Council Tax - Meaning of 'Owner'

Liability for Council Tax is imposed by the Local Government Finance Act 1992 ('1992 Act'). In the 1992 Act, the important sections for England and Wales on the imposition of liability are those in a group of sections called 'Liability to tax', that is, sections 6 to 9 inclusive, with the key section being section 6, entitled ‘Persons liable to pay council tax’. Section 6 of the 1992 Act '...sets out a hierarchy in order of priority of those who will be liable to pay council tax in relation to a chargeable dwelling. They apply in sequence. The default position, being the sixth and final category in the hierarchy (s.6(2)(f)) is the "owner" of the dwelling.' (Khan v v Sandwell MBC [2017] EWHC 2481 (Admin), Michael Fordham QC sitting as a deputy High Court Judge, paragraph 6). Categories one to five apply to where there is a 'resident' of a (chargeable) dwelling, but, as stated, the sixth and final category in the hierarchy, imposes liability for council tax on the 'owner' of the (chargeable) dwelling - the focus of this article. That there is a hierarchy, and how the hierarchy is to be approached, is set out in section 6(1), with section 6(2) of the 1992 Act containing the hierarchy itself. Section 6(2) reads:

'A person falls within this subsection in relation to any chargeable dwelling and any day if, on that day-

(a) he is a resident of the dwelling and has a freehold interest in the whole or any part of it;

(b) he is such a resident and has a leasehold interest in the whole or any part of the dwelling which is not inferior to another such interest held by another such resident;

(c) he is both such a resident and a statutory, secure or introductory tenant of the whole or any part of the dwelling;

(d) he is such a resident and has a contractual licence to occupy the whole or any part of the dwelling;

(e) he is such a resident; or

(f) he is the owner of the dwelling.' [bold added]

(a sister article considers this hierarchy in detail)

Section 6 does not apply to all situations however. Parliament recognised that there will be range of situations for which separate provision may need to be made, by statutory instrument. Section 8 of the 1992 Act, entitled 'Liability in prescribed cases', enables a statutory instrument to be made, to deal with such situations (called 'prescribed cases'). A statutory instrument has been made, namely, the Council Tax (Liability for Owners) Regulations 1992/551 (which has been amended from time to time, the latest being 1.12.23) (the '1992 Regs'). The 1992 Regs set out 6 prescribed cases (known as 'Classes'). Section 8(1) and (2) read (so far as material)[1]:

'Subsections (3) and (4) below shall have effect in substitution for section 6 ... above in relation to any chargeable dwelling of a class prescribed for the purposes of this subsection.

Subsections (3) and (4) below shall have effect in substitution for section 6 ... above in relation to any chargeable dwelling of a class prescribed for the purposes of this subsection, if the billing authority so determines in relation to all dwellings of that class which are situated in its area.'

Section 8(3) then reads:

'Where on any day this subsection has effect in relation to a dwelling, the owner of the dwelling shall be liable to pay the council tax in respect of the dwelling and that day.' [bold added]

Owner - Preliminary Points

As to the meaning of 'owner', a couple preliminary points can be made:

(1) where there is more than one person falls into the definition of 'owner', each person will be jointly and severally liable to pay the council tax for the dwelling for the relevant day(s). This is the effect of, respectively:

(a) for section 6 situations, section 6(3) of the 1992 Act, which reads:

'Where, in relation to any chargeable dwelling and any day, two or more persons fall within the first paragraph of subsection (2) above to apply, they shall each be jointly and severally liable to pay the council tax in respect of the dwelling and that day.'

However, section 6(3) is disapplied in certain circumstances, as set out in sections 6(4), 6(4A) and 6(4B)[2].

(b) section 8 situations (i.e. the prescribed cases), section 8(4) of the 1992 Act, which reads:

'Where on any day two or more persons fall within subsection (3) above, they shall each be jointly and severally liable to pay the council tax in respect of the dwelling and that day.'

