Francois v London Borough of Waltham Forest (Rev 1)

When a person seeks a council tax reduction, the applicant must generally provide information within their knowledge or control that is needed to establish entitlement. This applies even where the applicant has shown that a personal injury trust exists. The authority must take reasonable steps to discover information available to it, but it need not obtain information which the applicant can reasonably provide. Failure to provide the requested information may justify assessing entitlement on the basis that the relevant capital threshold is exceeded. The statutory scheme does not require a tribunal to give particular weight to partial evidence, and a separate housing-benefit regime does not determine entitlement to council tax reduction.

The appellant appealed against the Valuation Tribunal for England’s decision of 18 November 2016, which upheld the respondent council’s refusal to grant a council tax reduction. The council had requested information about a personal injury trust, bank accounts and transactions. The appellant relied on a solicitor’s letter confirming that compensation had been placed in such a trust, and argued that the tribunal had failed to give that letter sufficient weight, failed to require the council to obtain further information, and infringed her rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The central issue was whether the tribunal had erred in law by upholding the refusal in the absence of the requested information.

1. The appeal was dismissed. There was no error of law in the Valuation Tribunal for England’s decision.

2. Under section 16(1)(b) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and regulation 43 of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009, the High Court’s jurisdiction was confined to a question of law. It could confirm, vary, set aside, revoke or remit the tribunal’s decision under regulation 43(4).

3. The principles stated in Kerr v Department for Social Development (Northern Ireland) [2004] UKHL 23 and Jeleniewicz v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] EWCA Civ 1163 applied to council tax reduction. Entitlement involves a co-operative process. The applicant must provide information which is within their knowledge or control and supports the claim. The authority must take reasonable steps to discover information available to it rather than to the applicant.

4. The solicitor’s letter established that a personal injury trust existed, but it did not provide all the information reasonably requested. The requests extended to the trust, bank accounts and relevant transactions. The information was within the appellant’s knowledge and control, so the tribunal was entitled to uphold the council’s conclusion that the capital threshold had been exceeded.

5. There was no obligation to give the solicitor’s letter greater weight or to explain why the council had not contacted the solicitors. The council tax reduction scheme governed the issue, and the separate housing-benefit regulations had no bearing on entitlement to a council tax reduction.

6. The approach did not breach Article 1 of Protocol 1. The relevant right was not absolute and the decision was made in accordance with the statutory scheme. No issue under Article 14 had been raised.

7. Costs were summarily assessed at £4,335 inclusive of VAT.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal on a question of law dismissed; the Valuation Tribunal for England’s decision dated 18 November 2016 was upheld.
• Valuation Tribunal for England: appeal against the council’s refusal of a council tax reduction dismissed on 18 November 2016.