Moghaddam v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham [2009] EWHC 1670 (Admin)

[2009] EWHC 1670 (Admin)Case No CO/8076/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 10 th July 2009
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BURNETT
Between
ZAINAB AHMADI MOGHADDAMClaimantLONDON BOROUGH OF HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAMDefendant
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment ofWordWave International LimitedA Merrill Communications Company165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DYTel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7404 1424Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Zainab Ahmadi Moghaddam Claimant - In Person for in personMr. Gasztowicz QC (instructed by London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham) for Defendant.Hearing Hearing date: 19 TH JUNE 2009
JudgmentThe Hon Mr. Justice Burnett :
[1]This is an appeal against the decision of the London Southwest Valuation Tribunal [“the Tribunal”] given on 18th July 2008 which followed a hearing on the 21st May 2008. The Tribunal dismissed Miss Moghaddam’s appeal against a decision of London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham [“the Council”] contained in a letter dated 19th July 2007 (itself the result of an administrative appeal) that she was liable for council tax on the two flats contained within 296 Uxbridge Road, London W12 7LJ. The periods of liability in respect of the two flats were different. In respect of the basement flat, the period of liability was from 1st August 2000 to 30th April 2006. In respect of the upper flat, the liability arose on 11th October 2003 and was continuing.[2]Miss Moghaddam, who has appeared in person in this court as she did before the Tribunal, contends that the Tribunal erred in failing to accept a document she produced at the hearing as a lease in respect of the whole of 296 Uxbridge Road [“the property”] from her to her father. Had she leased the whole of the property, she would not be liable for council tax on either flat for the period of the lease. Alternatively, she submits that the Tribunal erred in failing to accept as genuine a number of documents suggesting that each of the two flats was leased from time to time to other individuals. In particular, she refers to apparent leases to Mr. Shahzad Farid and Iram Ali of the upper flat from February 2006.[3]This appeal is a statutory appeal. It is brought under Regulation 51 of the Valuations and Community Charge Tribunals Regulations 1989 (as amended), and may be brought on a point of law alone.[4]This appeal came before Sir Thayne Forbes, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, on 24th April 2009. He adjourned the hearing because it quickly became apparent that it would be necessary for further evidence to be exchanged by the parties. By their respondent’s notice, the Council contended that the Tribunal should have dismissed Miss Moghaddam’s appeal because it was out of time. The appeal was brought long beyond the two month time limit from the date of the relevant decision of the Council. There was no basis upon which the Tribunal could lawfully have extended the time limit. Before Sir Thayne Forbes, Miss Moghaddam explained she had never received the decision of 19th July 2007. If that was so, then the appeal to the Tribunal was within time. If it was not so, then there could not be any proper basis to extend time. Thus evidence which was ordered was directed to the issue of receipt of the decision letter of 19th July 2007. Secondly, the Council suggested that only the first page of the document suggested by Miss Moghaddam to be a lease of the property to her father was produced before the Tribunal or ever provided to them. Miss Moghaddam contended before Sir Thayne Forbes that she had produced a three page document, that is to say its entirety, to both the Council and to the Tribunal. That could be a matter of importance, or so it seemed in April of this year, because the Council by their respondent’s notice had also suggested that the ‘lease’ was defective. That was because the first page did not provide for any consideration; additionally it was a lease for more than three years and was not a deed. The three page version was in fact executed as a deed. Sir Thayne also directed that evidence be filed relating to the other suggested leases of the two flats and more generally towards the facts underlying Miss Moghaddam’s interest in the house and her liability for council tax.

