Council Tax - Adaptation of Property

The landlord is liable to pay council tax when a property is let to individual tenants on individual tenancy agreements. What's sometimes little known is that even where a house is let to multiple tenants on a single tenancy agreement, the landlord can be held liable if the property has been "subsequently adapted for occupation by persons who do not constitute a single household".

Regulation 2 of The Council Tax (Liability for Owners) Regulations 1992 states:

Houses in multiple occupation, etc 

Class C a dwelling which 

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

(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.

(The above definition was inserted by The Council Tax (Liability for Owners) (Amendment) Regulations 1993, which was further amended (by replacing "and" with "or") by The Council Tax (Liability for Owners and Additional Provisions for Discount Disregards) (Amendment) Regulations 1995.) 

These regulations ensure that the owner is always liable if the abovementioned circumstances are met. 

Note that r.2 (a) states that the owner is liable where the dwelling was originally constructed or subsequently adapted for occupation by persons who do not constitute a single household.

 In Hayes v Humberside Valuation Tribunal [1998] R.A. 37, H owned a property which he let to six students. One of them ceased to be a student.

Each student room had its own door with a separate security lock.

The valuation tribunal found that the installation of the security locks amounted to the adaptation of the premises and that the owner was liable for council tax on the property, notwithstanding that he was not living there and that others were.

The High Court dismissed H's appeal, and he appealed to the Court of Appeal, who also rejected the appeal holding that the tribunal had applied its mind to the question of whether the installation of locks could be an adaptation of the premises and had reached a finding of fact which could not be described as perverse - Barnes v Sheffield City Council (1995) 27 H.L.R. 719 CA (Civ Div), Maddox v Storer [1963] 1 Q.B. 451 DC, R. v Formosa (John) [1991] 2 Q.B. 1 CA (Crim Div), Taylor v Mead [1961] 1 W.L.R. 435 DC considered.