Turner v South Cambridgeshire District Council

An appeal from the Valuation Tribunal of England lies only on a question of law. A tribunal may uphold cancellation of Council Tax Reduction where a claimant fails to provide information, evidence or verification reasonably required to assess continuing entitlement. A completed form may be a legitimate means of obtaining substantive information and supporting evidence. No presumption arises that previously declared financial circumstances continue unchanged merely because no change has been notified. An out-of-time appeal is considered under the Denton principles, directly or by analogy.

Mr Turner appealed to the High Court from a decision of the Valuation Tribunal of England dismissing his appeal against South Cambridgeshire District Council’s cancellation of his Council Tax Reduction. The Council had requested information about the Turners’ business income, accounts and private pensions after reviewing their circumstances. The Tribunal found that the information requested was reasonable and had not been supplied.

The appeal papers were lodged two weeks and one day late. The issues were whether time should be extended and whether the Tribunal had erred in law by treating failure to complete a form as determinative despite the alleged provision of substantive information.

1. Time. Regulation 43 of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009 gives the court discretion to dismiss a late appeal. The court applied the relief-from-sanctions principles in CPR 3.9, directly or by analogy. The delay was serious, inadequately explained and unsupported by a good reason. The extension of time was refused.
2. Merits. The High Court’s jurisdiction under section 16 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 was confined to questions of law. The challenge did not disclose an arguable error of law.
3. Rule 72.4 of the Council’s Scheme required a recipient of Council Tax Reduction to furnish documents, information and evidence reasonably required to determine continuing entitlement. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the Council’s requests for accounts or updated income information and supporting evidence were reasonable.
4. The Tribunal had not dismissed the appeal merely because a form was incomplete. The form was a legitimate means of obtaining substantive information, evidence and verification. The alleged form/substance distinction was therefore misconceived.
5. No presumption could be implied that previously declared financial circumstances remained unchanged merely because no change had been notified. The withdrawal of Working Tax Credit legitimately prompted further inquiry. The Scheme’s provisions permitting electronic or telephone information were powers, not duties.
6. The appeal was dismissed. Had time been extended, the Tribunal’s decision would have been affirmed.

• Valuation Tribunal of England: appeal dismissed on 8 October 2015.
• High Court (Administrative Court): extension of time refused and appeal dismissed.