South Gloucestershire v Titley 2006
LIVING ROOM - ADDITIONAL HEATING - REQUIRED FOR MEETING THE NEEDS OF A DISABLED PERSON
This case concerned an application for rate rebate by the occupant of a flat which comprised two bedrooms, a living room, a bathroom, a kitchen and a hall. The ratepayer suffered from arthritis, and her living room contained an electric fire and a night storage heater, this latter providing additional heating made necessary by her disability.
The application for rebate was based upon a view that the living room fell within the provisions of section 1 [2J(a] of the then Rating [Disabled Persons] Act 1978, it being claimed that it was predominantly used by, and was required for meeting the needs of, a disabled person.
The rating authority rejected the application, but the county court upheld the ratepayer's appeal against that decision. It was the conclusion of the county court judge that, since the additional heating was necessary because of the applicant's disability, it could be said that the room was essential or of major importance to her well-being by reason of the nature and extent of that disability. The authority further appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Fox LJ, in the Court of Appeal, acknowledged that the living room was predominantly used by the ratepayer, but he considered that the question that must be asked was whether the living room [as distinct from the heating] was essential, or was of major importance, to her well-being by reason of the nature and extent of her disability. He said that it was the heating that was necessary on account of the disability, not the room, and pointed out that the night storage heater was not an item that affected the rateable value of the property.
The Court of Appeal determined that the room was not essential or of major importance to the ratepayer by reason of the nature and extent of her disability, and the rating authority's appeal against the decision of the county court was allowed.
DWELLING ADAPTED FOR USE BY A DISABLED PERSON - BATHROOM CONVERTED TO SHOWER ROOM - WHETHER SHOWER ROOM ESSENTIAL FOR THE WELL-BEING OF A QUALIFYING INDIVIDUAL - THE CONTEXT AND PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS.
The case
The taxpayer in this case suffered from a number of disabling physical complaints, and her home had been adapted to help her to cope with her disabilities. These adaptations included the addition of a stair lift, the raising of the level of electricity sockets, the lowering of switches and kitchen cupboards, the addition of handrails and the installation of a disabled person's shower.
The taxpayer claimed a reduction in her council tax liability on the basis that the shower room was a facility required for meeting the needs of a "qualifying individual", in accordance with regulations 1 and 3 of the Council Tax [Reductions for Disabilities] Regulations 1992 [see above]. The billing authority declined to accept this view and the matter proceeded to the valuation tribunal as an appeal against the authority's decision to refuse relief. The tribunal upheld the taxpayer's contention, and the authority appealed to the High Court.
The valuation tribunal agreed that the taxpayer was a "qualifying individual", as provided for in regulation 1 [2] of the 1992 Regulations. It further noted that, "in order to install the disabled person's shower, which had walk-in/wheelchair access, the bath in the original bathroom had to be removed and the wall between the bathroom and a separate w.c. demolished to create a new room that allowed sufficient wheelchair access should the necessity arise".
It was the tribunal's conclusion that the shower room was essential to the taxpayer's well-being because, "due to the nature and extent of her disability, she was unable to use a bath, and - - - that to be able to keep oneself clean was essential to a person's well-being". 'n arriving at this conclusion, the tribunal had had regard to a dictionary definition of a bathroom as being "a room containing a bath" and of a bath as being "a large container for water, in which one sits to wash all over".
The billing authority submitted to the High Court, however, that the decision of the tribunal was wrong because it had not properly understood the nature of that which it was required to do, which was to interpret and apply the true meaning of the regulations.
Turner J, in the High Court, referred to the Court of Appeal judgment in the rating case of Howell Williams v Wirral Borough Council [1981 J [see this section], which emphasised the relevant words under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978, now to be found in regulation 3(2J of the 1992 Regulations [see above], as to the interpretation of the expression "required for meeting the needs of". This is to be construed now, as it was then, as meaning that for anything to be so required for the purpose of the regulations, it must be essential or of major importance to the disabled person's well-being by reason of the nature and extent of their disability.
Turner J went on to say that what was necessary, in the present case, was a consideration of the context of the regulations and their purpose. He sa id that the purpose of the regulations was to relieve an eligible person of what would otherwise be an increase in their council tax liability when they needed a room in their dwelling which was required for meeting the needs of a qualifying individual resident in the dwelling, and he found that there was no "additional room", so required, in this instance.
Turner J then considered whether, "given the implied statutory purpose of the regulations", the expression "a bathroom" necessarily excluded a shower room, and said that if the expression is used descriptively as being a room in which the person carries out their normal ablutions, whether in a bath or by way of a shower, there was no problem in discovering the proper meaning of the word "bathroom" where it appears in regulation 3
It was held that the valuation tribunal had arrived at the wrong conclusion through concentrating on the single word "bathroom" instead of considering the statutory context and purpose of the regulations. The billing authority's appeal was allowed.
Cite: BLD 0907032446.
Court: Administrative Court.
Judge: Silber J.
Hearing Date: 8 July 2003.
Representation: Timothy Jones (instructed by Steve Cork, Oldbury) for the authority. The respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Legislation Considered: Council Tax (Reductions for Disabilities) Regulations 1992, SI 1992/554, reg 3.
Annotations: Luton BC v Ball BLD 2803011021.
The respondent applied to the local rating authority for a reduction in his council tax under the Council Tax (Reductions for Disabilities) Regulations 1992 on the basis that one room in his home was occupied by his mother who was disabled.
Regulation 3 provided that a person was eligible for a reduction if:
‘(1) he is a liable person as regards a dwelling which is the sole or main residence of at least one [disabled] individual and in which there is provided (i) a room which is not a bathroom, a kitchen or a lavatory and which is predominantly used (whether for providing therapy or otherwise) by and is required for meeting the needs of any qualifying individual resident in the dwelling; or (ii) a bathroom or kitchen which is not the only bathroom or kitchen within the dwelling and which is required for meeting the needs of any qualifying individual resident in the dwelling …’
Regulation 3(2) provided that ‘for the purposes of paragraph (1), and subject to paragraph (3), references to anything being required for meeting the needs of a qualifying individual are references to its being essential or of major importance to his well-being by reason of the nature and extent of his disability’. The authority refused to grant a reduction, but that decision was overturned on appeal to a valuation tribunal. The authority appealed against that decision to the High Court, contending that the tribunal had failed to find the necessary causal link between the disability and the requirement for use of the room in question.
The application would be allowed.
Applying settled principles, the Regulations required that any tribunal determining whether a person was entitled to a reduction in his council tax had to consider whether there was the appropriate causative link between the disability and the requirement for use of the room in question. The tribunal had failed to do so in the instant case, and, accordingly, its decision would be quashed.
Williams v Wirral BC (1981) 79 LGR 697 applied; Luton BC v Ball [2001] All ER (D) 323 (Mar) followed.
The DCLG have no plans to change the regulations as a result of the decision.
If billing authorities wish to give discounts in circumstances outside the parameters set by the High Court judgement, they can consider using the new power to create locally defined discounts available from 18 November.
The power can be exercised in an individual case, for example because of hardship, or for a particular class of council taxpayer such as people with disabilities.