However, as with section 6(3) above, section 8(4) of the 1992 Act is disapplied in certain circumstances, as as result of section 8(5) applying sections 6(4) and 6(4A)[3].

(2) section 8(6) of the 1992 Act enables the statutory instrument to provide a different person to be liable for council tax, in relation to a prescribed case.

'Regulations prescribing a class of chargeable dwellings for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2) above may provide that, in relation to any dwelling of that class, subsection (3) above shall have effect as if for the reference to the owner of the dwelling there were substituted a reference to the person falling within such description as may be prescribed.'

There are two prescribed cases (Classes), where section 8(6) power has been used and the 'owner' reference in section 8(3) has been substituted for a different reference. Those two prescribed cases (Classes) are:

(a) Class C - entitled 'Houses in multiple occupation, etc'[3a]

(b) Class E - entitled 'Ministers of religion'[3b]

For chargeable dwellings falling into either of these two Classes, the reference to 'owner' in section 8(3) is substituted, for a different reference:

(a) for Class C - entitled 'Houses in multiple occupation, etc' - by paragraph 2A of 1992 Regs, which reads:

'(1) In relation to a dwelling within Class C in regulation 2, section 8(3) shall have effect as if, for the reference to the owner, there were substituted a reference to-

(a) the person who has a relevant material interest which is not subject to a relevant material interest inferior to it; or, if there is no such person-

(b) the person who has a freehold interest in the whole or any part of the dwelling.

(2) In paragraph (1), “relevant material interest” means a freehold or leasehold interest in the whole of the dwelling.'

(b) for Class E - entitled 'Ministers of religion' - by paragraph 3 of 1992 Regs, which reads:

'In relation to a dwelling within Class E in regulation 2 where a minister of the Church of England is the inhabitant and the owner of the dwelling and is in receipt of a stipend, section 8(3) of the Act shall have effect as if, for the reference to the owner. there were substituted a reference to the Diocesan Board of Finance of the diocese in which the dwelling is situated.'

Owner - Statutory Definition

Section 6(5) of the 1992 Act contains a definition of 'owner', a definition that applies to all sections in Part I of the 1992 Act (a Part entitled 'Council Tax: England and Wales'). Part I contains sections 1 to 19 of the 1992 Act, so it includes, section 6 and section 8 of the 1992 Act. Section 6(5) of the 1992 Act reads (so far as material)[4]:

'In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires-

“owner”, in relation to any dwelling, means the person as regards whom the following conditions are fulfilled-

(a) he has a material interest in the whole or any part of the dwelling; and

(b) at least part of the dwelling or, as the case may be, of the part concerned is not subject to a material interest inferior to his interest;'

Material Interest

Section 6(6) of the 1992 Act contains a definition of 'material interest', which reads:

'“material interest” means a freehold interest or a leasehold interest which was granted for a term of six months or more;'

(a) 'Freehold interest' and 'leasehold interest' refer to freeholds and leaseholds, the absolute property interests (ignoring commonhold).

(b) For leaseholds interests, not every leasehold will be a 'material interest'. To be a 'material interest' the leasehold interest must also meet the qualifying requirement: that the leasehold interest was '...granted for a term of six months or more'.

(i) Whether or not a leasehold interest has been '...granted for a term of six months or more' where there is a rolling periodic tenancy (following a fixed term) has caused some complex issues (discussed below) - but this will be only relevant where the person liable for council tax on the hierarchy is liable as 'owner' under (s.6(2)(f)). If the rolling tenancy leaseholder is a 'resident', this will not arise. The issue arises when a rolling leaseholder vacates without terminating (or otherwise bringing to an end) the rolling lease.

