000			01997cab a2200241 4500
001			##L133998
008			060629n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u133998
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aGethin Parry v Derbyshire Dales District Council
260			_c2006
520			_a[2006] EWHC 988 (Admin), 5 May 2006. Considers whether a landowner resided in his property within the meaning of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 s6. Appeal by P against the valuation tribunal's decision dismissing his appeal against D's decision that P's property had been his sole or main residence for a certain period. P had let his cottage unfurnished while he worked in Spain. When he accepted the premature termination of the tenancy he continued to work in Spain. He returned to reside in his cottage seven months after the tenancy's termination during which time the property had remained empty. D decided P should pay 75% of the council tax on the basis that he was a resident with a freehold interest under s 6(2)(a) or as the owner under s6(2)(f) of the Act. D submitted that once the tenancy terminated there was no legal impediment to P's residence and therefore it had resumed. "Held": appeal allowed. The cottage was not P's sole or main residence within the meaning of s6 of the Act during the period in question. Ownership was not residence and for a property to be a person's sole or main residence he had to reside in it.
590			_aIKA040706
650	2	4	_aLOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1992 S6
650	2	4	_aLOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1992 S6(2)(f)
650	2	4	_aGETHIN PARRY V DERBYSHIRE DALES DC
650	2	4	_aR V WILLIAMS V HORSHAM DC
650	2	4	_aLOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1992 S6(2)(a)
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAXATION-COUNCIL TAX
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/1481.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c77313 _d77313