High Court Upholds Decision in Clark v Bunyan on Council Tax Valuation Banding

Citation: [2024] EWHC 486 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

The case of Doreen Clark v Dawn Bunyan (Listing Officer) revolves around an appeal against a decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England (VTE), concerning the Council Tax band of Doreen Clark’s property. The crux of this case lies within the council tax valuation and banding, the Listing Officer’s powers to amend valuation lists, the relevance of material changes, and the limitations of appeals on factual grounds versus questions of law.

Key Facts

The VTE had originally affirmed the Listing Officer’s decision to increase the Council Tax band of the appellant’s property from Band E to Band F after discovering the property’s size had been incorrectly recorded. The appellant represented herself and contested this decision, asserting multiple grounds for the appeal. These included the measurement methods used (RCA vs. GEA), the correctness of the original property size recorded, the effect of external factors like proximity to a school, and the comparable evidence used to determine the valuation.

The appellant’s appeal to the High Court was presided over by Mr Justice Julian Knowles, who reviewed the pertinent legal principles and the VTE’s use of these principles in reaching the original decision.

The legal principles discussed in the case centered on these primary aspects:

  1. Council Tax Banding: Council Tax is assessed according to specific bands set on 1 April 1991. For new properties, Listing Officers make hypothetical evaluations as if the property was sold on this ‘antecedent valuation date’ (AVD). The decision hinged on whether the property should have been in Band E or Band F, as defined per Council Tax bands.

  2. Listing Officer’s Duties: The Listing Officer is responsible for maintaining an accurate list of properties and their council tax bands. Under Regulation 3(1)(b)(i) of the 2009 Regulations, they can correct inaccuracies if a different valuation band should have been applied. The High Court emphasized that inaccuracies must be corrected to maintain an accurate list.

  3. Valuation Assumptions: Under Regulation 6(1) of the 1992 Regulations, a property’s valuation assumes hypothetically that its size, state, and locality remain consistent with the relevant date, irrespective of the actual conditions.

  4. Judicial Review Limitations: Appeals to the High Court from the VTE lie solely on points of law, not on the merits of the factual findings made by the VTE. The High Court’s role is not to re-evaluate evidence, but to determine whether legal errors have occurred in the application of relevant statutory principles or if the decision was irrational with no evidence basis.

  5. Wednesbury Unreasonableness: A decision can be considered unlawful if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it, providing grounds for judicial intervention, as set out in “Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation.”

  6. Relevant Case Laws: The judgment referenced several case laws, including “Zeynab Adam v Johnson (LO)” and “Listing Officer for Cornwall v Dannhauser”, which affirmed a Listing Officer’s authority to alter Council Tax bands when errors were originally made.

Outcomes

Justice Julian Knowles dismissed the appeal, ruling that the VTE had applied the law correctly. He concluded there were no legal errors in the VTE’s approach to the valuation assumptions, the discretion exercised by the Listing Officer, and the other discretionary matters brought before the VTE.

It was determined that the VTE had properly directed itself in law; the RCA methodology for property measurement was endorsed, and the Listing Officer’s power to amend the valuation list was upheld. Moreover, the VTE was within its rights to exclude further submissions on matters that had been previously addressed and dismissed in other similar appeals.

Conclusion

In Doreen Clark v Dawn Bunyan (Listing Officer), the High Court upheld the decision from the VTE, confirming the legal principles related to Council Tax banding and the powers of a Listing Officer to maintain an accurate valuation list. The case underscores the importance of accurate record-keeping for property valuations and clarifies the extent of judicial review regarding valuation tribunal decisions. It reaffirms that the High Court’s purview is restricted to reviewing questions of law, not matters of fact or the merits of evidence evaluated by specialist tribunals.