England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		09/05/2012

Mr Justice Sales:

Introduction

1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England dated 29 November 2011. It concerns the liability of the Respondent, Ms Ayiku, to pay Council Tax.
2. Ms Ayiku is the wife of Mr Amponsah. Neither Ms Ayiku nor Mr Amponsah are British nationals or nationals of countries in the EU or EEA. Mr Amponsah has leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom and is a student here. Ms Ayiku has leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom as the spouse of a foreign student.
3. Ms Ayiku resides with her husband at a dwelling where she is the only non-student. Dwellings which are occupied solely by students are exempt with respect to liability to pay Council Tax. The question on this appeal is whether a similar exemption covers a property occupied by students and the non-British spouse of a student. This turns on the proper construction of the exemption of a dwelling in respect of liability to pay Council Tax under Class N in article 3 of the Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992 ("the 1992 Order"), as amended.

The legislative context

4. Council Tax was introduced by the Local Government Finance Act 1992 ("the LGFA") to replace the community charge, known as the poll tax. It was a feature of the Council Tax regime that it was to be made more responsive to the particular financial circumstances of individuals than the community charge regime had been. Detailed regulations governing liability to pay Council Tax were introduced alongside the LGFA, including the 1992 Order.
5. Council Tax is a tax payable on all "dwellings" (section 3 of the LGFA) except "exempt dwellings" (section 4(1)). "Exempt dwelling" means any dwelling of a class prescribed by an order made by the Secretary of State: section 4(2). The 1992 Order was made under this provision.
6. The operative provision in the 1992 Order is article 3, which provides that a dwelling is exempt for the purposes of section 4 of the LGFA if it falls within one of the classes set out in article 3. Those classes mainly cover various categories of unoccupied dwellings. However, Class N applies in relation to dwellings occupied by students. In the 1992 Order as originally promulgated, Class N applied to exempt dwellings occupied only by students. It was amended in 1995 so as also to exempt dwellings occupied by students and the spouses of students in certain specified circumstances (see below).
7. In relation to a non-exempt dwelling, liability for Council Tax ordinarily depends upon residence (sections 6 and 9 of the LGFA). The effect of those provisions and certain provisions regarding disregards (contained in other subordinate legislation) is that if a dwelling occupied by students and the spouse of one of them is not exempt (because the spouse does not satisfy the conditions set out in Class N), the spouse – but not the students - will be liable for the full Council Tax in respect of that dwelling.
8. Section 11 of the LGFA provides for discounts in the amount of Council Tax payable in certain circumstances. The effect of this and the relevant disregard provisions in the case of a dwelling occupied by students (or a student) and the spouse of a student is that a 25% discount will be applied to the amount payable by the spouse. There is also a discretionary power in section 13A to reduce the amount payable, which is not in issue on this appeal.
9. Alongside the introduction of Council Tax, a new state benefit was introduced – Council Tax Benefit ("CTB"). In broad terms, CTB is a means tested benefit which, according to the Council Tax Benefit Regulations 1992 ("the CTB Regulations"), can be up to 100% of the Council Tax liability of an individual. The point at which CTB may become payable is defined in the CTB Regulations by reference to an "applicable amount" of income, calculated separately from receipt of other benefits including housing benefit. Where a couple reside together, the relevant applicable amount is calculated by reference to their joint income. The current applicable amount for a couple is £111 per week. The effect of the CTB Regulations is that where a student's spouse is British (or otherwise has entitlement to benefits) and resides with him or her in a house otherwise occupied only by students, and the spouse is unemployed and without other relevant financial resources, the spouse will have their full liability to Council Tax met by CTB. They will also be entitled to CTB if they and their partner have an income less than the applicable amount of £111 per week, in circumstances where their housing costs have been met out of housing benefit. Such a spouse, therefore, will be protected by operation of the benefits system from destitution and a liability to pay Council Tax which they simply have no means to meet.
10. The operation of CTB and the benefits system generally will not protect a non-British spouse of a student against such a situation. Section 131 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (as amended by the LGFA) provides that a person is entitled to CTB if she is liable to pay Council Tax and she is not a person of a prescribed class (section 131(3)); but a student's spouse who has limited leave to enter the United Kingdom is a person of a prescribed class (regulation 4A of the CTB Regulations). Moreover, a spouse who is prevented as a condition of their leave to remain in the United Kingdom from claiming benefits (such as Ms Ayiku) may not claim CTB or housing benefit, or any other benefit. Even if the spouse has permission to work (as Ms Ayiku does), she may be unable to find gainful employment to generate the resources needed to meet any liability to pay Council Tax. This feature of the interlocking Council Tax and CTB regimes is relevant to consideration of the proper construction of Class N.
11. Section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 has the effect that a student's spouse who is not British and not a national of an EEA state will not be entitled to state benefits (including housing benefit and CTB) if they have leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom which is subject to a condition that they do not have recourse to public funds: section 115(1), (3) and (9)(b). In some cases, such as in relation to a person who has leave to enter on the basis that they have been granted or are seeking asylum, such a condition may not be imposed. Such persons may or may not have a condition imposed preventing them from taking employment.
12. In the original version of the 1992 Order, Class N made no reference to the spouse of a student. Article 3 provided in relevant part as follows:

