Michael Stanuszek v Dawn Bunyan (Listing Officer) (No.2)

For Council Tax, separately let and physically definable rooms may constitute separate dwellings even where occupiers share kitchens, living areas and access routes. The geographical test determines whether a putative hereditament is capable of separate identification. The functional test has a limited role and cannot unite areas separately occupied by different persons into one hereditament. Separate rateable occupation is decisive where distinct parts are occupied under separate tenancies. Shared use of common parts does not amount to exclusive rateable occupation of those parts.

The landlord of a six-bedroom house in multiple occupation appealed against a fresh decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England, which had upheld the Listing Officer’s assessment of each bedroom as a separate dwelling. The bedrooms had lockable doors, ensuite facilities and separate assured shorthold tenancies. The tenants shared communal areas under licences.

A previous High Court appeal had identified errors in the tribunal’s reasoning and remitted the matter for redetermination: [2023] EWHC 3275 (Admin). The central issues were whether the tribunal had improperly conducted a review, whether it had misapplied the geographical and functional tests for identifying a hereditament, and whether the tenants’ rights and occupation meant that the house should be assessed as one dwelling.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Vice President’s decision was clearly correct and the court declined to remit the matter again.
2. Under the Local Government Finance Act 1992, a dwelling is a domestic hereditament. Applying the principles in Woolway (VO) v Mazars, the primary question is geographical: whether the putative hereditament is capable of physical definition or visual and cartographic unity. The functional test has a limited role where geographically distinct units are to be merged, and asks whether use of one is necessary to the effectual enjoyment of the other.
3. In a non-common-occupation case, the functional test does not determine whether a physically identifiable area is capable of being a separate hereditament. Once capability is established, the issue turns on occupation. A single hereditament cannot contain discrete parts occupied by different persons.
4. Rateable occupation requires actual occupation, exclusivity for the possessor’s purposes, benefit or value to the possessor, and occupation that is not too transient, applying J S Laing v Kingswood Assessment Committee. Each tenant satisfied those requirements in relation to the tenant’s own room under a 12-month assured shorthold tenancy. Shared rights over common parts were non-exclusive and did not make the tenants rateable occupiers of those parts.
5. Each room was physically identifiable, separately occupied and separately let. The common parts’ practical importance did not unite the rooms with one another or with the common areas. The Council Tax liability regulations concerned liability rather than the identification of occupation or dwellings. The procedural and substantive grounds of appeal therefore failed.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — In [2023] EWHC 3275 (Admin), Henshaw J set aside the original tribunal decision and remitted the matter for a fresh determination.
2. Valuation Tribunal for England — On 4 June 2024, the tribunal again found that the rooms were separate hereditaments and dismissed the appeal: [2024] VTE VT00012402 (CVAD).
3. High Court (Administrative Court) — The present appeal against the fresh determination was dismissed.