TC09658 - [2025] UKFTT 01210 (TC)

The Summerhouse sits in the garden of Springwood House and as such it would not offer the occupant of either property complete privacy or security if they were independently occupied. The test is however not complete privacy and security, only that there is “a degree” of privacy and security “consistent with the concept of a single dwelling”.

The Summerhouse does not have a fenced off separate garden and consequently the occupant of Springwood House would be able to go up to the French Windows on the three of the four walls of the Summerhouse. However a single dwelling will very often have windows that look out onto a street, common land or other property and many do not have a fenced off area in front of the window. This potential lack of privacy is counterbalanced in the case of the Summerhouse by the fact that it is positioned approximately 25 metres from Springwood House and that the two of the French windows open onto a pond and open fields. Consequently, unless someone purposefully walks up to the property and looks into the French windows, it is not easy to see into it. Further the Summerhouse is secured with toughened glass and multipoint locks.

It follows that we do not consider the degree of privacy and security offered by the Summerhouse to be inconsistent with a single dwelling.

It is not unusual for the cost of utilities to be included as part of the rent and so we do not consider that the lack of separate utility meters or bills for the Summerhouse is determinative, nor is its lack of a separate postal address. Although these are factors to take into consideration as part of the multifactorial test.

Equally however we do not consider that the fact that the Summerhouse is separately registered for Council Tax is evidence that it is a single dwelling. The Summerhouse was not registered separately for Council Tax at the EDT and it is not clear that the Local Authority made any assessment as to whether the Summerhouse met the statutory test for separate Council Tax registration, which is in any event different to the test for a single dwelling for MDR.

Whilst this is a multifactorial test, some factors carry greater weight than others and the physical configuration carries considerable weight.

In this appeal, the physical configuration is that the entire Summerhouse is very small at approximately 26 square metres, with no storage space for clothes and personal items outside of the kitchen area, and with no bath or shower. A bath or shower could in theory be installed, but the wash room is very small, and in any event we need to consider the physical configuration at the EDT. For most people their hygiene needs could not be met with the necessary settled permanence without access to a bath or shower and a portable bath would not generally be an acceptable alternative. Nor in such a small space would it be very practical. In light of the very high specification to which the Summerhouse has been finished, expecting a settled occupant to use a portable bath also seems quite incongruous.

Mr Town placed a lot of weight on the fact that the Summerhouse suited his disabled daughter’s needs and the family find it a very important facility to support her needs. Mr Town submitted that HMRC are being discriminatory by refusing to accept that the Summerhouse is a single dwelling because it may not suit the needs of an occupier who does not have special needs.

We disagree with this submission for two main reasons.

Firstly, Mr Town’s daughter does not occupy the Summerhouse as a single dwelling in any event. She lives in Springwood House and uses the Summerhouse to spend time in, often sleeping in it and washing in it, but not as a single, self-contained, dwelling. As such Mr Town’s daughter’s use of the Summerhouse does not provide support for his assertion that it is a single dwelling that meets all of her needs.

Secondly, even if the Summerhouse did meet all of his daughter’s needs, the test that HMRC, and on appeal the Tribunal, must apply is an objective test. As already quoted from [48] of Fiander above:

“[4] … The motives or intentions of particular buyers or occupants of the property are not relevant.

(5)

Suitability for use as a single dwelling is to be assessed by reference to suitability for occupants generally. It is not sufficient if the property would satisfy the test only for a particular type of occupant such as a relative or squatter.”

The fact that Mr Town’s daughter, who is severely disabled and therefore has very particular needs, enjoys using the Summerhouse does not assist Mr Town in satisfying the above objective test. He must demonstrate that the Summerhouse is objectively suitable for occupation generally as a single dwelling.

Taking a multifactorial test therefore we find that the security and relative privacy of the Summerhouse does not outweigh the combination of its small size, lack of storage space and a lack of shower or bath. As a result the Summerhouse does not enable a general occupier to inhabit it with the degree of settled permanence necessary to form a single dwelling. As stated by the FTT in Dower:

“In the SDLT context, a residential property that is used or suitable for use as a “dwelling” is to be construed as a building (or part of a building per s.116(6)) whereby the occupier can inhabit with a degree of settled permanence so as to form the centre of his existence.”

We agree with HMRC’s submission that, when looked at objectively, the Summerhouse is in fact a very luxurious Summerhouse in the large garden of Springwood House which the occupants of Springwood House can and do use to spend periods of time in when enjoying the garden or caring for their daughter.