"3. A dwelling is an exempt dwelling for the purposes of section 4 of the [LGFA] on a particular day if on that day it falls within one of the following classes - …

Class N:

(1) A dwelling which is either–

(a) occupied by one or more residents all of whom are students; or

(b) occupied only by one or more students as term time accommodation;

(2) for the purposes of paragraph (1), a dwelling is to be regarded as occupied by a student as term time accommodation during any vacation in which he–

(a) holds a freehold or leasehold interest in or licence to occupy the whole or any part of the dwelling; and

(b) has previously used or intends to use the dwelling as term time accommodation."

13. Class N was amended by the Council Tax (Discount Disregards and Exempt Dwellings)(Amendment) Order 1995 ("the 1995 Amendment Order") made on 7 March 1995 and coming into effect in relevant part on 1 April 1995. Reference was now made to occupation by "relevant persons", and a new definition of "relevant person" was inserted into the 1992 Order, as follows:

"(a) "relevant person" means —

(i) a student;

(ii) a student's spouse or dependant being in either case a person who is not a British citizen and who is prevented, by the terms of his leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, from taking paid employment or from claiming benefits; or

(iii) a person to whom Class C (school and college leavers) of regulation 3(1) of the Council Tax (Additional Provision for Discount Disregards) Regulations 1992 (6) applies;"

(The definition of "relevant person" was amended again in 2001, so that sub-paragraph (a)(ii) now refers to "a student's spouse, civil partner or dependant …"; this change is not material to the point of construction which I have to determine).

14. The 1994 version of the Immigration Rules, made under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, was in force when the 1995 Amendment Order was made. That version of the Immigration Rules provides part of the relevant legislative contextual background against which Class N in the 1992 Order (as amended in by the 1995 Amendment Order) falls to be interpreted. The rules governing grant of leave to enter for students were rules 57 and 58 and those in relation to persons given leave to enter as their spouses were rules 76 and 77, to be read with rule 323, as follows:

"Students

Requirements for leave to enter as a student

57. The requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom as a student are that he:

(i) has been accepted for a course of study at:

(a) a publicly funded institution of further or higher education; or

(b) a bona fide private education institution which maintains satisfactory records of enrolment and attendance; or

(c) an independent fee paying school outside the maintained sector; and

(ii) is able and intends to follow either:

(a) a recognised full-time degree course at a publicly funded institution of further or higher education; or

(b) a weekday full-time course involving attendance at a single institution for a minimum of 15 hours organised daytime study per week of a single subject or directly related subjects; or

(c) a full-time course of study at an independent fee paying school; and

(iii) if under the age of 16 years is enrolled at an independent fee paying school on a full-time course of studies which meets the requirements of the Education Act 1944; and

(iv) intends to leave the United Kingdom at the end of his studies; and

(v) does not intend to engage in business or to take employment, except part-time or vacation work undertaken with the consent of the Secretary of State for Employment; and

(vi) is able to meet the costs of his course and accommodation and the maintenance of himself and any dependants without taking employment or engaging in business or having recourse to public funds.

