A student found himself in hot water after applying for an council tax exemption for a property he was living at in Bath.

 

The case offers lessons around whether students are liable for council tax based on the status of the property and whether it is also their main residence. The lack of evidence for the property being the student’s main residence ultimately meant that the student failed in his attempt to be exempt from council tax.

 

Yitong namecard

 

The case

 

The subject of this case is a High Court appeal by Mr Marshall (“the Appellant”) against a decision made by the Valuation Tribunal for England (“the Tribunal”) of the local council (“the Respondent”). The appellant contested the decision of the Respondent which determined that the property was liable for council tax and did not qualify for a statutory exemption based on his student status. After the Tribunal dismissed his appeal under the Local Government Finance Act 1992, he subsequently appealed under the 2009 Regulations.

 

The Issue and the Law

 

The Appellant, along with his siblings and father, Mr Marshall KC, is a long leaseholder of a property located at a property in Bath, which they acquired in February 2022. During the Appellant’s studies at BPP University Law School from September 2022 to June 2023, he resided with his parents in London.

 

The dispute arose from a Council Tax Bill dated in December 2022, which charged £818.21 for the period from November 2022 to March 2023, with instalments due in January, February, and March. In February 2023, the Appellant submitted a request for a Class K exemption, claiming full-time student status and seeking reimbursement for payments made. The Council requested proof of residence, including utility bills and a student certificate.

 

The Appellant provided a Certificate of Student Status and other documentation but refused to supply additional evidence, stating that his parents covered the utilities. The Respondent continued to request further documentation to verify the Appellant’s residency.

 

The Respondent rejected the exemption claim, citing that the leaseholders were liable for the Council Tax and that the Appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim of residency or that the other owners were full-time students. The application for the Class K exemption was ultimately denied due to failure to meet the necessary criteria.

 

Tribunal appeal

 

The Appellant appealed to the Tribunal who gave its decision on April 2024, addressed an appeal regarding the respondent’s determination that the Appellant was not entitled to Class K or Class N exemptions for the disputed period. The Tribunal examined evidence presented by both parties, including statements, utility bills, and a student certificate. The main issue was whether the Appellant occupied the property as his main residence during the disputed period.

 

The Tribunal noted that while the Appellant was a joint owner and a student, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the property was his main residence. The evidence provided, such as utility bills and a student certificate, did not support the claim of main residence, as the Appellant primarily resided in London during the week and only stayed at the property on weekends. Therefore the Tribunal found that the scant evidence did not meet the burden of proof required to establish the property as the Appellant’s sole or main residence.

 

The Conclusion

 

The High Court Judge considered the facts in accordance with the legislative framework for council tax. The central issue for the application is the “sole or main residence” test for Class N exemption from council tax. The Appellant contends that this test should not apply to his case, which is based on his status as a student residing at the property during the Occupation Period.

 

The Appellant’s arguments included claims that the Tribunal misinterpreted evidence and failed to consider all witness statements. However, the Tribunal’s decision was upheld, as it was determined that the Appellant’s presence at the property did not constitute main residence, given the evidence of his living arrangements and the nature of his occupancy.

The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with the Tribunal’s conclusions regarding the definition of “resident” and the assessment of main residence being deemed appropriate and legally sound. The Tribunal’s findings were based on a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence, and the Appellant’s claims were found to lack sufficient merit to overturn the original decision.

 

The judgment was handed out on 11 October 2024.

 

Have questions? Get in touch today!

 

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

 

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

 

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

 

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.