Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

UT/2023/000063 - [2024] UKUT 00307 (TCC)

Fecha: 28-Jun-2024

the appellants’ submissions

the appellants’ submissions

29.

Mr Firth made lengthy written submissions (32 pages in relation to a 10-page decision). We have considered all his written and oral submissions, but his primary arguments can be summarised as follows:

(1)

The test adopted by the FTT to determine whether a need for repair would prevent a building from being suitable for use as a dwelling was whether the repair was “fundamental”, and whether the defect in question was “curable”. That was the wrong test in law, and there was no statutory basis for it.

(2)

Suitability for use as a dwelling means ready for occupation and capable of being lived in as a dwelling by a reasonable person at the effective date. That is the ordinary and correct meaning of those words.

(3)

This definition is modified by the well-established de minimis principle to allow for minor work at the effective date.

(4)

The most significant factor in determining whether a repair is minor is the length of time it will take to carry out. A delay of “a few days” would not prevent a building from being suitable for use as a dwelling.

(5)

The FTT’s approach amounted to an impermissible test of whether a building was capable of being made suitable for use.

(6)

The focus must be on the condition of the building at the effective date, not some future date. The previous use of the building is of limited relevance.

(7)

The FTT test risks inconsistent decisions, and the issue calls for guidance from the Upper Tribunal.