Leave to enter as a student

58. A person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom as a student may be admitted for an appropriate period depending on the length of his course of study and his means, and with a condition restricting his freedom to take employment, provided the Immigration Officer is satisfied that each of the requirements of paragraph 57 is met. …

Spouses of Students

Requirements for leave to enter or remain as the spouse of a student

76. The requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as the spouse of a student are that:

(i) the applicant is married to a person admitted to or allowed to remain in the United Kingdom under paragraphs 57-75; and

(ii) each of the parties intends to live with the other as his or her spouse during the applicant's stay and the marriage is subsisting; and

(iii) there will be adequate accommodation for the parties and any dependants without recourse to public funds; and

(iv) the parties will be able to maintain themselves and any dependants adequately without recourse to public funds; and

(v) the applicant does not intend to take employment except as permitted under paragraph 77 below; and

(vi) the applicant intends to leave the United Kingdom at the end of any period of leave granted to him.

Leave to enter or remain as the spouse of a student

77. A person seeking leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as the spouse of a student may be admitted or allowed to remain for a period not in excess of that granted to the student provided the Immigration Officer or, in the case of an application for limited leave to remain, the Secretary of State is satisfied that each of the requirements of paragraph 76 is met. Employment is to be prohibited except where the period of leave being granted is 12 months or more.

Refusal of leave to enter or remain as the spouse of a student

78. Leave to enter or remain as the spouse of a student is to be refused if the Immigration Officer or, in the case of an application for limited leave to remain, the Secretary of State is not satisfied that each of the requirements of paragraph 76 is met. …

Grounds on which leave to enter or remain may be curtailed

323. A person's leave to enter or remain may be curtailed … if he ceases to meet the requirements of the Rules under which his leave to enter or remain was granted."

15. It is relevant to the issue of interpretation of the 1992 Order under discussion to note that the Immigration Rules in force at the time the 1995 Amendment Order was promulgated provided for leave to enter on grounds of marriage to a student covering two distinct classes of case (as identified pursuant to paragraph 77): cases where the period of leave granted is 12 months or more (in which case employment would be permitted, but there would still be a requirement not to have recourse to public funds) and cases where the period of leave granted is less than 12 months (in which case employment would be prohibited, in addition to the requirement not to have recourse to public funds). On the interpretation of Class N advanced by the Appellant Council, students' spouses in the second class would be covered by the Class N exemption from Council Tax but those in the first class would not be. By contrast, the interpretation of Class N arrived at by the Valuation Tribunal would not draw any distinction between these two classes of spouse: both would be covered by the Class N exemption. Mr Forsdick, as Advocate to the Court, submits that there are no obvious policy grounds for drawing a distinction between the two classes of students' spouses, and that this is a contextual indicator which supports the Valuation Tribunal's interpretation.
16. The current version of the Points Based System Policy Guidance in relation to students and their dependants ("the PBS Guidance"), who have to satisfy the UK Border Agency that they have sufficient resources so that they will not have recourse to public funds, is that a student is required to show that he or she has available £1000 per month (inner London) or £800 per month (elsewhere in the United Kingdom) for basic living expenses, including accommodation; and a person seeking leave to enter as the spouse of such a student has to show they have available a further £600 per month (inner London) or £450 per month (elsewhere in the United Kingdom) for such expenses. It is not clear from the face of the PBS Guidance whether these amounts include any liability of the spouse to pay Council Tax. However, the PBS Guidance does not differentiate between amounts required for living expenses for students' spouses who are granted leave to remain for less than 12 months (and who are therefore prevented from both taking employment and from having recourse to public funds) and spouses who are granted leave to remain for more than 12 months (and who are therefore able to work, though prevented from having recourse to public funds). From this, and from the quantum of the amounts indicated (which are relatively low), it appears that the PBS Guidance assumes that spouses in both these groups will be exempt from having to pay Council Tax. No-one submitted that this Guidance is, in itself, an aid to the proper interpretation of Class N, but I take some limited comfort from it as tending to reinforce my own impression regarding the natural reading to be given to Class N as set out below.
17. Of potentially greater significance is the following. On 12 September 1995 the Department of the Environment issued its third Council Tax Information Letter ("CTIL3") which, among other things, dealt with the topic of disregards for non-British spouses of students (i.e. Class N in the 1992 Order, as amended by the 1995 Amendment Order). CTIL3 also summarised the effect of the Immigration Rules set out above. As regards Class N, CTIL3 included the following statement:

"Statutory Instrument 1995/620 introduced a discount disregard for the spouses or dependants of students who are not British Citizens and who are prevented by the terms of their leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom from taking paid employment or from claiming benefits. A number of authorities and student bodies have questioned whether the discount can be awarded where a person is prevented from claiming benefit but is not prevented from taking paid employment. In our opinion it is sufficient for the purposes of the discount for the person either to be prevented from claiming benefit or be prevented from taking paid employment. However, as with any other provision, the interpretation of legislation is a matter for local authorities and ultimately the Courts."

