Background
Josephine Baker lived with her adult daughter, who cared for her. Bath & North East Somerset Council accepted that Baker was severely mentally impaired for council tax purposes and that her daughter qualified for a carer’s disregard. Because every resident was disregarded, the council awarded the household a 50% discount from 19 November 2022.
Baker argued that the property should instead be wholly exempt under Class U of the Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992. The Valuation Tribunal for England rejected that argument because Baker’s daughter was a carer, not one of the “relevant persons” specified by Class U. Baker brought a statutory appeal on a question of law, contending that the exemption covered a severely mentally impaired person living with any other disregarded person.
The High Court extended time for the appeal insofar as necessary because Baker had attempted to file within the deadline and had been given incorrect procedural advice. It also treated her email service on the council as good service and proceeded despite the council’s nonappearance.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Tribunal’s decision. Class U(1)(a) applies where a dwelling is occupied only by one or more severely mentally impaired persons. Class U(1)(b) extends the exemption where those persons live with specified “relevant persons,” including qualifying students and certain other defined categories. A carer is not a relevant person.
The daughter’s disregard did not mean that she ceased to occupy the property. Disregards operate only when calculating a discount; they do not determine whether a dwelling is occupied or exempt. Because the daughter lived there and was neither severely mentally impaired nor a relevant person, the property fell within neither limb of Class U.
The legislative history supported that construction: amendments had selectively extended Class U to specified categories of co-occupiers without including carers. Section 11(2)(b) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 expressly provides a 50% discount where all residents are disregarded. The council therefore applied the correct relief, and the Tribunal made no error of law.
Key Takeaways
- A council tax disregard affects the calculation of a discount but does not make a resident legally absent from the dwelling.
- A home shared by a severely mentally impaired person and a disregarded carer is not exempt under Class U unless the carer independently falls within the provision’s defined categories of “relevant person.”
- Where every resident is disregarded but the dwelling is not exempt, section 11(2)(b) ordinarily produces a 50% discount rather than complete exemption.
Why It Matters
The judgment clarifies the boundary between council tax exemptions and discounts. Although a severely mentally impaired person living alone may qualify for a Class U exemption, adding a resident carer can change the result even when that carer is disregarded for discount purposes.
The court also cautioned litigants using generative AI to verify its output against authoritative sources. Baker’s AI-assisted argument had inserted wording not found in Class U, although the court stressed that this mistake was not why her appeal failed.