(ii) for Class C dwellings - 'Houses in multiple occupation, etc' - this is one part where the definition of 'material interest' (strictly speaking 'relevant material interest') differs as between: (I) the standard definition of 'material interest'; and (II) the Class C definition of 'material interest'. The Class C definition of “relevant material interest” means 'a freehold or leasehold interest in the whole of the dwelling'. There is no qualifying condition for leasehold interests, that they must have been '...granted for a term of six months or more'

Tenurial Ladder - No Rungs lower 

Property titles can be seen as operating a different levels. The top level is always the freehold (ignoring any, effectively academic discussion, about a historic feudal level above that). There is always a freehold at the top level; and the freehold can only appear at the top level. There can never be a freehold below the top level. Below the freehold/top level, there can only be leasehold interests. There can be any number of levels of leasehold interests below the freehold. There does not have to be a second level, or third level etc, but there can be. So, there can just be the top level, or just the top level and the second level, or the top level, second level, and third level etc. Ad infinitum. This is called the 'tenurial ladder' (each steps (i.e. level) being a 'rung' on it), or sometimes called the 'tenurial chain' (each segment (i.e. level) being a 'link' on it)

Where there are more than 1 level with a material interest on/in it, the words 'is not subject to a material interest inferior to his interest' denote which of the material interests, will be the pertinent material interest for the purpose of identifying the 'owner'. The words 'is not subject to a material interest inferior to his interest' mean the pertinent material interest, is the material interest, at the bottom of the tenurial ladder (the last 'rung' on the 'tenurial ladder'; or, to use the 'tenurial chain' language, the last link in the tenurial chain). So, if there are 3 levels, a freehold, a (head) leasehold, and a (sub) leasehold, each of which are a 'material interest', the 'owner' for section 6 and 8 of the 1992 Act (not relevant for Class C or Class E), is the person holding the (sub) leasehold. The 'owner' is not: (a) holder of the freehold; nor (b) the holder of the (head) leasehold[5].

Rolling periodic tenancies

Where there:

(a) is nobody who qualifies as a 'resident' of the dwelling, and so liability may fall on the 'owner' under section 6 of the 1992 Act, or the 'owner' is liable under section 8 (not Class C or Class E); and 

(b) is, at the lowest rung on the tenurial ladder, a leasehold interest, which was a fixed term tenancy (leasehold and tenancy can be used interchangeably), which then became a rolling tenancy thereafter, 

consideration will need to be given to whether, the rolling periodic part, is, or forms part of, a leasehold interest which was '...granted for a term of six months or more'.

Relevant authorities seem to be:

(1) Macattram v Camden LBC [2012] EWHC 1033 (Admin); [2012] RA 369; [2012] 4 WLUK 6 (QBD (Admin)), High Court (HHJ Robinson, sitting as a High Court Judge) on 2.4.12.

(2) CT v Horsham DC [2013] UKUT 617 (UT (AAC)), Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chambers) (Charles Turnbull) decision on 4.12.13[6];

(3) Leeds City Council v Broadley [2016] EWCA Civ 1213; [2017] 1 WLR 738 (CA (Civ Div)), Court of Appeal (McCombe LJ; Underhill LJ; Sir Stanley Burnton) decision on 6.12.16;

(4) Khan v Sandwell MBC [2017] EWHC 2481 (Admin) ('Khan'), High Court (Michael Fordham QC sitting as a deputy High Court Judge) decision on 13.9.17.

It suffices, to set out a quote from Khan, in relation to what was decided in Broadley. In Khan, the deputy High Court Judge said, at paragraphs 34, and 39 to 40:

'The second of the two issues in the case relates to limb (f) of s.6(2), "owner of the dwelling", and in particular "material interest" defined as for present purposes "a … leasehold interest … granted for a term of six months or more" (s.6(6)). The question with which the Tribunal had to grapple was whether the tenant after 25th November 2015, not having terminated this tenancy properly, was an owner having a leasehold interest "granted for a term of six months or more" that was still extant. It had not been terminated.

...

