Brown v Hambleton District Council

For a council tax discount based on severe mental impairment, the person must satisfy both the statutory mental-impairment condition and the condition of being entitled to a qualifying benefit. Entitlement to Attendance Allowance ordinarily depends on a claim being made in accordance with the relevant social security legislation and regulations. Medical certification alone therefore does not establish entitlement to the council tax discount before the date of the Attendance Allowance claim. The court rejected an argument that the council tax provisions displaced the general rule governing entitlement to benefits. The statutory construction did not interfere with rights under Articles 3 or 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The appellant challenged the Valuation Tribunal’s dismissal of his appeal concerning a council tax discount for his wife, who had been certified as severely mentally impaired. The council accepted entitlement to the discount from the date on which Attendance Allowance was claimed and awarded, but refused to backdate it to the earlier date of medical certification.

The appeal to the Administrative Court was limited to a point of law. The central issue was whether being entitled to Attendance Allowance for the purposes of the council tax legislation required a claim for that benefit, or whether satisfaction of the underlying medical conditions was sufficient.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Valuation Tribunal had not erred in law. The statutory scheme required both a certificate of severe mental impairment and entitlement to a qualifying benefit.
2. Under section 1 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, entitlement to a benefit ordinarily depends on a claim being made in the prescribed manner, unless regulations provide otherwise. Section 191 defines “prescribe” as prescribe by regulations. The relevant regulations contained exemptions for some benefits, but none for Attendance Allowance.
3. The phrase “entitled to” in article 3 of the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992 therefore incorporated the statutory conditions governing entitlement to Attendance Allowance. The reference to section 64 of the Social Security (Contributions and Benefits) Act 1992 did not exclude the relevance of section 65 or the general claim requirement.
4. Section 65(4) of the Social Security (Contributions and Benefits) Act 1992 provided that a person could not be entitled to Attendance Allowance for a period preceding the date on which a claim was made or treated as made. The limited statutory and regulatory backdating provisions did not apply on the facts.
5. The authorities relied upon by the respondent supported the conclusion that the 1992 legislation had reversed the earlier approach identified in Insurance Officer v McCaffrey [1984] 1 WLR 1353, under which entitlement could arise without a claim. The discount could therefore not be backdated before 29 November 2018.
6. The asserted breaches of Articles 3 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights were unsupported and failed. The court declined to undertake a wider review of human-rights jurisprudence.
7. The respondent agreed not to pursue costs against the appellant. The appeal was dismissed.

Valuation Tribunal: The tribunal dismissed the appellant’s appeal on 20 January 2020, holding that the two statutory conditions were satisfied only from the date of entitlement to Attendance Allowance.

High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal on a point of law was dismissed. The tribunal’s decision was upheld.