Branwell v Valuation Office Agency

The court addressed an appeal under regulation 43 of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009 against a Valuation Tribunal panel decision to refuse removal of a long-leasehold flat from the council tax valuation list. The central legal principles were the statutory definition of a "dwelling" under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (notably sections 1 and 3) and the test derived from Wilson v Coll [2011] EWHC 2824 (Admin): whether, having regard to the character of the property, it could be made suitable for occupation by a reasonable amount of repair rather than whether such repair would be economic.

The judge held that the Valuation Tribunal applied the correct legal test and that the finding that the flat remained a hereditament was open on the evidence (including an inspection in March 2013 and photographs). Procedural complaints failed because the appellant had been offered an adjournment and declined it and because any procedural shortcomings in the Listing Officer's handling were cured by the appellant's right of appeal to the Tribunal. Human rights arguments under the Human Rights Act 1998 were considered but rejected: the statutory scheme in section 6 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 was found intelligible and rational and compatible with Convention rights.

Background and parties. The appellant, Miss Branwell, is the long leaseholder of a flat at 90 Chiswick Village. She vacated the flat because of longstanding damp and flooding and sought to have it deleted from the council tax valuation list as not constituting a hereditament. The Valuation Office Agency (Listing Officer) refused and she appealed to the Valuation Tribunal for England (VTE). The VTE panel concluded the flat remained a hereditament. The appellant appealed to the High Court under regulation 43 of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009.

(i) Nature of the application and relief sought. The appellant sought an order quashing the VTE panel decision and deletion of the flat from the council tax list; the High Court appeal was on a point of law under regulation 43.

(ii) Issues framed by the court. The court identified three main issues: (1) whether the hearing before the VTE was unfair or procedurally flawed; (2) whether the panel reached the wrong legal conclusion about whether the flat was a hereditament (the correct test being whether the property could be made fit for occupation by a reasonable amount of repair rather than whether repair would be economic); and (3) whether the outcome violated the appellant's Convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998.

(iii) Facts and evidence. The appellant relied on a long lease, a history of damp and flooding, a Listing Officer decision letter declining deletion, correspondence and some photographs, and a surveyor's letter describing extensive defects. The Listing Officer and the VTE relied on an inspection in March 2013, photographs and the statutory valuation framework. The VTE found the flat structurally sound, with repairable ceilings and floors, and that other flats in the block were occupied.

Court's reasoning and decision. The court found that the VTE applied the legal test articulated in Wilson v Coll and that its conclusion — that the flat could be made suitable for occupation by a reasonable amount of repair and therefore remained a hereditament — was open on the evidence. Procedural complaints failed because the appellant had been offered an adjournment and declined it and because she had an adequate right of appeal to the VTE which remedied any earlier Listing Officer process concerns. The human rights challenge was dismissed: the statutory scheme in section 6 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 was held to be an intelligible, rational allocation of liability and within the margin of appreciation, so no declaration of incompatibility was warranted. The appeal was dismissed.

Contextual note: the judgment also emphasised the importance of proper case bundles and the responsibilities of public bodies when dealing with unrepresented litigants, but found no substantive unfairness on the facts before the court.

The appeal is dismissed. The High Court held that the Valuation Tribunal applied the correct legal test (derived from Wilson v Coll) — namely whether the property could be rendered suitable for occupation by a reasonable amount of repair — and that the Panel's finding that the flat remained a hereditament was open on the evidence. Procedural complaints were rejected because the appellant had been offered and declined an adjournment and any procedural defects in the Listing Officer's handling were remedied by the appellant's right of appeal. Human rights arguments under the Human Rights Act 1998 were not made out and no declaration of incompatibility was available.

Appeal from a decision of a panel of the Valuation Tribunal for England that the appellant's flat should remain on the council tax valuation list. The appellant brought a point of law appeal to the High Court under regulation 43 of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009. High Court judgment reported at [2015] EWHC 824 (Admin).