There is no statutory definition of the term sole or main residence but the one used for Council Tax is the same as that which existed under the Community Charge legislation.
There are a number of principals but the main ones are as follows;
Degree of Permanence;
Temporary presence does not necessarily make a person a resident;
Temporary absence does not deprive a person of residence.
The legislation does not provide us will a full and concise definition of the term and therefore we have to rely on case law.
Click on the link to view key cases determining residence
Queries have been raised by LA.s in respect of Sole or Main residence for service personnel. There is no change to the basis of the charge and the person's sole or main residence will remain unchanged.
This has been formally asked in Parliament by Bob Russell (Colchester)
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, if he will instruct local authorities to exempt members of the Armed Forces from paying council tax while serving in the Gulf.
The official response has been provided by Mr Christopher Leslie
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to change the primary or secondary legislation concerning council tax exemptions, discounts and disregards other than those set out in the Local Government Bill currently before Parliament.
The new regulations changing the discount on second homes do not affect the way in which authorities should approach determining which property is the main dwelling and which the second home.
You should however be aware of the Court of Appeal judgment in Regina (Williams) v Horsham District Council [2003] EWCH 1862 AdminRegina (Williams) v Horsham District Council [2003] EWCH 1862 Admin, as it is relevant to the consideration of which dwelling is the main residence and which the second home. It was held by the Valuation Tribunal at first instance that the cottage that Mr and Mrs Williams owned but did not live at was their sole and main residence, rather than the house provided by Mr Williams’ employer.
Mr. Williams, a schoolmaster, resided in college accommodation with his wife. He also owned another property nearby, Pump Cottage, but neither he nor his wife actually stayed there during the period of the four and a half years that was in dispute. The Billing Authority deemed that the property he owned was his main residence because he had security of tenure and there was an intention to reside there at some future date. The West Sussex Valuation Tribunal decided in favour of the Billing Authority. Mr. Williams subsequently successfully appealed to the High Court. The High Court held that the Tribunal had erred by placing too much emphasis on the fact that Mr. Williams had security of tenure at Pump Cottage and that he intended to reside there at some future date and had given insufficient regard to other factors. The Billing Authority ultimately appealed to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the High Court's decision.
The Court of Appeal held that a reasonable onlooker when looking at the facts would view the college accommodation as Mr. Williams's main residence. One important factor to note was that neither Mr. Williams nor his wife had spent any time at Pump Cottage, despite its close proximity to the college. In addition, when Mr. Williams's contract of employment ceased with the college, both he and his wife continued to reside there for almost a year, at their own expense.
The Court of Appeal found that the Valuation Tribunal had given great weight to the fact that the Williams had security of tenure at the cottage but had failed to give equivalent weight to the fact that they regarded the house provided by his employer as their sole or main residence and that Mrs Williams lived there with Mr Williams and that very little time was spent at the cottage.
The case was remitted to the Valuation Tribunal. This does not change the law but reaffirms that every case was a question of fact and degree and that certain factors should not be given greater weight than others.
Related topics