Mr Forsdick referred to this as a potential aid to construction of Class N supporting the interpretation arrived at by the Valuation Tribunal in favour of Ms Ayiku.

Legal analysis

18. Mr Glover QC for the Appellant submitted that the natural and obvious reading of sub-paragraph (a)(ii) in Class N is that two conditions have to be fulfilled before a student's spouse can be treated as a "relevant person" (and hence as exempt from liability to pay Council Tax): they have to be prevented by the terms of their leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom both from taking paid employment and from claiming benefits. He pointed out that there is a natural English usage where the word "or" in a phrase can have a conjunctive effect: my doctor may tell me that I cannot drink coffee or tea, meaning that both coffee and tea are forbidden to me. He suggested that the drafter of Class N, as amended in 1995, clearly intended the word "or" in the phrase "is prevented … from taking paid employment or from claiming benefits" to have this conjunctive meaning. He also submitted that on the interpretation preferred by the Valuation Tribunal, giving the word "or" a disjunctive meaning, the odd result would be produced that a non-British spouse of a student who was entitled by the terms of their leave to enter to take paid employment and who had a job with a good salary would be exempt from liability to pay Council Tax, whereas a student's spouse who is British who had such a job would be obliged to pay (in circumstances where both might make equal use of or benefit equally from local services paid for out of Council Tax receipts); and that it should be inferred that the drafter did not intend that such an unmeritorious distinction should apply. On the contrary, the inference should be drawn that the drafter of Class N intended that a non-British spouse of a student would have to be both prevented from claiming benefits and from taking paid employment in order to fall within the exemption.
19. I do not accept these submissions. In my judgment the Valuation Tribunal was right to conclude that the word "or" in the relevant phrase in Class N has a disjunctive meaning, and that it is sufficient for the non-British spouse of a student to satisfy one or other of the two conditions (being prevented from taking paid employment or being prevented from claiming benefits) in order to qualify as a "relevant person" for the purposes of Class N so as to be exempt in relation to liability to pay Council Tax. My reasons are as follows.
20. Coming fresh to the provision, and on a straightforward reading of Class N, I consider the more natural interpretation is that the word "or" bears the usual disjunctive meaning that it has in common parlance. That is how I read Class N when pre-reading for the hearing. It is the way in which the Valuation Tribunal read it, without any need for especially elaborate argumentation to arrive at that conclusion. I accept that the interpretation offered by Mr Glover is a possible meaning, as a matter of English usage, but I do not think it is the most natural reading of the phrase in the context in which it appears. My first impression is reinforced by a number of contextual factors and aspects of the scheme of the Council Tax regime.
21. I consider that reading the relevant phrase with the word "or" bearing its more natural, disjunctive sense, is particularly appropriate in the context of interpretation of tax legislation such as this. It is not just officials and courts who need to know what persons are or are not exempt from liability to pay Council Tax. Ordinary members of the public may look to the legislation in order to work out whether they have a liability to pay or not, and may plan their lives and their financial affairs in the light of their own (or their advisers') straightforward reading of the provision. Although the old strictness with which tax statutes used to be read in favour of the subject is no longer taken to be the guiding presumption, in my view it remains the case that in a context in which a clearly tenable and natural reading of a provision in tax legislation favours the subject, such a reading is (subject to any clear indications to the contrary) to be preferred. The legislator is presumed to have intended to produce a result which is fair to the tax-payer and not liable to defeat his or her reasonable expectations derived from the terms of the legislation. As explained by Evans LJ in Ingram v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1997] 4 All E.R. 395, at 414:

"in the context of tax legislation it is necessary to consider the legal analysis with the utmost precision, so that the taxpayer shall not become liable to tax unless this is clearly and unequivocally the effect of the statutory provisions."

