let at a below-market rent or through a homelessness scheme.

Three local authorities appealed from a decision of the President of the Valuation Tribunal for England concerning Class B of the Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992. The respondents were charitable registered providers of social housing seeking exemption for short void periods after tenants had left.

The Tribunal had held that formal evidence was required for ownership and the period of vacancy, but presumed that the charitable-purpose conditions were satisfied for charitable social housing providers. The central issue was whether that approach was a legitimate interpretation of Class B or an impermissible alteration of the statutory burden of proof.

1. Statutory conditions. Class B requires proof of four cumulative conditions: ownership by a body established for charitable purposes only; vacancy for less than six months; and last occupation in furtherance of the charity’s objects. The applicant bears the ordinary burden of providing evidence for each condition.
2. No judicial presumption. The President erred in creating a presumption that the charitable-purpose conditions were satisfied for charitable social housing providers, with a consequential reversal of the burden of proof. Any such presumption would need to be created by the Secretary of State and approved by Parliament, not by stretching the statutory language.
3. Sufficient form of evidence. Ordinarily, a short written representation addressing all four conditions, stating that the conditions are met on the material held by the applicant and verified as true to the representor’s belief, should suffice. A standard form with a declaration of truth would be desirable. Knowingly false representations could amount to an offence under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.
4. Individual appeals. The Ealing appeal was dismissed because the evidence concerning the former tenant and social rent was just sufficient. The Kensington and Chelsea appeal was allowed because there was no sufficient evidence about the former occupant’s circumstances; the application was to be resubmitted with appropriate evidence. The Hammersmith and Fulham appeal was dismissed because the evidence of allocation to a person in housing need and receipt of housing benefit was just sufficient.
5. The court reiterated, as a non-binding policy observation, that the Secretary of State should consider revising Class B to provide a presumption for applications by charitable social housing providers.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeals from the President of the Valuation Tribunal for England’s decision dated 24 May 2014 were allowed in part. The Kensington and Chelsea appeal succeeded; the Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham appeals were dismissed.