Black v Oliver
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE BROWN,LORD JUSTICE WALLER,LORD JUSTICE STEPHENSON |
| Judgment Date | 17 February 1978 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1978] EWCA Civ J0217-1 |
| Docket Number | LVC/483/1974 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 17 February 1978 |
[1978] EWCA Civ J0217-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
On Appeal from decision of the Lands Tribunal dated 29th October 1975.
Lord Justice Stephenson
Lord Justice Browne
and
Lord Justice Waller
THE APPELLANT appeared in person.
MR. A. FLETCHER (instructed by the Solicitor of the Inland Revenue) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
(Reserved)
This is an appeal by the rate-payer, Mrs. Pauline Black, from a decision of the Lands Tribunal dated 29th October 1975 as to the valuation for rating of part of a house at 181, Oxford Gardens, London W.10, which she occupies. The valuation has to be made in accordance with section 19(2) of the General Rate Act 1967 and the definition of "gross value" in section 19(6).
The hereditament is described in the Decision of the Tribunal:
"Mrs. Pauline Black is the occupier of a first floor flat in a two storey house known as 181 Oxford Gardens, North Kensington, W.10., which is situated at the western end of the thoroughfare close to the junction of Latimer Road. The house was built about the turn of the century and the appeal flat comprises two bedrooms, landing, w.c., living-room with communicating lobby to the kitchen. It is approached through the street door, hall and staircase near the top of which there is a door. There is the use of a ground-floor bathroom and a right of passage through the ground-floor kitchen to the back garden".
In the Notice of Appeal the Appellant contended that the hereditament was incorrectly described in the Valuation List, but she has rightly abandoned this contention.
In the 1973 Valuation List the Appellant's hereditament was assessed at Gross Value £260, Rateable Value £190. On 6th May 1974 the Appellant made a Proposal (Doc.V.O.1(a)) that "the hereditament should be reassessed as uninhabitable", which I understand to mean that the value should be reduced to Nil. On 10th October 1974 the Local Valuation Court reduced the assessment to Gross Value £100, Rateable Value £60. The Appellant appealed to the Lands Tribunal, which on 29th October 1975 made a further redaction to Gross Value £70, Rateable Value £39. The Appellant now appeals to this Court, asking that the value should be reduced to Nil.
There is no doubt that this house is in an appalling state.
There are two Statements of Agreed Facts, a "Statement of Facts (General)" - VO/2 - and a "Statement of Agreed Facts relating to the condition of Disrepair" - VO/6. I need not refer to these in detail, because they are accurately and helpfully summarised in the Decision of the Tribunal:-
"The parties agreed a comprehensive schedule of condition as at the date of the proposal. This indicated that the flat was indeed in an extremestate of dilapidation. It is unnecessary to describe this in detail but it includes defective windows, dampness, active wet and dry rot in architraves, floorboards and joists (including a large hole extending right through from the kitchen lobby to the kitchen underneath), defective wall and ceiling plaster, no hot water, collapsed sink (necessitating the use of a hose to fill cooking vessels etc.), broken w.c. cistern, and no electric supply due to the Board's refusal to connect owing to unsafe wiring."
Then on page 4:
"I have inspected the appeal flat and the general state of repair of the house. I find that the condition is as described in the schedule together with further dilapidation which has taken place naturally over the intervening period. I am in no doubt that the flat is unfit and dangerous for occupation especially in regard to the living room and kitchen and w.c, area in the back addition, and the shared bathroom is quite unusable. But it is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to procure a closing order."
The first point we have to consider is the effect, if any, on the rateable value of the "harassment" of the Appellant by people living in the ground floor of the house. On 16th January, 1975, when I understand that the ground floor was empty, though there had previously been people living there, the Kensington Borough Council made a "Direction" under/section 19 of the Housing Act 1961, as amended by the Housing Act 1969, directing that the maximum number of households for the house (i.e., the whole house) should be one. That section provides as follows:-
19.-(1) A local authority may, for the purpose of preventing the occurrence of, or remedying, a state of affairs calling for the service of a notice or a further notice under section fifteen of this Act, fix as a limit for the house what is in their opinion the highest number of individuals or households or both who should, having regard to the considerations set out in subsection (1) of that section, occupy the house in its existing condition, and give a direction applying that limit to the house.
(2) A direction under the foregoing subsection shall have effect so as to make it the duty of the occupier for the time being of the house not to permit the number of individuals or households occupying the house to increase to a number above the limit specified in the direction and, if it is for the time being above that number, not to permit it to increase further. (10) If any person knowingly fails to comply with the requirements or furnishes a statement which to his knowledge is false in any material particular, he shallbe guilty of an offence under this subsection. (11) A person committing an offence under the last foregoing subsection of this section shall be liable on summary convict ion - (a) where he has not previously been convicted of an offence under that subsection or section ninety of the principal Act, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and (b) where he has previously been convicted of offence under that subsection or the said section ninety, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both".