22. There is force in Mr Glover's argument that it appears odd that a British spouse of a student who has a well-paid job is not exempt from having to pay Council Tax whereas the non-British spouse of a student who is entitled to work (typically, a person who is given leave to enter for 12 months or more as the spouse of a student) and has a well-paid job is exempt on this interpretation of Class N. However, it would in my view be still more odd if the drafter had intended to produce a situation in which a non-British spouse of a student would be debarred (unlike a British spouse) from having recourse to state benefits such as CTB and housing benefit while at the same time, albeit formally permitted to seek employment, they might be unable to find paid employment. That could produce the result that, despite having no means to meet a liability to pay Council Tax, they would nonetheless be subject to a liability to pay it (and, if they did not pay, as on this scenario they could not, could then be made liable to the penal mechanisms applicable in respect of non-payment of Council Tax). A non-British spouse would only be protected in that situation from what, on the face of it, would be a very unjust result capable of resulting in them losing their accommodation (if they become unable to pay the rent, through having to meet a liability to pay Council Tax) or even becoming destitute (as well as being exposed to legal penalties, including the possibility of imprisonment), by the reading of Class N given by the Valuation Tribunal.
23. It might be said that such a situation could be averted, under the interpretation put forward by the Appellant, if a student and their spouse seeking leave to enter were required to show that they had funds available at a level to cover not just their accommodation and living costs but also the spouse's liability to pay Council Tax. Although that does not seem to be required at the moment (see para. [16] above), presumably the relevant PBS Guidance on leave to enter for students and their spouses could be changed to increase the funding required to be available from other sources so as to cover any liability to Council Tax in addition to living expenses. However, that would not fully meet the point, since there may still be non-British spouses of students who have leave to enter on a different basis, who are not allowed to take paid employment or claim benefits and who do not have any means of access to other income.
24. It is often a feature of tax legislation that it operates by use of fairly broad concepts or classes of case brought within or excluded from liability to tax, with consequent scope for a degree of argument about the underlying merits of marginal cases, such as was pressed by Mr Glover in postulating the comparison in para. [18] above between a well-paid British spouse of a student and a well-paid non-British spouse. In a similar vein, one could always postulate a fantastically wealthy non-British spouse of a student and say that it seems odd that they are to be spared liability to pay Council Tax when they could so easily afford to pay it. Setting out a general rule often means that hard cases will arise falling on the wrong side of it, and the fact that one can imagine hard cases should not in itself dictate the interpretation to be given to the rule: cf R v City of London Corporation, ex p. Mystery of the Barbers (1997) 73 P&CR 59. Looking at the matter in terms of broad categories, it seems unlikely that there will be a significant class of non-British spouses of students who are very wealthy or who are entitled to work and in fact able to find employment at rates of pay that, after allowing for living and accommodation expenses, would readily enable them to pay Council Tax. Certainly, one does not get the impression from reading Class N in its context that the drafter had the existence of such a class to the front of their mind and was seeking to make provision in relation to them. This is a further reason why I do not think Mr Glover's example can bear the weight he sought to place on it as a guide to interpretation of Class N.
25. Rather, the impression one gets from reading Class N, as amended in 1995, against the background of the student spouse provisions in the 1994 version of the Immigration Rules set out above is that the drafter intended to cover both the categories of non-British spouses of students identified by the Rules, i.e. both those with less than 12 months leave to enter (who were prevented from claiming benefits and from taking paid employment) and those with 12 months or more leave to enter (who were prevented from claiming benefits, but were permitted to take paid employment). There is no contextual indication that the drafter intended to draw a radical dividing line between these two classes of case in terms of the availability of the exemption in Class N. I did not find Mr Glover's speculative attempts to suggest reasons for such a distinction at all persuasive. In view of the basic similarity between the two cases and the arbitrariness of treating them differently for the purposes of the incidence of liability to pay Council Tax, the reasonable inference is that the drafter intended them to be treated in the same way (and hence used the word "or" in the relevant phrase with its normal disjunctive sense). Unlike Mr Glover's comparator examples above, these classes of case can fairly be regarded as having been at the forefront of the drafter's mind in the context of the 1995 Amendment Order, because of the common focus of the Immigration Rules and the amendment to Class N which the drafter was seeking to produce. Accordingly, I find consideration of the comparison between these classes of non-British spouses of students a surer guide to the intended meaning of the legislation.
