Mercer Boffey v Lucy Dyer (Listing Officer)

A privately owned house occupied solely as a family home may constitute a hereditament and a dwelling for council tax purposes. Neither commercial use, financial benefit, beneficial occupation in a financial sense, nor a licence to let the property is required. The statutory definition identifies the unit of property for taxation; it does not restrict council tax to property used for business. An appeal concerning the construction of the statutory scheme may be struck out where it has no reasonable prospect of success, provided the appellant is given an opportunity to make representations.

The appellant owned and occupied a listed house as his family home. He challenged its inclusion in the council tax list, arguing that it was not a hereditament or dwelling because it produced no financial benefit, was not let, and had not been licensed for letting.

The Listing Officer rejected the proposal. The President of the Valuation Tribunal for England struck out the appeal under the relevant procedural regulations after inviting representations, holding that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The appellant appealed to the High Court on jurisdictional, due process and statutory-construction grounds.

1. Jurisdiction. The statutory scheme provided the appropriate route for challenging the Listing Officer’s decision. The Valuation Tribunal for England had jurisdiction to determine the appeal and power to strike it out.
2. Procedure and case management. The proposed Notice to Admit Facts contained legal assertions and assertions about the respondent’s state of mind, rather than disputed facts requiring an answer. The appeal turned on statutory construction, and no disclosure or response to that document was necessary. The President had power to strike out on his own initiative and without a hearing, provided that the appellant was given an opportunity to make representations. That opportunity was given.
3. Appellate restraint. The strike-out decision was a case-management decision. Applying Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc v T&N Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1964 and Azam v University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 3384, intervention required a misdirection in law, procedural unfairness or irregularity, consideration of irrelevant matters, failure to consider relevant matters, or a plainly wrong decision. No such error was established.
4. Meaning of hereditament and dwelling. A hereditament identifies a particular unit of property for taxation. It does not inherently require business use or financial gain. A conventional privately owned house occupied as living accommodation may therefore be a hereditament and a dwelling under the Local Government Finance Act 1992. The court followed the reasoning in Doyle v Roberts (Listing Officer) [2021] EWHC 659 and considered that decision correctly decided.
5. Occupation and beneficial occupation did not require financial benefit. In a domestic context, beneficial occupation could arise from the property being capable of being lived in as a home. A licence or permission to let was irrelevant to council tax liability.
6. The appeal was dismissed. The President was correct to conclude that the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success and to strike it out.

• Valuation Tribunal for England: The President struck out the appellant’s appeal against the Listing Officer’s decision under the Council Tax Regulations, holding that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the strike-out order was dismissed.