Scottish Court of Session Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Assessor for Lanarkshire Valuation Joint Board Against a Decision of Lanarkshire Valuation Appeal Panel [2002] ScotCS 293 (12 November 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2002/293.html
Cite as: [2002] ScotCS 293, [2004] RVR 33, [2003] RVR 6

[New search] [Help]

Assessor for Lanarkshire Valuation Joint Board Against a Decision of Lanarkshire Valuation Appeal Panel [2002] ScotCS 293 (12 November 2002)

FIRST DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION

Lord President

Lord Kirkwood

Lord Marnoch

XA183/01

OPINION OF THE COURT

delivered by THE LORD PRESIDENT

in

APPEAL TO THE COURT OF SESSION

under section 82(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992

in the cause

ASSESSOR FOR LANARKSHIRE VALUATION JOINT BOARD

Appellant;

against

a decision of Lanarkshire Valuation Appeal Panel dated 19 October 2001

_______

Act: R.W.J. Anderson, Q.C.; Bennett & Robertson

Alt: Crawford, amicus curiae; R. Henderson

12 November 2002

This appeal is concerned with a semi-detached dwelling which is situated on a main road on the outskirts of Strathaven. According to a report by structural engineers, which was accepted by the Committee as accurate, the dwelling had been subject to significant general and differential settlement which had resulted in noticeable out of level and sloping of floors which fell towards the gable. The gable wall itself was hanging out of plumb. Other walls internally were also out of plumb and the main front and rear walls were leaning towards the rear. The general impression was of a tilting of the house towards the gable and rear. Internally, there was cracking in corners and at junctions of walls and ceilings. The overall impression was of a general stretching of the superstructure of the building with tilting and movement out of plumb of the walls.

The structural engineers advised that the original cause of movement was probably spent. They recommended the carrying out of works, including the breaking back of the roughcast on the main walls, the replacement of any broken bricks, and raking out and packing and re-pointing any cracks in the joints. The roughcast would then require to be repaired. Internally the works were required to be "at least greater than purely superficial". The structural engineers also recommended the installation of ties between walls and the floor and roof elements to improve the overall integrity of the structure and provide "more confident" future use.

The dwelling was placed by the Assessor in Band D for the purposes of council tax. The taxpayer proposed that the dwelling should be placed in Band C by reason of its condition, as we have already described it. The Committee by a majority accepted that the correct banding for the subjects was Band C. The Assessor has appealed against that decision.

Before the Committee the Assessor founded on the terms of Regulation 2 of the Council Tax (Valuation of Dwellings)(Scotland) Regulations 1992, and in particular the assumption under paragraph 2(2)(d) that it required to be assumed that the dwelling was "in a state of reasonable repair". In paragraph (3) it is provided that, in determining what is "reasonable repair" in relation to a dwelling for the purposes of paragraph (2), the age and character of the dwelling and its locality are to be taken into account.

As can be seen from the statement of reasons for their decision the Committee were not persuaded that the words "reasonable repair" were appropriate in the present case where the dwelling had suffered significant structural damage due to subsidence. They took the view that the works required to remedy the defects in the building, to which we have referred, could not be regarded as repairs in the normal sense of the word. They "were certainly not what would normally be involved in maintaining the dwelling in a state of reasonable repair". They should more properly have been described as "remedial works".

Counsel for the Assessor pointed out, and in our view correctly, that it appeared from the Committee's statement of reasons that their decision that the dwelling should be placed in Band C was based on the existence of defects in the building which were, in fact, capable of being dealt with. On that basis counsel submitted that the Committee had fallen into the error of placing an unjustified limit on what was required for the purposes of putting a dwelling into a state of "reasonable repair". This was not in accordance with a proper interpretation of subparagraph (2)(d).

We are satisfied that this submission is correct. What may be necessary in the individual case to put a dwelling into a state of "reasonable repair", in which it has to be assumed in terms of subparagraph (2)(d), obviously depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. The fact that a substantial or unusually large amount of work would be required for that purpose does not take away from the fact

that it is necessary in order to arrive at the state of affairs which is to be assumed. In these circumstances we are of the view that the Committee proceeded on a mistaken approach to the assumption which required to be made in the present case.

We will accordingly allow the Assessor's appeal.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010