Broderick v Coventry City Council

An appeal from a Valuation Tribunal decision on a point of law does not permit the High Court to re-hear the evidence or substitute its own factual conclusion. A factual finding can be challenged only where no reasonable tribunal could have reached it on the evidence before it. Statutory council tax liability cannot be altered by a private agreement between occupier and owner. Whether a person resides at a property is a question of fact, and a tenancy agreement is not conclusive of the parties’ actual arrangements.

Noel Broderick appealed against the Valuation Tribunal for England’s decision of 18 June 2019. The Tribunal had upheld Coventry City Council’s determination that Mr Broderick was liable for council tax as the resident freehold owner of 66 Lindley Road, Coventry.

Mr Broderick argued that he had let the property to Jonathan Hartopp, who alone should be liable, and challenged the Tribunal’s findings about residence, its treatment of the evidence, and the legal effect of the tenancy agreement. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had made an error of law within the restricted statutory appeal jurisdiction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appeal under regulation 43 of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) Regulations 2009 was limited to a point of law. The court could confirm, vary, set aside, revoke or remit the Tribunal’s decision only if the appeal succeeded; regulation 43(3) did not create a right to a rehearing of the facts.
2. The Tribunal’s finding that the property was Mr Broderick’s main residence was a finding of fact. Applying the approach in Gill v Fenland District Council [2018] EWHC 3105 (Admin), the court could intervene only if no reasonable tribunal could have reached that conclusion on the evidence before it. Mere disagreement with the evaluation or weight given to evidence was insufficient.
3. Under section 6 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, liability follows the statutory hierarchy. A resident owner falls within the first relevant category. “Main residence” did not require continuous residence, and the phrase did not mean “sole and main residence”.
4. The tenancy agreement gave Mr Hartopp exclusive possession on its face, but it was not conclusive of actual residence. The Tribunal was entitled to determine what had happened in reality and was not required to find that the agreement was legally invalid or a sham before concluding that the parties’ conduct departed from its terms.
5. Any agreement that Mr Hartopp would pay council tax could not alter statutory liability. It could create only a private arrangement between the parties. The Tribunal was also entitled to attach limited weight to hearsay witness statements and to assess the documentary and circumstantial evidence, including addresses used for benefits, voting, credit and correspondence.
6. There was ample evidence supporting the Tribunal’s conclusion that the property remained Mr Broderick’s main residence. The human-rights allegation was not developed and added nothing. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal from the Valuation Tribunal for England was dismissed.
• Valuation Tribunal for England: On 18 June 2019, the Tribunal dismissed Mr Broderick’s appeal against the Council’s determination that he was liable for council tax as resident owner of the property.