Richard Akos Harnoczi v Amanda Hitchings (Listing Officer)

An appeal from the Valuation Tribunal on a question of law may be heard even when filed outside the four-week period in regulation 43(2) of the 2009 Regulations. The provision confers a power to dismiss, rather than imposing an absolute jurisdictional bar. The court should apply the Mitchell/Denton approach, considering the seriousness and significance of the default, the reason for it, and all the circumstances, including the merits.

For council tax purposes, a dwelling remains in the valuation list where it is capable of being rendered suitable for occupation by a reasonable amount of repair. Actual disrepair or occupation is relevant evidence, but neither is determinative. An appellate court will not interfere with factual or evaluative findings by a specialist tribunal unless there is an error of law or a finding unsupported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed to the High Court against the Valuation Tribunal for England’s dismissal of his appeal concerning the refusal to delete a council tax entry for a property alleged to be uninhabitable. The Tribunal had concluded that the property remained a dwelling because it could be repaired and had been occupied.

The appeal was filed approximately six weeks outside the period in regulation 43(2) of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Rules 2009. The appellant also challenged the Tribunal’s legal approach and its evaluation of the evidence. He did not attend the hearing. The central issues were whether the late filing deprived the court of jurisdiction, whether the court should exercise its discretion to hear the appeal, and whether the Tribunal had made an error of law.

1. Late appeal. Regulation 43(2) of the 2009 Regulations did not create an absolute bar. The words “may be dismissed” gave the court jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed out of time. The court adopted the approach in Turner v South Cambridgeshire District Council [2016] EWHC 1017 (Admin), treating the application as equivalent to an application for relief from sanctions and applying the Mitchell/Denton principles.
2. The default was serious and significant because the appeal was filed more than twice the permitted period after the Tribunal’s decision. The appellant gave no satisfactory explanation, did not apply for an extension of time, and provided no supporting evidence for the matters relied upon. The appeal also lacked substantive merit. The court therefore dismissed it under regulation 43(2).
3. Merits. A property is a dwelling for council tax purposes where, having regard to its character and a reasonable amount of repair, it could be occupied as a dwelling. The relevant distinction is between a truly derelict property incapable of being repaired for its intended purpose and a property which could be made suitable for occupation by repair. The Tribunal correctly identified and applied that approach, following Wilson v Coll (Listing Officer) [2011] EWHC 2824 (Admin).
4. Actual occupation was not treated as determinative. It was relevant evidence bearing on whether the property was incapable of beneficial occupation. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the evidence did not establish dereliction or incapacity for repair.
5. An appeal under regulation 43(1) is limited to a question of law. The High Court should not interfere with factual findings or multi-factorial assessments by a specialist tribunal unless there is a patent error of law, no evidential basis, or a conclusion which no properly directed tribunal could reasonably reach. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant’s separate application under CPR 3.3(5) was dismissed because that rule did not apply to an order made in response to his own application; the adjournment application was also refused.

• Valuation Tribunal for England: On 19 September 2025, dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the Listing Officer’s refusal to delete the property from the valuation list.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Dismissed the appeal. The court held that the late filing was not jurisdictionally fatal but declined to hear the appeal under regulation 43(2), and in any event found no error of law.