The High Court heard an appeal challenging the council's decision to place a mobile home in a D band based on reliance on comparable settlements due to the absence of direct sales evidence.
Background:
Mr. Lewis purchased a mobile home at Cambrian Residential Park in 2021 for £264,000. The home comprised two bedrooms, a bathroom, kitchen, and a living room, with a total 96m2 of floor space.
The home was entered into the council tax valuation list with effect from 23 May 2022 in band D, which Mr. Lewis contested, proposing it should be band A. After his proposal was rejected, he appealed to the Valuation Tribunal for Wales, which upheld the band D classification. Mr. Lewis then appealed to the High Court under Regulation 32 of the Council Tax (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations (CTRs) 1993, disputing the assumptions applied in the valuation process and the reliance on settlements of other mobile home owners.
Decision:
The High Court dismissed the appeal. The Court rejected Mr. Lewis’s argument that the Tribunal should have applied statutory assumptions alongside factual background and that adjustments were warranted based on the evidence.
The Court started by analysing Regulation 6 of the Council Tax (Situation and Valuation of Dwellings) Regulations 1992, which deals with the assumptions. The Judge noted that “It is well established in case law that the purpose of the assumptions is to provide a common basis for comparison of dwellings which may have been sold or leased on different terms.” HHJ Jarman KC accepted that the Tribunal did not fully engage with the issue of assumptions but also ruled that the tribunal did not have to. The Court agreed with the tribunal that there was an absence of sales figures around the antecedent valuation date (AVD). As a result, the council could rely on the banding agreements from other mobile homes in the Cambrian Park. The burden of proof rested on Mr. Lewis to demonstrate why his property’s band should be reduced, which he failed to do.
The Judge noted that it was common ground that the mobile home was Mr. Lewis's main residence, qualifying it as a dwelling subject to council tax.
The Court noted that the reference to “assessments which are settled in the absence of the appeal" is apt to cover the six settlements which the Tribunal took into account in the present case.”
Implications:
This case highlights the discretion the council has in establishing the band in the absence of sales figures around the AVD. It is incumbent on the person challenging it to prove why the band must be reduced. Courts will not be willing to interfere if the valuation is based on comparable settlements.
This decision underscores the difficulty in valuing mobile homes due to the transaction date. This judgement also demonstrates the willingness of courts to accept settlements as valid evidence in establishing property banding.
Finally, this case is a good reminder that an appeal is regarding an error of law, as the Judge reminded us. In this case, the first two points were not discussed.