TC09626 - [2025] UKFTT 01067 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

TC09626 - [2025] UKFTT 01067 (TC)

Fecha: 12-Jun-2025

Privacy, security and the hallway

Privacy, security and the hallway

41.

Ms Man argued that the layout of the rear hallway and its doors meant that neither the Main House nor the Annexe would enjoy the privacy and security required for each property to be suitable for occupants generally. Suitability for a relative was not the test (Fiander at [48(5)]). The Upper Tribunal in Fiander at [48(6)] emphasised the need for both as part of the key requirement that a dwelling satisfied the occupants basic living needs:

“(6)…What matters is that the occupant’s basic living needs must be capable of being satisfied with a degree of privacy, self-sufficiency and security consistent with the concept of a single dwelling…”

42.

The importance of privacy was emphasised by the Tribunal in James and BarbaraMobey [2021] UKFTT 122:

“106.

In the context of SDLT, a person buying a property would want and expect that property to contain all the facilities for them to live a separate and independent life, including facilities for the preparation of food, and they would expect to be able to prevent others from entering their property.”

43.

The Appellants stressed that the Upper Tribunal in Fiander only required there to be a “degree” of privacy sufficient for the occupant’s basic needs, it need not be absolute.

44.

HMRC argued that the hallway and its doors failed the test Fiander for four reasons:

(1)

The kitchen door lacked privacy and security because of the see-through glass panes.

(2)

The Utility door only had a bolt on the Annexe side of the door.

(3)

The kitchen door lock mechanism could be used by both occupants.

(4)

Neither door was proven to be soundproof or fireproof.

45.

There was a discussion in the hearing as to whether the claim made by the Appellants was on the basis of the hallway being within the area occupied with the Annexe, part of the Main House or communal.

46.

The SDLT reclaim made by the Appellants originally specified that the hallway would not be part of the Annexe but different positions were taken by the Appellants in correspondence during the dispute. Ms Wise suggested that the Appellants in taking different positions in correspondence were simply making suggestions as to how separate occupation might work. HMRC did not argue that the Appellants were constrained in their appeal to a particular position and so we have proceeded on the basis that we should consider whether any of these permutations could satisfy the test in Fiander.