Michael Stanuszek v Dawn Bunyan (Listing Officer)
[2023] EWHC 3275 (Admin)
Howard Gardens Manco Limited, R (on the application of) v Lucy Formela-Osbourne (Listing Officer)
14 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1112 (Admin)
High Court
A company owning student flats challenged the council's decision to charge council tax for each bedroom instead of each flat. The court sided with the council, saying the council's decision-making process was reasonable even though it didn't perfectly match a guidance document. The council considered important factors about the flats, and there wasn't enough clear information about similar flats to make a different decision.
Key Facts
- •Howard Gardens Manco Limited owns a student accommodation block with 61 flats, each containing 4-11 en-suite bedrooms and shared kitchen/living areas.
- •Cardiff City Council's listing officer refused to aggregate the bedrooms for council tax purposes, leading to individual charges per bedroom.
- •The claimant challenged the decision on five grounds, primarily arguing that the decision was irrational and inconsistent with the treatment of similar properties.
- •The decision-maker considered various factors, including the number of bedrooms, the ratio of shared space, and the presence of en-suite facilities.
Legal Principles
Council tax is payable on "dwellings" as defined in the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and the Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992. Listing officers have discretion to aggregate multiple units into one dwelling.
Local Government Finance Act 1992, Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992
In exercising discretion to aggregate, listing officers must consider all circumstances, including the extent of structural alterations, degree of shared facilities, adaptations, and transience of occupiers.
Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992, Article 4(2); James v Williams; R v London South East Valuation Tribunal, ex p Moore
Listing officers must have regard to relevant policy guidance (Practice Note 6), and if departing from it, provide clear reasons.
Practice Note 6
Judicial review is available where a decision-maker acts irrationally, makes an error of fact, fails to consider relevant factors, or acts inconsistently with the treatment of similar cases.
E v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (Gallagher Group Ltd) v Competition and Markets Authority; Ladies Hosiery and Underwear Ltd v West Middlesex Assessment Committee
Outcomes
The claim was dismissed.
The court found that the listing officer's decision, while not explicitly following every aspect of Practice Note 6, was not irrational or unlawful. The officer considered relevant factors and provided sufficient reasons for their decision, accounting for the specific characteristics of the property and the lack of clear evidence regarding the comparable properties.
Similar Cases
Cameron Marshall v Bath and North East Somerset Council
[2024] EWHC 2551 (Admin)
Espalier Ventures Property (Lansdowne Road) Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 725 (TC)
Laurentiu Tarbuc v Dawn Bunyan (List Officer)
[2024] EWHC 897 (Admin)
London Borough of Lambeth v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2024] EWHC 1391 (Admin)