I interpose to deal at this stage with some observations so far as the law is concerned. Ultimately, the points as raised and argued in this case turn squarely on the 1977 Act. In the case of Broadley...the Court of Appeal considered the position where a term of a leasehold interest of six months or more then becomes a periodic term whether it is month to month or some other period. What the Court of Appeal emphasised was as follows. If there is a tenancy which as a matter of its proper construction involves a single grant of months certain then continuing from month to month, that hybrid tenancy will satisfy the limb (f) test (term of six months or more) including at the period where the month to month continuation has taken place. That is the conclusion at para.19 in the judgment in Broadley. The critical point is that there has been, in those circumstances, only one single grant of a leasehold interest and that leasehold interest is of six months or more viewed overall. That was the case in relation to the tenancy agreement that the court was considering in Broadley .

The Court of Appeal distinguished other situations where a term becomes a periodic tenancy, but by virtue of a new tenancy either because a contractual term has expired and the conduct of the parties reflects a new tenancy arising, or because a term has expired and a periodic tenancy arises by operation of statute. The key paragraphs are para.26 and para.27 in Broadley, discussing previous cases of those kinds. So, where there is a new tenancy and the previous six months or more term has expired, the focus is squarely on the new tenancy which will need to meet the statutory definition (leasehold interest granted for a term of six months). It is not open to a landlord to say that the new tenancy is derived from a term which had more than six months or more, and it is not open to a landlord to say that cumulatively the new tenancy has endured for six months or more. All of that can be seen from the summary in para.26 of a previous case called Macattram v London Borough of Camden [2012] RA 369. I mention that because it is legally significant to have in mind when a term giving way to a statutory or other periodic tenancy may not trigger the definition of material interest under limb (f).'

Beneficial Interest

In NR v Maldon DC [2019] RVR 323; [2019] 7 WLUK 856; [2020] CLY 1292, Valuation Tribunal (J Rockliff; M Bhatti) decision on 25.7.19, it was held that being beneficiaries to the estate of a deceased person (as well as executors of the estate), which contained X property, did not mean that they held a 'material interest' in the X property. In any event, X property was exempt under Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992 art.3 Class F.

This followed ZT v Lewisham LBC [2019] RVR 295; [2018] 2 WLUK 846, Valuation Tribunal (Mr G Garland) decision on 6.2.18. It is a decision which, with respect, is not easy to follow. It relates to whether the dwelling was an exempt dwelling (and so not a chargeable dwelling) under s.4 of the 1992 Act. In turn, the issue was whether the dwelling fell into Class F of The Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992 SI 1992/558). For Class F to apply, (amongst other things) the following must exist: 'no person is a qualifying person in respect of the dwelling' (where 'qualifying person' means 'a person who would, but for the provisions of this Order, be liable for the council tax in respect of a dwelling on a particular day as the owner, whether or not jointly with any other person.' (paragraph 10))

At paragraph 14, the tribunal judge said '...I cannot find any legal of [sic] beneficial interest which would satisfy the provisions of the legislation for a material interest...'. ['legal of beneficial interest' should, in the author's view, be read as 'legal or beneficial interest']

Seemingly, on the facts, the alleged taxpayer (Mr ZT; appellant/son of the deceased Mr DT) did not hold legal or beneficial interest in the subject dwelling. Neither by:

(a) reason of Mr ZT providing the purchase money to his father, during the father's lifetime, for his father to have purchased the dwelling (paragraph 5). Mr ZT was not a joint owner (paragraph 14); the money provided by Mr ZT to his father Mr DT was a loan or a gift (paragraph 14); nor 

(b) Mr ZT's likely inheritance of the estate, including the subject dwelling. The tribunal judge said, at paragraph 8 '...the property is in limbo within the estate of the late Mr D T. Given that the estate has not been wound up the legal and beneficial interests have not passed.' and later, at paragraph 14: 'Whilst in due course Mr Z T is most likely to have a material interest, that being the freehold of the dwelling, he simply did not for the period in dispute. At best he may have had a beneficial interest, but certainly no freehold interest in the dwelling'

The implication is that having (only) a beneficial interest in a freehold, does not amount holding a 'freehold interest' for the purposes of determining whether somebody had a 'material interest'. Though this raises the question, why say '...I cannot find any legal [or] beneficial interest which would satisfy the provisions of the legislation for a material interest...'. (paragraph 14) if a beneficial interest would not, anyway, be sufficient to amount to a 'material interest'?. 

