Rita Kakar v London Borough of Harrow

An appeal against a statutory time limit should be extended only where the failure to appeal in time resulted from circumstances beyond the appellant’s control. In exceptional cases, an apparently strict time limit may require modification to secure Convention compliance, particularly where the appellant personally did all that could reasonably be done. Relevant considerations include foreseeability, allocation of the consequences of procedural error and excessive formalism. A two-month council tax appeal period, coupled with a safeguard for circumstances beyond the appellant’s control, was a proportionate balance between access to justice and legal certainty. General assertions of stress or reliance on another person, without evidence explaining the delay, were insufficient.

The appellant appealed from a decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England dated 4 December 2024 concerning council tax discounts. She argued that her son should have been disregarded as a full-time student and that she qualified for a carer disregard. The Tribunal held that the appeal was out of time and refused an extension.

Before the Administrative Court, the issues were whether the billing authority’s earlier email triggered the appeal period, whether time could run before both grounds of grievance had been determined, and whether refusal of an extension was disproportionate or incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol 1.

1. Time for appealing to the Tribunal. The appeal to the Administrative Court was treated as filed when the first appeal notice was received on 30 December 2024, despite later filing difficulties. The court proceeded on that basis, having regard to R (BLV) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 1475 (Admin).
2. Extension of time. Under Regulation 21(6) of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009/2269, an extension required circumstances beyond the appellant’s control. Strict time limits may be read down in exceptional cases to secure Convention compliance, but the appellant must ordinarily have personally done all that could reasonably be done to appeal in time. The approach in Adesina v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] 1 WLR 3156 and Stuewe v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1605 was material.
3. In assessing proportionality, relevant considerations included the foreseeability of the restriction, who should bear the consequences of procedural error and whether the restriction involved excessive formalism, as explained in Karapetyan v Armenia (App. 15736/16, ECtHR, 15 May 2025). The two-month period and the safeguard in Regulation 21(6) provided a proportionate balance between access to court and legal certainty. The appellant supplied no satisfactory evidence explaining why the appeal was late. Brief references to stress and reliance on her son did not establish exceptional circumstances.
4. Any error by the Tribunal concerning the date on which time began therefore could not have affected the outcome. The appeal fell to be dismissed in any event.
5. The court expressed provisional views that the authority’s 5 February 2024 email may not have rejected the student-status grievance and that time may not have begun until both grounds had been determined. Those issues were not formally decided because they could not affect the result. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal from the Valuation Tribunal for England dismissed.
• Valuation Tribunal for England: Decision dated 4 December 2024 dismissing the council tax appeal as out of time and refusing an extension.