General Background

[5]Miss Moghaddam contended that she purchased the house on 26th September 2000. She was then 19 years old. She did so at the suggestion of her father who, she says, has managed the house ever since. Indeed, although she was not certain of the matter, she thought he might have managed it for the previous owner. The house is divided into two flats. One is situated in the basement. The other comprises the upper floors. In the documentation available to the Council, to the Tribunal and in this Court, the upper flat has been variously described as a maisonette and flat. The documentation does not deliver a clear answer to the question of how many floors it comprises. However, Miss Moghaddam explains that it comprises a ground floor, the floor above and then a floor above that (with only 2 small rooms). As a result of the variations in description it is here referred to as the upper flat.[6]It is not unfair to say that those at the Council who have tried over the years to establish who from time to time was occupying these flats found themselves exasperated by the steady trickle of contradictory, incomplete or opaque explanations and documents proffered by Miss Moghaddam.[7]On the 11th October 2004 Miss Moghaddam wrote to the Council regarding property. She said she had been a full time student for some years but no longer lived at the property. She told the Council that a Mr. Adar was living there and was responsible for payment of the council tax. That letter did not differentiate between the two flats. She received a reply asking her to provide her own council tax certificate from her place of study and also for further details relating to Mr. Adar. Such certificates are routinely provided to full time students who are relieved of the obligation of paying council tax. Miss Moghaddam wrote back on the 8th December. On this occasion she identified her letter as relating to the basement flat. She said she was enclosing her student certificate and added that the flat was now occupied by Mr. and Mrs Eragpour and family. The Council sought further details generally as to the occupation of the basement flat and also pointed out that the certificate had not in fact been enclosed. Correspondence continued. On 4th July Miss Moghaddam sent her student certificate and said she would send documentary material relating to people living at the address since September 2004. On 23rd August 2005 she sent material to the Council and indicated that such gaps as the documentation revealed, were the result of the property being empty whilst repaired and refurbished. Three tenancy agreements were enclosed. In each the landlord was identified as Ali Ahmadi-Moghaddam, who is the father of Miss Moghaddam. None of those tenancies distinguished between the basement flat and the upper flat. The earliest was dated 1st September 2000, that is to say a few weeks before Miss Moghaddam became the owner of the house, the latest was 8th February 2005. The matter rumbled on until October 2006 when proceedings for arrears of council tax were threatened.[8]In December 2006 the Council was notified by Mr. Golpeycar, an agent acting on behalf of Miss Moghaddam’s father, that the basement flat had been let to a Miss Poojari. The Council pursued particulars. In due course Mr. Golpeycar produced a tenancy agreement in respect of the basement flat in which he was described as the agent for the landlord and Miss Poojari as tenant. The lease was for a period of 12 months from 30th April 2006. Her occupation of the flat was apparently confirmed. That lease was accepted as being genuine. That explains why in respect of the basement flat the liability of Miss Moghaddam was considered to end on 30th April 2006. The Council also had satisfactory evidence of the occupation by others of the upper flat until October 2003. That explains why her liability in respect of the upper flat was adjudged to commence on 11th October 2003.[9]On 26th January 2007 a Mr. Edward Stubbs wrote to the Council. He said that he was living at 296A Uxbridge Road and would be responsible for the council tax. He too would appear have been a full time student.[10]In the meantime the proceedings initiated by the Council in respect of arrears of council tax were proceeding towards a hearing in the County Court. On 21st May 2007 Miss Moghaddam wrote to Janet Chaplin in the finance recovery department of the Council. In that letter she said that the whole property had been leased to Building Designs Services and had been tenanted for years. She also said she had been abroad for a year. The reference to Building Design Services is a reference to the tenant of the ‘lease’ entered into with her father on 30th September 2009 It was his trading name. She invited the Council to remove charges on the property and seek council tax from others. There was then a telephone discussion between Miss Moghaddam and Janet Chaplin which was followed by a letter to Jenny Dixon on 8th June 2007. Mrs Dixon is the appeal officer at the Council’s local taxation division. In strict terms the decision to consider her liable for council tax was taken by Janet Chaplin. Jenny Dixon considered an appeal. The latter of 8th June 2007 was therefore an appeal against the decision to make Miss Moghaddam liable for council tax. In that letter she again stated that the property had been tenanted. She denied that it was a ‘house in multiple occupation’. That is what the Council believed and if correct, that fact might result in Miss Moghaddam acquiring liability for council tax. She indicated that there were two flats, one in the basement and one upstairs. She referred to the fact that she had provided tenancy agreements. She also enclosed copies of bills to establish that the house was not in multiple occupation. Finally, she indicated that the matter very urgent because a County Court hearing on the Council’s application for an order for sale was expected to take place on 27th June.