TC09528 - [2025] UKFTT 00564 (TC)

HMRC’s submissions on this question may be summarised as follows.

In our view, Ingliston is making supplies of a “right of admission” within the meaning of Group 16, or supplies of “admission” within the meaning of Item 7. In making this finding we have in mind the guidance from the VAT Tribunal in Twycross Zoo at [22] (with which we agree) that we should give these words their “plain and ordinary meaning”, and that the reduced rate (or in Twycross Zoo, exemption from VAT) is available for a “right of admission, nothing more and nothing less”.

It is clear from the types of attraction listed in Group 16 and Item 7 that the meaning of a right of admission is not limited to a right simply to enter and walk around inside a designated area. The fact that Ingliston’s customers spend only a small amount of time walking across the pitlane, compared with the amount of time they spend inside a car, does not mean that the supplies cannot be characterised as a right of admission.

Mr Hayes submitted that with the attractions listed in Group 16 and Item 7, people are admitted to enjoy something. We agree. In the case of an amusement park, in our view customers are paying for admission so that they can enjoy the rides. In the case of Ingliston, customers are paying for admission so that they can enjoy driving or being driven in a high-powered car.

Mr Winter submitted, and we accept, that the physical environment of an amusement park is different from that which would be experienced by Ingliston’s customers, in that an amusement park offers a large landscaped area. However, we do not accept that the essence of what customers are paying for in an amusement park is the right to walk around a large landscaped area. Even if some customers might choose not to go on the rides, they have still paid for the right to do so.

On the question of tuition and supervision, we accept Mr Hayes’s submission that these are provided for reasons of safety. It is, to our minds, very clear that a business which permits members of the public, many of whom will have had no previous experience of driving this type of car, to drive high-powered cars around a track, needs to provide both instruction and close supervision. On the evidence we find, however, that Ingliston provides instruction and supervision so that customers can enjoy their driving experiences safely, rather than as an end in themselves.

In the case of customers who choose not to drive themselves, we do not accept that what the staff member in the car is doing can be described as supervision: clearly, they are driving, and will need to give their attention to this, rather than to their passenger.

We consider the “essence” of Ingliston’s supplies to be quite different from that of the supplies in Young Driver. In Young Driver, the Tribunal’s findings of fact show that the appellant business emphasised, in its promotional materials, that it was providing driving lessons and that its customers were being taught driving skills. While the driving experiences were designed to be enjoyable and fun, the enjoyment and fun were not the main supply. The Tribunal in Young Driver concluded, at [50], that “the main supply is plainly a supply of driving tuition”.

In this case, by contrast, Ingliston’s terms and conditions describe how the business aims to provide a “fun, safe, exciting and memorable” experience, and to ensure that customers will have a “thrilling drive”. We also accepted Mr Hayes’ evidence that the core of Ingliston’s business was to provide fun and enjoyment, not to teach any driving skills over and above those which customers needed to experience the fun and enjoyment in a safe way.

Therefore, while we accepted Mr Winter’s submission that we would be expected to follow a previous decision of this Tribunal in a similar case unless we considered it to be clearly wrong, we would distinguish Young Driver on the facts and do not reach the same conclusion.