Salmon, R (on the application of) v Feltham Magistrates Court & Anor

Salmon, R (on the application of) v Feltham Magistrates Court & Anor

The regulations are not ultra vires as the Act expressly authorises collection of estimated amounts and payments on account; no valid tender of payment was made by the tenant to trigger Regulation 34(5); the property was properly designated as a house in multiple occupation and liability falls on the owner; issues regarding designation and liability are for the Valuation Tribunal and cannot be raised in enforcement proceedings; no breach of Article 6 ECHR occurred as proper procedure was followed.

Parties
Claimant: John Stuart Salmon; First Defendant: Feltham Magistrates' Court; Second Defendant: London Borough of Hounslow
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Council Tax Liability, Ultra Vires, House in Multiple Occupation, Judicial Review Procedure, Article 6 ECHR
Administrative Law Local Government Law Tax Law Council Tax Liability Ultra Vires House in Multiple Occupation Judicial Review Procedure Article 6 ECHR

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Stuart Salmon

Claimant

Feltham Magistrates' Court

First Defendant

London Borough of Hounslow

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 are ultra vires the Local Government Finance Act 1992
  2. 2 Whether an offer to pay council tax by a tenant triggers Regulation 34(5) and prevents enforcement against the owner
  3. 3 Whether the property was correctly designated as a house in multiple occupation for council tax purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The regulations are not ultra vires as the Act expressly authorises collection of estimated amounts and payments on account; no valid tender of payment was made by the tenant to trigger Regulation 34(5); the property was properly designated as a house in multiple occupation and liability falls on the owner; issues regarding designation and liability are for the Valuation Tribunal and cannot be raised in enforcement proceedings; no breach of Article 6 ECHR occurred as proper procedure was followed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant to pay second defendant's costs, to be taxed; no summary assessment of costs; permission to appeal refused