Michael Stanuszek v Dawn Bunyan (Listing Officer)
[2023] EWHC 3275 (Admin)
Cameron Marshall v Bath and North East Somerset Council
11 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2551 (Admin)
High Court
A student tried to avoid paying council tax on a property he owned in Bath, claiming he lived there. A judge ruled he mostly lived in London, not Bath, and so had to pay the tax. The judge looked at many things, not just how long he stayed in Bath. The student's appeal was dismissed.
Key Facts
- •Cameron Marshall (appellant) appealed a Valuation Tribunal for England decision regarding council tax exemption for his Bath property.
- •He was a student living primarily in London during term time, but used the Bath property on weekends and holidays.
- •The council denied exemption under Class K (unoccupied dwelling) and Class N (student accommodation).
- •The appellant argued for exemption based on student status and his use of the property.
- •The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the exemption claim.
Legal Principles
Liability for council tax is determined daily based on residency and ownership.
Local Government Finance Act 1992
Council tax exemptions are prescribed by the Secretary of State; relevant classes include K (unoccupied dwelling last occupied by a qualifying student) and N (dwelling occupied by students).
Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992
Tribunal jurisdiction is limited to the scope of the grievance raised in the appeal; they cannot exceed the specific issues raised.
Courtney Plc v Murphy
High Court review of Tribunal decisions is limited to questions of law; findings of fact are generally respected unless patently unreasonable or lacking evidence.
Ramdhun v Valuation Tribunal for England; Broderick v Coventry City Council
"Sole or main residence" is determined by considering where a reasonable onlooker would regard the person’s home to be, based on multiple factors, not solely on time spent.
Williams v Horsham District Council
"Resident" in the Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992 carries the same meaning as in the Local Government Finance Act 1992, requiring consideration of sole or main residence.
Interpretation Act 1978, section 11
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal’s decision was not found to be an error of law. The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the property was his sole or main residence during the relevant period, thus not qualifying for either Class K or Class N exemptions.
Similar Cases
Owen Oyston v Blackpool Council
[2024] EWHC 1224 (Admin)
Laurentiu Tarbuc v Dawn Bunyan (List Officer)
[2024] EWHC 897 (Admin)
Howard Gardens Manco Limited, R (on the application of) v Lucy Formela-Osbourne (Listing Officer)
[2024] EWHC 1112 (Admin)
Benjamin Cohen v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 90 (TC)