Carmarthenshire County Council, R (on the application of) v Evans

MR JUSTICE FORBES: This is an appeal against the decision of the West Wales Valuation Tribunal ("the Tribunal") whereby it allowed the appeal of Mrs TJ Evans ("Mrs Evans") against the appellant's refusal to grant her a Council Tax Student Disregard Discount.

The factual background can be briefly stated. Mrs Evans is undertaking an All Wales Part-Time Occupational Therapy Course at the University of Wales College of Medicine. The course began on 1st October 2001 and is due to conclude on 30th June 2005. On 14th February 2002, Mrs Evans made an appeal to the appellant ("the Council") for a Council Tax Student Disregard Discount, because she was undertaking the Occupational Therapy course.

On 27th March 2002, the application was refused by the Council. Mrs Evans appealed to the Tribunal on 31st March 2002. The appeal was heard on 4th March 2003 and, by a notice of decision dated 24th April 2003, the appeal was allowed. In the event, an amended decision notice was also issued by the Tribunal on 14th May 2003 in which the Tribunal's reasons were set out in very much greater detail and this was received by the Council on 16th May 2003.

The issue for determination in these proceedings is whether the Tribunal was correct in law to find that Mrs Evans's course was a full-time course of education which qualified under the terms of the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992. It is therefore necessary to refer to the relevant statutory and regulatory framework.

Section 11 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, so far as material, provides as follows:

Paragraph 4 of schedule 1 to the 1992 Act provides, so far as material:

The relevant regulations are the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992, hereafter referred to as the 1992 Order. Regulation 4 of the 1992 Order provides, so far as material, as follows:

Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 is in the following terms:

Subparagraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 do not apply in this case and therefore do not need to be considered.

The essential question which is raised in these proceedings is whether the course upon which Mrs Evans had embarked was one which met the definition of a full-time course of education as defined by paragraph 4 of part 2 to Schedule 1 of the 1992 Order. If the answer to that question is yes, then she is entitled to the Council Tax Student Disregard Discount for which she applied. If the answer to that question is no, she is not so entitled. It was that issue which was before the Tribunal and which gives rise to the subsequent challenge to the Tribunal's decision.

On behalf of the Council, Mr Maddox submitted that Mrs Evans' course is a part-time course and as such does not fall within paragraph 4 of part 2 to Schedule 1 of the 1992 Order, for the following two reasons: (1) the title of the course makes it clear that it is part-time and not full-time: in the application for the Council Tax Disregard Discount, Mrs Evans described the title of the course as an "All Wales Part-Time Occupational Therapy Programme"; (2) quite apart from the title of the course, the course itself does not fall within the definition of full-time course of education as set out in paragraph 4(1) of part 2 to Schedule 1 of the 1992 Order ("Paragraph 4 of the 1992 Order").

Mr Maddox submitted, rightly, that to come within the definition of full-time education, the course upon which Mrs Evans has embarked must be one which complies with each of the subparagraphs of paragraph 4 of the 1992 Order, namely subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c).

Mr Maddox conceded that in this particular case, subparagraphs 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(c) of the definition were satisfied. This case turns entirely on whether the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the course in question was one which Mrs Evans was normally required to attend for periods of at least 24 weeks in each academic or calendar year. That is the crucial question upon which this appeal turns.

The Tribunal had certain evidence before it for the purposes of the appeal by Mrs Evans against the original refusal of the discount in question. The principal evidence which bore upon the central issue which had to be decided by the Tribunal was the brochure provided by the course provider and a letter from the Programme Manager of the course dated 18th March 2002. I turn first to consider some aspects of the brochure.

On page 6 of the brochure, the annual college attendance requirements and study leave requirements are set out. In addition to the text on that page, there is a table which sets out a time allocation. It is quite clear from the terms of page 6 that the annual college attendance which is required totals 43 days in all. 30 of those individual days are attendance days at college either on Mondays or Fridays. Three of those days are what are said to be "3-day workshops". There are three 3-day workshops, and in addition to that there are two residential workshops over a weekend period, all making up the total overall attendance requirement of 43 days.