In spite of this Direction, two families of Nigerians, totalling 13 people, moved into the ground floor in August 1973 and stayed there till March 1975, which covered the date of the proposal in May 1974. As I have said, the letting to the Appellant included the shared use of a bathroom on the ground floor. It looks from the plan (VO/5) as if the ground floor consists, besides the bathroom, of three rooms and a kitchen.
The Lands Tribunal dealt with this point as follows:-
Ground (4) of the 'Appellant's appeal to the Tribunal was-"that at the material date she was subjected to harrassment by a family living temporarily in the ground floor flat in overcrowded conditions."
The Tribunal said:
"With reference to Ground 4 it is understood that the family who lived in the ground floor were re-soused in March 1975 at which date the Kensington Council made and posted a limitation order under section 19 of the Housing Act 1961, which prevents re-occupation of the ground floor as a separate household as long as she resides upstairs.-"
Pausing there, as I have said, it was not in March 1975 that the section 19 order was made but in January 1973. The Tribunal went on:
"Harassment is an offence for which remedy lies elsewhere".
In my judgment, the Tribunal is saying in the last sentence I have quoted that what was happening on the ground floor was not relevant to the valuation for rating of the Appellant's hereditament on the first floor and could not be taken into account in the valuation. I think this is made lea by paragraph 4 (c) of the Case Stated:-
"The questions upon which the decision of the Honourable Court is desired are:- … (c) whether harassment was an offence for which remedylay elsewhere or whether in any event it is grounds for a reduction in assessment".
I have no doubt that the Tribunal was wrong in so holding, and that this was an error of law. The case must therefore go back to the Tribunal for re-hearing. What weight the Tribunal gives to this factor and what effect it has on the valuation is a matter for them. I entirely agree with Mr. Fletcher that in the ordinary way the Lands Tribunal ought not to be required to decide neighbourly disputes about whose children make the most noise and who makes the most mess in a shared kitchen, and in the ordinary way I see no reason to disagree with what was said by the Tribunal in Hyde v. Arden (V.O.) (1972) Rating and Valuation Reports, 306 at page 307
"Inconsiderate neighbours (as the tribunal has also remarked before now) cannot of themselves be deemed to depress the rateable value of a property".
It is a question of fact and degree. In the present case, it seems to me obvious that as a matter of common sense the conditions on the ground floor at the relevant date (May 1974), especially having regard to the shared bathroom, were something which must affect the rent which any tenant would be prepared to pay for the first floor. In my judgment, it is in law something which can and ought to be taken into account in the rating valuation.
But, although I think that the case must in any event go back to the Tribunal on this point, we must also deal with the main question raised in the appeal. Mrs. Black says that, apart from the harassment point, the value should be reduced to "Nil", and even if this is wrong we should try to give guidance to the Tribunal about how it should consider this other question on the rehearing.
This question, raises two points:
(1) Was the Tribunal right in holding that because Mrs. Black was in beneficial occupation the value could not be nil?
(2) What is the effect of the Borough Council's 'Direction' under section 19 of the Housing Act 1961; in particular, what is the effect on value if the occupation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Decision Nº RA 480 1993. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 22-02-2000
...Textiles Ltd (1985) 83 LGR 317 Clement (VO) v Addis Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 301 Hoare (VO) v National Trust [1998] RA 391 Black v Oliver [1978] 1 QB 870 Jones v Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (1865) 11 HL Cas 443 Kingston Union Assessment Committee v Metropolitan Water Board [1926] AC 331 Staley v......
- Hoare v National Trust; National Trust v Spratling
-
Best Origin Ltd v Commissioner Of Rating And Valuation
...in which it has been held that a rateable tenement (or hereditament) has a nil rateable value. The court was shown two: Black v Oliver [1978] 1 QB 870 and Hoare (Valuation Officer) v National Trust [1998] RA 391. These were both cases on very unusual facts: at one extreme a house that was u......
-
Decision Nº RA 48 2011. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 13-02-2015
...Water Board v Hertford Corporation [1953] 1 WLR 622 Barking Rating Authority v Central Electricity Board [1940] 2 KB 493 Black v Oliver [1978] 1 QB 870 Dawkins (VO) v Royal Leamington Spa Corporation and Warwickshire County Council (1961) 8 RRC 241 Garton v Hunter (VO) [1969] 2 QB 37 Garton......