Heslop v Valuation Appeals Tribunal

On a statutory appeal from a valuation tribunal, the High Court should not interfere with factual findings unless there is a patent error of law or the findings cannot be justified on the evidence. It must not substitute its own view of the facts or revisit the balance struck between competing considerations.

A tribunal may assess all relevant evidence, including evidence from an external inspection, a prior unoccupied-and-unfurnished discount, and a refusal to permit internal inspection. A finding that a dwelling was unoccupied and substantially unfurnished for the statutory period is a matter for the tribunal, provided that the correct test is applied and the conclusion is evidentially supportable.

The appellant challenged a decision of the Valuation Appeals Tribunal concerning a 50 per cent empty-property premium on council tax payable for a property in Bootle. Sefton Council had treated the property as a long-term empty dwelling under section 11B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. The tribunal dismissed the appellant’s appeal, finding that the property had been unoccupied and unfurnished for the relevant period.

The appellant brought a statutory appeal, alleging errors in the tribunal’s assessment of the evidence, the treatment of the property as a second home, the inspection evidence, the refusal of internal inspection, and the reasons given by the council. The central issue was whether the tribunal had made an error of law or reached a conclusion that could not be justified on the evidence.

1. Appeal test. The appeal was dismissed. Applying Ramdhun v Valuation Tribunal England [2014] EWHC 946 (Admin), the High Court would not interfere with the tribunal’s decision absent a patent error of law or findings of fact that could not be justified on the evidence. The court would not substitute its own factual assessment or reconsider the balance between competing factors.
2. Statutory test. The relevant question under section 11B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 was whether, throughout a continuous period of at least two years preceding the relevant day, the property was both unoccupied and substantially unfurnished. The tribunal had applied that test and had not treated the council’s determination as an irrebuttable presumption.
3. Evidence. The tribunal was entitled to consider the external inspection recording that the property appeared empty, the earlier award of an unoccupied-and-unfurnished discount, and the appellant’s refusal to permit an internal inspection unless paid £250. It was entitled to draw reasonable inferences from those matters. The appellant’s disagreement with the weight given to the evidence did not raise a point of law.
4. The argument that a property could not be both a second home and unoccupied reflected a misunderstanding of the statutory question. The tribunal had considered the evidence relevant to whether the property was unoccupied and unfurnished for the required period.
5. Complaints about the council’s refusal letters concerned the council’s decision-making rather than establishing an error in the tribunal’s decision. The additional application was withdrawn. The appellant was ordered to pay £750 inclusive of VAT within 12 months, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 52.19.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The statutory appeal was dismissed. The additional application was withdrawn, and costs were ordered.
• Valuation Appeals Tribunal: By a decision dated 13 July 2017, the tribunal dismissed the appellant’s appeal against Sefton Council’s council tax decision.
• Sefton Council: The council had determined that the property was a long-term empty dwelling and imposed a 50 per cent empty-property premium.