Having said that, in the author's view, where there is a beneficial interest, there must be a legal interest to which the beneficial interest 'links; to. So, the issue will be, who holds that legal interest in the relevant property title, for the purposes of the 'material interest' test?

SIMON HILL © 2025*

BARRISTER 

33 BEDFORD ROW  

NOTICE: This article is provided free of charge for information purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole, or the Copyright holder. No attempt has been made to provide an exhaustive review/account of the law in this area. *Copyright is owned by Barrister Search Limited.

[1] For completeness, Local Government Finance Act 1992, section 8 entitled 'Liability in prescribed cases' reads (in its entirety):

'(1) Subsections (3) and (4) below shall have effect in substitution for section 6 or (as the case may be) section 7above in relation to any chargeable dwelling of a class prescribed for the purposes of this subsection.

(2) Subsections (3) and (4) below shall have effect in substitution for section 6 or (as the case may be) section 7 above in relation to any chargeable dwelling of a class prescribed for the purposes of this subsection, if the billing authority so determines in relation to all dwellings of that class which are situated in its area.

(3) Where on any day this subsection has effect in relation to a dwelling, the owner of the dwelling shall be liable to pay the council tax in respect of the dwelling and that day.

(4) Where on any day two or more persons fall within subsection (3) above, they shall each be jointly and severally liable to pay the council tax in respect of the dwelling and that day.

(5) Subsections (4) and (4A) of section 6 above shall apply for the purposes of subsection (4) above as they apply for the purposes of subsection (3) of that section.

(6) Regulations prescribing a class of chargeable dwellings for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2) above may provide that, in relation to any dwelling of that class, subsection (3) above shall have effect as if for the reference to the owner of the dwelling there were substituted a reference to the person falling within such description as may be prescribed.

(7) Subsections (3) and (4) of section 4 above shall apply for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) above as they apply for the purposes of subsection (2) of that section.'

[2] Local Government Finance Act 1992, sections 6(4), 6(4A) and 6(4B) read:

'(4) Subsection (3) above shall not apply as respects any day on which one or more of the persons there mentioned fall to be disregarded for the purposes of discount by virtue of paragraph 2 (severely mentally impaired) or 4 (students etc.) of Schedule 1 to this Act and one or more of them do not; and liability to pay the council tax in respect of the dwelling and that day shall be determined as follows-

(a) if only one of those persons does not fall to be so disregarded, he shall be solely liable;

(b) if two or more of those persons do not fall to be so disregarded, they shall each be jointly and severally liable.

(4A) Subsection (3) also does not apply in relation to a chargeable dwelling in Wales as respects any day on which one or more of the persons mentioned fall to be disregarded for the purposes of discount for a relevant reason and one or more of them do not; and liability to pay the council tax in respect of the dwelling and that day is determined as follows—

(a) if only one of those persons does not fall to be so disregarded, that person is solely liable;

(b) if two or more of those persons do not fall to be so disregarded, they are each jointly and severally liable.

(4B) For the purposes of subsection (4A), a person falls to be disregarded for the purposes of discount for a relevant reason if that person falls within, and meets the conditions prescribed in, Class G (care leavers) as prescribed in regulation 5(7) of the Council Tax (Additional Provisions for Discount Disregards) Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/552).'

[3] Local Government Finance Act 1992, section 8(5) reads: 

'Subsections (4) and (4A) of section 6 above shall apply for the purposes of subsection (4) above as they apply for the purposes of subsection (3) of that section.'

