Lone v London Borough of Hounslow

The Valuation Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine a dispute about the amount of council tax payable, including entitlement to a single person discount. A county court cannot determine that issue through an action to recover an alleged overpayment.

Under the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, a repayment is recoverable in court only after the billing authority, or the Tribunal on appeal, has determined that a sum is repayable and the taxpayer has requested repayment. The statutory scheme also impliedly excludes a common-law claim in unjust enrichment for the same alleged overpayment.

The claimant issued a County Court claim seeking £3,000 for alleged overpayments of council tax. The claim was based on the failure to allow a single person discount for specified periods. The claim was initially brought in the name of the claimant’s solicitors’ firm, but the claimant was later substituted.

A Deputy District Judge entered judgment after refusing the Council relief from a procedural sanction. On the Council’s appeal, Judge Hellman set aside that order and dismissed the claim. He held that the Valuation Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute. Permission to appeal was granted only on that jurisdictional issue.

The central issue was whether a taxpayer alleging that council tax was overpaid because a single person discount was not allowed could sue in the County Court, either under the statutory repayment provisions or in unjust enrichment.

1. Appeal dismissed. The County Court lacked jurisdiction to determine whether the claimant had been entitled to a single person discount and, consequently, whether he had overpaid council tax. The statutory scheme made the Valuation Tribunal’s jurisdiction under section 16(1)(b) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 exclusive for that purpose.

2. The assessment machinery requires the billing authority to make the relevant discount assumptions and to decide whether an adjustment is required. In regulations 24 and 31 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, the expressions that an amount “proves” to be excessive or is “found” to be excessive refer to the billing authority’s judgment, not merely to the taxpayer’s belief.

3. A taxpayer is not entitled to repayment without requesting it. The provisions permitting the authority to credit an overpayment where no repayment is requested are inconsistent with such an entitlement. Regulation 55 permits a court action only to enforce a repayment which has already become payable after the authority’s determination, a Tribunal-ordered recalculation, or an ancillary Tribunal repayment order.

4. The statutory route contains conditions, time limits, specialist procedures and a limited costs regime. Allowing a County Court action to determine liability would circumvent those features and risk inconsistent decisions. The word “may” in the statutory right of appeal does not, without more, make the Tribunal’s jurisdiction concurrent with that of the courts.

5. Even assuming that an unjust-enrichment claim could be an action founded on contract for section 15 of the County Courts Act 1984, it was impliedly displaced. A statutory remedy is exclusive where its restrictions reflect a cardinal legislative policy inconsistent with an unrestricted common-law remedy. The exclusive remedy for an alleged council-tax overpayment was therefore an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed the claimant’s appeal and upheld the dismissal of the claim for want of County Court jurisdiction.
• County Court at Central London (Judge Hellman): Allowed the Council’s appeal from the Deputy District Judge, set aside the earlier judgment, and dismissed the claim on the ground that the Valuation Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction.
• County Court at Central London (Deputy District Judge Jacobs): Refused the Council relief from sanction and entered judgment for the claimant. District Judge Smart subsequently substituted Mr Lone for the solicitors’ firm originally named as claimant.