Chris Haley v Valuation Tribunal for England & Ors

For an annexe-related council tax discount, whether a dwelling forms part of a single property is determined by the statutory definition in regulation 3 of the Council Tax (Reduction for Annexes) Regulations 2013. A previous valuation and listing as separate hereditaments is not determinative. The decision-maker must consider both whether the property is shown as a separate item in the valuation list and whether it would fall to be shown separately. The billing authority, and the tribunal on appeal, must determine that issue when deciding entitlement to the discount. If regulation 3(2)(a) is satisfied, the decision-maker must also consider the conditions in regulation 3(2)(b) or (c).

The appellant owned Stibbington Hall and two additional dwellings, the Coach House and the Cottage. He sought an annexe-related council tax discount under the Council Tax (Reduction for Annexes) Regulations 2013. The billing authority refused the application, and the Valuation Tribunal for England dismissed his appeal on the basis that the three dwellings had historically been valued and listed as separate hereditaments.

The appellant appealed to the High Court on a question of law under regulation 43 of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009. The central issue was whether historic valuation and listing as separate hereditaments prevented the site from being a single property for the purposes of regulation 3(2)(a).

1. Appeal allowed and remitted. The Tribunal’s decision was set aside and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for rehearing in accordance with the legal approach stated in the judgment.
2. The Tribunal made a significant error of law by treating the historic valuation and listing of Stibbington Hall, the Coach House and the Cottage as separate hereditaments as determinative of whether the site was a “single property” under regulation 3(2)(a) of the Council Tax (Reduction for Annexes) Regulations 2013.
3. Regulation 3(3)(a) defines “single property” by reference to a property which, apart from the Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992, would be one dwelling within section 3 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. The reference to property which “would fall to be shown” as a separate item requires consideration of the property’s present legal and factual position, not merely its existing valuation-list entry.
4. Accordingly, the decision-maker must consider both whether the site is shown as a separate item in the valuation list and whether it would fall to be shown as a separate item. The Tribunal itself had accepted that the whole site was in a single rateable occupation and formed a single hereditament, but failed to consider the second question.
5. Whether the site is treated as more than one dwelling under article 3 of the Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992 does not make historic valuation as separate hereditaments a prerequisite to satisfying regulation 3(2)(a). If that condition is satisfied, the Tribunal must also determine whether regulation 3(2)(b) or (c) is met.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal from the Valuation Tribunal for England was allowed under regulation 43 of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009. The Tribunal’s decision was set aside and the matter remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal.
• Valuation Tribunal for England: The appellant’s appeal against the billing authority’s refusal of an annexe-related discount was dismissed on 10 October 2024.