Local Government Finance Act 1992, sections 6(4) and 6(4A) read:

'(4) Subsection (3) above shall not apply as respects any day on which one or more of the persons there mentioned fall to be disregarded for the purposes of discount by virtue of paragraph 2 (severely mentally impaired) or 4 (students etc.) of Schedule 1 to this Act and one or more of them do not; and liability to pay the council tax in respect of the dwelling and that day shall be determined as follows-

(a) if only one of those persons does not fall to be so disregarded, he shall be solely liable;

(b) if two or more of those persons do not fall to be so disregarded, they shall each be jointly and severally liable.

(4A) Subsection (3) also does not apply in relation to a chargeable dwelling in Wales as respects any day on which one or more of the persons mentioned fall to be disregarded for the purposes of discount for a relevant reason and one or more of them do not; and liability to pay the council tax in respect of the dwelling and that day is determined as follows—

(a) if only one of those persons does not fall to be so disregarded, that person is solely liable;

(b) if two or more of those persons do not fall to be so disregarded, they are each jointly and severally liable.'

[3a] Class C is defined in Council Tax (Liability for Owners) Regulations 1992/551, paragraph 2. Paragraph 2 starts with:

'The following are the classes of chargeable dwellings prescribed for the purposes of section 8(1) of the Act-'

There are then the qualifying criteria/definitions of each of the 6 classes (Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, Class E and Class F). Some of the qualifying criteria/definitions are different as between England and Wales (Class C is different, as between England and Wales). In England, Class C, under the heading 'Houses in multiple occupation, etc' is defined as:

'Class C a dwelling which

(a) was originally constructed or subsequently adapted for occupation by persons who do not constitute a single household;

(b) is inhabited by a person who, or by two or more persons each of whom either-

(i) is a tenant of, or has a licence to occupy, part only of the dwelling; or

(ii) has a licence to occupy, but is not liable (whether alone or jointly with other persons) to pay rent or a licence fee in respect of, the dwelling as a whole; or

(c) is an HMO.'

'HMO' is a defined term. Paragraph 1(2) of Council Tax (Liability for Owners) Regulations 1992/551 reads (so far as relevant):

'For the purposes of these Regulations-

...

"HMO" means a building or part of a building which is a "house in multiple occupation" as defined by section 254 of the Housing Act 2004 but as if subsections (1)(e) and (5) of that section were omitted;'

Section 254 of the Housing Act 2004 is entitled 'Meaning of "house in multiple occupation"' and reads (omitting subsections (1)(e) and (5) of s.254 of the Housing Act 2004):

'(1) For the purposes of this Act a building or a part of a building is a “house in multiple occupation” if–

(a) it meets the conditions in subsection (2) (“the standard test”);

(b) it meets the conditions in subsection (3) (“the self-contained flat test”);

(c) it meets the conditions in subsection (4) (“the converted building test”);

(d) an HMO declaration is in force in respect of it under section 255; or

(e) ...

(2) A building or a part of a building meets the standard test if-

(a) it consists of one or more units of living accommodation not consisting of a self-contained flat or flats;

(b) the living accommodation is occupied by persons who do not form a single household (see section 258);

(c) the living accommodation is occupied by those persons as their only or main residence or they are to be treated as so occupying it (see section 259);

(d) their occupation of the living accommodation constitutes the only use of that accommodation;

(e) rents are payable or other consideration is to be provided in respect of at least one of those persons' occupation of the living accommodation; and

(f) two or more of the households who occupy the living accommodation share one or more basic amenities or the living accommodation is lacking in one or more basic amenities.

(3) A part of a building meets the self-contained flat test if-

(a) it consists of a self-contained flat; and

(b) paragraphs (b) to (f) of subsection (2) apply (reading references to the living accommodation concerned as references to the flat).

