Louise Clark 2025-02-13 14:07:33
The Secretary of State for Transport is not legally obliged to accept a proposal for property acquired in connection with the development of the HS2 rail scheme.
The High Court has considered this issue in R (on the application of) Holohan & another v High Speed 2 Ltd [2025] EWHC 23 (Admin); [2025] EGCS 20.
The case concerned a Grade II listed building, Stanthorne Hall Farm, in Middlewich, purchased by the Secretary of State for Transport in March 2023 under a scheme to acquire properties affected by the route of Phase 2B of the HS2 rail scheme.
A condition survey report was produced prior to the acquisition which described the property as in poor condition. The cost of refurbishment works was £909,000 and of bringing it to a lettable standard, around £676,000. Such costs were deemed unattractive and agents were instructed to undertake preservation works only.
The claimants expressed an interest in the property in July 2024, asking to move into it on a rent-to-buy basis which was rejected. They then sought to take it on a full repairing and insuring lease subject to a condition survey. This was refused on the basis that such a tenancy was not appropriate for properties acquired by the SST because it was obliged to ensure the safety of its tenants and that an FRI lease was not appropriate for residential properties. Such a tenancy would require a lease agreement longer than usually granted under Crown Tenancy Agreements for HS2 property and the SST sought to ensure that all land which might be necessary for the project was kept available and there were no unnecessary constraints on future disposal.
The claimants sought judicial review of the SST’s decision. The allegation that the decision was made considering irrelevant information and that the decision-maker was under a misapprehension as to the nature of FRI contracts was hopeless. The SST was not legally required to accept the claimants’ proposal. There was no identified failure to have regard to material considerations and financial issues and value for money were at the forefront of the decision-making.
The claimants’ other grounds – that it was irrational not to enter into an FRI contract with them or to allow them to survey the property and that procedures followed were unfair – were also without foundation. The property was not on the market and without significant works to bring it to a lettable standard, the SST would be in breach of landlord’s duties. The refusal was rational and based on sound professional judgments.
PP 2025/16
A unit of property used wholly for living accommodation attracts council tax by reference to that use whether it is a flat/house rented from a private landlord or owner-occupied.
The High Court has considered this issue, dismissing an appeal in Boffey v Dyer (LO) [2025] EWHC 113 (Admin); [2025] EGCS 17.
The case concerned a Grade II listed Queen Anne house in Petersham acquired by Mercer Boffey and his wife in 2018. The property was listed in the council tax list at band H and Boffey had paid council tax since acquiring it.
In April 2023, Boffey challenged his liability to pay council tax and sought the de-listing of the property since July 2018, arguing that it failed to meet the definition of “hereditament” for council tax purposes because he owned the property absolutely, it was only used for his family’s private accommodation and he had not sought any permission to retain rents as a licensed provider of property.
The Listing Officer rejected his proposal and the Valuation Tribunal for England struck out his appeal on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success. Boffey appealed to the High Court.
Under the Local Government Finance Act 1992, each billing authority is to collect council tax which is payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area. A dwelling is any property which would have been a hereditament under the General Rate Act 1967 if that Act had remained in force and which is neither shown in any local or central nondomestic rating list nor is exempt.
Section 15 of the 1967 Act provides that “hereditament” means property which is or may become liable to a rate, being a unit of property which is or would fall to be shown as a separate item in the valuation list. The person liable to pay council tax of any chargeable dwelling is primarily, under section 6(2)(a), the person who is a resident of the dwelling and freehold owner of the whole or any part of it.
Boffey accepted that he fell within section 6(2)(a) but argued that the property was not a dwelling because a hereditament for the purposes of the 1967 Act implied a financial interest in the property beyond mere occupation.
A similar argument on similar facts was rejected in Doyle v Roberts (LO) [2021] EWHC 659 which the court determined was correctly decided. The word “hereditament” merely enables the identification of a particular unit of property for taxation purposes. A conventional dwelling does not fall outside the scope of “hereditament” in the 1967 Act.
PP 2025/17
Practice Points cover developments in conveyancing, landlord and tenant, planning and environment. The full archive is available at www.egi.co.uk/legal
©MAB - Commercial Property. View All Articles.