In addition to that, the table on page 6 sets out the actual time allocations requirements for each year of the four year course. Looking at the table, it is clear that for year 1, the total hours required of each student for study give rise to a total of 15.7 weeks in the year. In year 2, the total is 24.1 weeks; in year 3 it is 18.6 weeks; and in year 4 it is also 18.6 weeks. Mr Maddox submitted that, on the basis of those figures, Mrs Evans is not required to attend the educational establishment for at least 24 weeks in each academic year, apart from in year 2. Accordingly, he submitted that her course does not meet the requirements of paragraph 4(1)(b) of the 1992 Order, except in the case of year 2. It therefore follows that, if the brochure accurately sets out the attendance requirements, the course simply does not qualify as a full-time course within the terms of paragraph 4 of the 1992 Order.

However, there was also the letter from the Programme Manager, dated 18th March 2002. That letter was in the following terms:

Mr Maddox submitted that the letter of 18th March 2002 was not a satisfactory letter. He pointed out that the letter appears to assert that Mrs Evans will study for 33 weeks per year. He submitted that that cannot be reconciled with the weeks of study set out on page 6 of the brochure, except to the extent that the figures given with regard to the one or two days per week required attendance at the institution are set out on page 6 by reference to a total of, amongst other things, 30 weeks in the college year. Mr Maddox emphasised that what did not appear on page 6 of the brochure was anything to indicate that students were required to attend college for 33 full weeks a year.

On that basis, Mr Maddox suggested that it would be wrong to read the letter of 18th March 2002 as referring to a requirement on the part of students attending this course to attend college for 33 weeks every year. Mr Maddox submitted that the part of the letter in which the 33 week per year details are given was a part of the letter dealing with the number of hours per week that each student would be required to study. In other words, it was Mr Maddox's submission that that part of the letter was dealing with subparagraph (c) of paragraph 4 of the 1992 Order.

In the event, it is clear from the amended decision that the Tribunal took another view as to the meaning of the letter of the 18th March 2002. At page 2 of the amended decision, the Tribunal found as follows:

As it seems to me, there are two plain errors in that part of the Tribunal's findings. First, the letter of 18th March 2002 did not refer to an attendance requirement of 33 weeks per year. The letter referred to the fact that the course was held over a period of 33 weeks per year, but what it did not say was that each student was required to attend the college for 33 full weeks per year. The 33 weeks to which reference is made in the letter is, on any sensible view of its context, a reference to the number of weeks per year in respect of which the number of hours of study were to be calculated. The 33 weeks per year was not a statement of the number of weeks that each student would be attending the course. I am persuaded that Mr Maddox is right in submitting that the Tribunal's conclusion was based on a plain misinterpretation of the letter.

It is perhaps easy to understand how the Tribunal fell into error when the Tribunal's second error is identified. The second error is the assertion by the Tribunal that the facts were not disputed by the Billing Authority, the Council.

However, it was disputed by the Council that Mrs Evans was required to attend the college for 33 weeks per year. That was the essential matter which was in dispute. The Council's position was that Mrs Evans was not required to attend the college for 24 weeks or more in the course of each academic year. That was the essential point made by the Council with regard to the regulations, namely that Mrs Evans' course did not meet the requirements of paragraph 4(1)(b) of the 1992 Order.

By apparently assuming that the Council did not dispute the assertion that 33 weeks of attendance was required of Mrs Evans, the Tribunal fell into error in assuming or concluding that that was what the letter of 18th March 2002 stated. The letter plainly did not state that.

I am satisfied that the decision of the Tribunal is plainly flawed in those two respects, and as such cannot stand. In my view, the error of law on which this appeal is based is made out. The Tribunal's decision must therefore be quashed and, having regard to the uncertainty which arises out of the ambiguities of the letter of 18th March 2002, I consider that this is an appropriate matter in which to remit the matter to the Tribunal for further consideration before a differently constituted panel.

I will hear any submissions with regard to other orders that may be required, if any. Yes, Mr Maddox.

MR MADDOX: My Lord, I am grateful for that. I have no application to make any order as for costs.

MR JUSTICE FORBES: Thank you.