(4) A building or a part of a building meets the converted building test if-

(a) it is a converted building;

(b) it contains one or more units of living accommodation that do not consist of a self-contained flat or flats (whether or not it also contains any such flat or flats);

(c) the living accommodation is occupied by persons who do not form a single household (see section 258);

(d) the living accommodation is occupied by those persons as their only or main residence or they are to be treated as so occupying it (see section 259);

(e) their occupation of the living accommodation constitutes the only use of that accommodation; and

(f) rents are payable or other consideration is to be provided in respect of at least one of those persons' occupation of the living accommodation.

(5) ...

(6) The appropriate national authority may by regulations-

(a) make such amendments of this section and sections 255 to 259 as the authority considers appropriate with a view to securing that any building or part of a building of a description specified in the regulations is or is not to be a house in multiple occupation for any specified purposes of this Act;

(b) provide for such amendments to have effect also for the purposes of definitions in other enactments that operate by reference to this Act;

(c) make such consequential amendments of any provision of this Act, or any other enactment, as the authority considers appropriate.

(7) Regulations under subsection (6) may frame any description by reference to any matters or circumstances whatever.

(8) In this section–

“basic amenities” means-

(a) a toilet,

(b) personal washing facilities, or

(c) cooking facilities;

“converted building” means a building or part of a building consisting of living accommodation in which one or more units of such accommodation have been created since the building or part was constructed; “enactment” includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30); “self-contained flat” means a separate set of premises (whether or not on the same floor) -

(a) which forms part of a building;

(b) either the whole or a material part of which lies above or below some other part of the building; and

(c) in which all three basic amenities are available for the exclusive use of its occupants.'

[3b] Class E is defined in Council Tax (Liability for Owners) Regulations 1992/551, paragraph 2. Paragraph 2 starts with:

'The following are the classes of chargeable dwellings prescribed for the purposes of section 8(1) of the Act-'

There are then the qualifying criteria/definitions of each of the 6 classes (Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, Class E and Class F). Some of the qualifying criteria/definitions are different as between England and Wales (Class E is not different, as between England and Wales). Class E, under the heading 'Ministers of religion', is defined as:

'Class E a dwelling which is inhabited by a minister of any religious denomination as a residence from which he performs the duties of his office.'

[4] Local Government Finance Act 1992, section 6(5) reads (in its entirety):

'In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires -

“owner” , in relation to any dwelling, means the person as regards whom the following conditions are fulfilled -

(a) he has a material interest in the whole or any part of the dwelling; and

(b) at least part of the dwelling or, as the case may be, of the part concerned is not subject to a material interest inferior to his interest;

“resident” , in relation to any dwelling, means an individual who has attained the age of 18 years and has his sole or main residence in the dwelling.'

For completeness, there also some definitions in section 6(6) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992:

'(6) In this section "introductory standard contract" has the same meaning as in the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 (anaw 1) (see section 16 of that Act);

“introductory tenant” means a tenant under an introductory tenancy within the meaning of Chapter I of Part V of the Housing Act 1996;

“material interest” means a freehold interest or a leasehold interest which was granted for a term of six months or more; 

"secure contract" has the same meaning as in the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 (see section 8 of that Act);

“secure tenant” means a tenant under a secure tenancy within the meaning of Part IV of the Housing Act 1985; “statutory tenant” means a statutory tenant within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977 or the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976.'

[5] A person cannot be a landlord and tenant to himself. See Rye v Rye [1962] AC 496 [1962] 2 WLR 361;

[6] In CT v Horsham DC [2013] UKUT 617 (UT (AAC)), the Upper Tribunal remade the Valuation Tribunal decision. Under the heading ''The Claimant’s appeal against the Council’s decision of 18 August 2010 in respect of council tax benefit is allowed. The Claimant was not liable for council tax in respect of the alleged excess benefit period (4 August 2008 to 1 February 2010) and was not therefore in receipt of excess benefit in respect of that period.', the Upper Tribunal stated, at paragraphs 2 to 7 (the original report, in error, does not number paragraph 7 with a 7):

2.The Council submits that...the Claimant remained liable for council tax after she ceased actually to live in no. 14, because, under the hierarchy for liability for council tax set out in s.6(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, she was the “owner of the dwelling” within s.6(2)(f). Under para. 6(5)  a person is the “owner” if (a) “he has a material interest in the whole or any part of the dwelling; and (b) at least part of the dwelling …… is not subject to a material interest inferior to his interest.” By s.6(6) “material interest” is defined as “a freehold interest or a leasehold interest which was granted for a term of six months or more.”

