SCOLAG October 2006: Administrative Law Update
Posted: January 18, 2007
Download Full Article: 
SCOLAG Journal - October 2006.pdf
Part one of a review of significant welfare law and other relevant cases from Scotland and England (last appearing in July 2006) by Robert Sutherland, Advocate. This collection covers decisions issued to the end of August 2006.
Children
R v. Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council ex p. M, [2006] EWCA Civ 917, 5 July 2006 (see Homelessness)
Hardy v. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council, [2006] EWHC 1928 (Admin), 27 July 2006
The appellant owned a flat which had been let to three different individuals, each individual having a tenancy agreement in respect of a named room, and each being awarded housing benefit in respect of the liability for rent for those parts they occupied. The local authority claimed that the appellant was liable to pay council tax under s8, Local Government Finance Act 1992 and reg2, class C, Council Tax (Liability for Owners) Regulations 1992. A valuation tribunal found that each individual had been a tenant of only part of the flat rather than occupying as a single household, and therefore reg 2, class C(b)(i) applied. The appellant argued that the regulations had been misinterpreted and that the local authority had failed to serve a demand notice as soon as reasonably practicable.
Held The tribunal had material before it that entitled it to conclude that s8 and reg 2, class C applied. The tribunal's jurisdiction under s16, 1992 Act was limited to deciding whether on a proper construction of the Act and the regulations the facts of the case showed that the dwelling was a chargeable one, that the person in question was liable to pay council tax in respect of that dwelling, or whether the calculation of the tax due to be paid was accurate. It did not have jurisdiction to determine whether the council was in breach of administration and enforcement regulations.
(For full paper please download using link at the top of the page.)