26. Mr Glover submitted that on the approach of the Valuation Tribunal and on Mr Forsdick's submission that both these classes of non-British spouses are covered by the exemption in Class N, to interpret the word "or" in the relevant phrase as having a disjunctive meaning would reduce the words referring to the spouse who is prevented "from taking paid employment" to being practically otiose, which cannot have been the intention. This is because both these classes of spouse are prevented, by application of the relevant Immigration Rules, from claiming benefits, so to achieve the desired result (as postulated by Mr Forsdick) of encompassing both classes of spouse within the exemption it would only have been necessary to employ the limb in the relevant phrase which refers to a spouse being prevented "from claiming benefits".
27. I do not accept this submission. In fact, on no view would the prevention "from taking paid employment" limb in Class N be otiose, since there is a class of case potentially covered by Class N which does not depend upon the operation of the student spouse entry provisions in the Immigration Rules, where persons are given leave to enter for different reasons but are also the spouses of students. For example, a person might be given leave to enter as a person seeking asylum, on terms that they may have recourse to certain welfare benefits but may not take paid employment. The prevention "from taking paid employment" limb in Class N would not be otiose in their case – it would be the limb which (on the interpretation of Class N pressed by Mr Forsdick) would be operative to render them exempt from having to pay Council Tax.
28. Furthermore, as Mr Forsdick correctly observed, the point made by Mr Glover is ultimately neutral between the rival interpretations of Class N, even if one focuses just on the operation of the student spouse entry provisions in the Immigration Rules – for on the interpretation of Class N pressed by Mr Glover (according to which spouses given leave to enter for 12 months or more would not be covered by the exemption but spouses given leave to enter for less than 12 months would be covered by the exemption), the prevention "from claiming benefits" limb of the exemption would be equivalently otiose. To achieve the result which Mr Glover contends the drafter intended to achieve, it would have been sufficient simply to use the prevention "from taking paid employment" limb of the relevant phrase in the exemption. This aspect of the argument, therefore, does not provide a good guide as to how to choose between the rival interpretations.
29. Next, I accept Mr Forsdick's submission that the passage in CTIL3 set out above provides an aid to construction of Class N, as amended by the 1995 Amendment Order. In cases of doubt or ambiguity, official statements in the period immediately following promulgation of legislation by the government department which is responsible for administering it may be treated as an aid to its interpretation, as a form of contemporanea expositio: see Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, 5^th ed., sections 231 and 232, pp. 702ff. As Bennion says, "Official statements on [the meaning of an Act] are particularly important here, since every Act is supervised, and most are originally promoted, by a government department which may be assumed to know what the legislative intention was." In my view, contemporaneous official statements by the relevant government department will be still more significant as a guide to the proper interpretation of subordinate legislation, as in this case, since that is typically drafted in-house by the department itself rather than by Parliamentary Counsel and is promulgated primarily by the relevant Secretary of State rather than Parliament.
30. CTIL3 is not exactly contemporaneous with the 1995 Amendment Order, but in my view it is sufficiently proximate in time to qualify as relevant contemporanea expositio and hence as an aid to construction of Class N as amended in 1995. It is reasonable to infer that it reflects the Department's understanding and intention when it promulgated the 1995 Amendment Order shortly before CTIL3 was issued. The interpretation placed on Class N in CTIL3 supports the interpretation given it by the Valuation Tribunal.
31. Finally, although this is a point of lesser weight, I think that the way in which Class N has been interpreted by government officials with knowledge of the immigration and Council Tax background in CTIL3 and the PBS Guidance tends to bear out my own impression as regards the natural reading of the relevant phrase in Class N.

Conclusion

32. For the reasons set out above, this appeal is dismissed. Ms Ayiku, as the non-British spouse of a student (residing in a relevant dwelling) and who is prevented by the terms of her leave to enter from claiming benefits, but is not prevented by those terms from taking paid employment, is exempt from having to pay Council Tax by virtue of the operation of Class N in the 1992 Order, as amended.