3. The Claimant had been a tenant of the property since 1997, and it appears ... that by at any rate February 2008 her tenancy had become an assured periodic tenancy. That is what one would have expected: the tenancy originally granted in 1997 is likely to have been either a periodic one or a tenancy for a fairly short fixed term. I will assume in favour of the Council that (as I think is more likely) the initial term was a fixed term of at least six months. On the termination of that fixed term the landlord was deemed to grant a periodic tenancy to the Claimant: see section 5 of the Housing Act 1988. That periodic tenancy will have remained an assured tenancy until the Claimant ceased to occupy no. 14 as her only or principal home (see s.1(1) of the 1988 Act).

4. The Council contends, in reliance on the decision of a Valuation Tribunal in the case of Oyston v Leeds City Council (27 July 2011), that the interest which the Claimant had under her periodic tenancy was a “material interest”, as it had originally been granted for a term of six months or more. In that case there appears to have been an initial grant of an assured tenancy for a term of six months, followed by a periodic assured tenancy arising under the 1988 Act, followed when the tenant ceased to reside in the property by a periodic tenancy which was not an assured tenancy. The Tribunal held, contrary to the council’s contention in that case, that the periodic tenancies were “a continuation of the original agreement and not three separate and different agreements and it therefore followed that the tenant had a material interest …”

5. However, I prefer what appears to have been the reasoning of a Deputy High Court Judge, sitting in the Administrative Court in MacAttram v. London Borough of Camden [2012] EWHC 1033, where the facts were somewhat similar, the initial fixed term having been for 3 years. I have not been able to locate a transcript of the judgment in that case, but it is summarised in various publications available online. The Judge held that the periodic tenancy which arose after the fixed term was a new tenancy or leasehold interest rather than a continuation of the fixed term. That seems to me to be correct. By s.5(3) of the 1988 Act the periodic tenancy is “deemed to have been granted by the person who was the landlord under the fixed term tenancy immediately before it came to an end to the person who was then the tenant under that tenancy.” The statutory periodic tenancy is not in my judgment some sort of continuation of the fixed term, and therefore it cannot be said that the periodic tenancy was one which was “granted for a term of six months or more.”

6. In MacAttram the Court also rejected a contention that, even ignoring the initial fixed term, that requirement was fulfilled once the periodic tenancy had been in existence for six months. That contention was based on the principle, laid down in 1865 in Gandy v Jubber 122 ER 914, and formerly described in Megarry & Wade, the Law of Real Property (5th ed) (1984) at 648-9 (in relation to a yearly tenancy) as being that

“the law treats each successive yearly term, when it takes effect, as part and parcel of the original term, which therefore grows as the years pass; after 50 years, for example, the tenant’s interest is regarded in retrospect as a 50-year term, but as to the future as a yearly tenancy.”

[7.] Even if that ancient principle is still correct (see, now, Megarry & Wade, 7th ed (2008), at para. 17-064), I agree with what appears to have been the reasoning in MacAttram, namely that the definition of “material interest” requires one to ask whether the leasehold interest which the tenant has at the relevant time (i.e. the time when liability for council tax is being considered) was an interest which was granted for a term of six months or more. That in my judgment requires one to look at the time when that leasehold interest was granted. A yearly periodic tenancy would appear to suffice, in that the initial grant will have been for a term of least a year. However, the periodic tenancy in the present case will have been either a monthly or weekly one (see s.5(3)(d) of the 1988 Act), and therefore it in my judgment was not a tenancy granted for a term of at least 6 months.' [bold added]