Owen Oyston v Blackpool Council

Where a taxpayer challenges whether a dwelling is chargeable, whether they are liable for council tax, or the amount payable, the statutory route is an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal under section 16 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

Regulation 57(1) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 prevents those substantive issues being raised in magistrates’ court enforcement proceedings. The magistrates’ court therefore lacks jurisdiction to determine them, although it may consider whether to adjourn enforcement proceedings to enable an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

The appellant appealed by way of case stated against a liability order made by a Deputy District Judge sitting at Blackpool Magistrates’ Court. The order concerned alleged non-payment of council tax relating to a penthouse at Blackpool Football Club Stadium.

The appellant challenged the chargeability of the dwelling and his liability to pay council tax. The central issue was whether those substantive challenges could be determined in enforcement proceedings before the magistrates, or had to be pursued before the Valuation Tribunal.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s substantive arguments concerning the chargeability of the dwelling or his liability to pay council tax.
2. Section 16 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 provides a route of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal against a billing authority’s decision that a dwelling is chargeable, that a person is liable to pay council tax, or the calculation of the amount payable. The appellant’s complaints fell squarely within that provision.
3. Regulation 57(1) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 provides that a matter capable of being the subject of such an appeal may not be raised in enforcement proceedings. The regulation applies to substantive objections, not merely to the initiation of a separate complaint.
4. The court followed the approach in Wiltshire Council v Piggin and held that the Valuation Tribunal’s jurisdiction over these issues is exclusive. The contrary approach in Shah v Croydon was not followed. Lone v Hounslow London Borough Council provided binding and compelling support for that conclusion and could not plausibly be distinguished on the basis that it concerned the County Court rather than the magistrates’ court.
5. The only issue potentially open to the District Judge was whether to adjourn enforcement proceedings to allow the appellant to pursue an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. No such application had been made. An adjournment could not have conferred jurisdiction on the magistrates to determine the substantive objections.

The matter came before the High Court by way of case stated from a liability order made by Deputy District Judge Jepson sitting at Blackpool Magistrates’ Court on 28 June 2023. The High Court dismissed the appeal.