[11]The reference to multiple occupation was something that arose from a visit by bailiffs on behalf on the Council in 2006 who appeared to have formed the view that the house was in multiple occupation. The bills related to the upper flat at 296 Uxbridge Road. They were for gas and electricity and covered the period from the spring of 2004 until the 1st quarter of 2006. The bills were addressed to Miss Ling Cui and Mr Xiao Lin. It is clear that Miss Moghaddam was suggesting that, even though she had no tenancy agreement to cover the occupation of these two people, the bills suggested that they were in occupation of the upper flat at least until the early part of 2006. Miss Moghaddam had also produced additional tenancy agreements in respect of the upper flat (although it was referred to as 1st and 2nd floor in the agreements). The landlord’s agent was expressed as being Mr. Ali Golpeycar. The tenants were Mr Farid and Miss Ali. The first agreement is dated the 12th February 2006 and expressed to be for a term of 12 months. The second agreement dated 12th February 2007 was also produced.[12]Mrs Dixon’s decision is contained in the letter of 19th July 2007. Her overall conclusion was that both flats were houses multiple occupation. As such, she considered Miss Moghaddam to be liable for council tax. The decision letter was a full document. The material parts are as follows, reproduced precisely as the parts appear:
“I have reviewed all of the correspondence, tenancy agreements and documentation you have submitted to this office back to 2000, and due to the reasons listed below I have made the decision that you will remain the liable person for Council tax. • The tenancy agreements provided are inconsistent – some of the agreements refer to the property as 296 Uxbridge Road, and others as either Basement or Ground -2nd Floor. • The landlord or owner is referred to as either yourself, Ali Moghaddam or the agent know as Mr. Goleycar. The address’s stated as the owner address is inconsistent – The property address is often referred to as the owner’s address. The following addresses have also be referred to as the agent or landlord address: 46 Attewood Avenue, NW10 0HB 571 High Road, London E11 4PB 596 High Road London E11 8 Cairnfield Court, Cairnfield Avenue, NW2 7PP I have contacted the relevant local authorities and neither yourself, Mr A Moghaddam or Mr. Golpeycar are registered for council tax or known to be residing at the addresses provided • You have stated that between 2000 – 2004 you were a full time student and provided a student certificate, and yet you provided a tenancy agreement for 2000 in the name of four tenants. • In various letters of correspondence you have stated the Mr Adar was in residence and then provided an agreement for Mr Eragpour • I have received a letter from Edward Stubbs in January 2007 stating he is in residence at ‘296 Uxbridge Road’ which conflicts with the tenancy’s provided for this period • Tenancy agreements for your current occupiers have been received, which conflict with a letter sent to this office in May 2007 where you state that a company called Building Design Services have leased the property. Again the property has been referred to as 296 Uxbridge Road. You have not supplied any documentation to support this transfer of lease. • Our bailiff visited the property in 2006 and reported back to the council that there were numerous occupants in residence and they could not supply any tenancy agreements. The Local Taxation Enforcement Department have placed a charging order against your property, which may result in your property being sold to pay the amounts due. You have received all the documentation regarding this order and the appeal does not halt this action. I am required to make decisions on behalf of the council with regards to who is liable to pay the council tax. With the information that I currently hold, I need to decide on the basis of probability and fact if both properties are houses of multiple occupation (HMO). A HMO is a property which is occupied by persons who do not constitute a single dwelling. Based on all of the documentation provided I consider both the Basement Flat and the Ground - 2nd Floor at 296 Uxbridge Road W12 7LJ as houses of multiple occupation. As the owner of the above properties, I consider you the liable person to pay the council.”
It is apparent that at this stage, that is say July 2007, the Council had not accepted that Miss Poojari was the tenant of the basement flat. However, they had accepted that position prior to the appeal hearing before the Tribunal. • The tenancy agreements provided are inconsistent – some of the agreements refer to the property as 296 Uxbridge Road, and others as either Basement or Ground -2nd Floor. • The landlord or owner is referred to as either yourself, Ali Moghaddam or the agent know as Mr. Goleycar. The address’s stated as the owner address is inconsistent – The property address is often referred to as the owner’s address. The following addresses have also be referred to as the agent or landlord address: 46 Attewood Avenue, NW10 0HB 571 High Road, London E11 4PB 596 High Road London E11 8 Cairnfield Court, Cairnfield Avenue, NW2 7PP I have contacted the relevant local authorities and neither yourself, Mr A Moghaddam or Mr. Golpeycar are registered for council tax or known to be residing at the addresses provided • You have stated that between 2000 – 2004 you were a full time student and provided a student certificate, and yet you provided a tenancy agreement for 2000 in the name of four tenants. • In various letters of correspondence you have stated the Mr Adar was in residence and then provided an agreement for Mr Eragpour • I have received a letter from Edward Stubbs in January 2007 stating he is in residence at ‘296 Uxbridge Road’ which conflicts with the tenancy’s provided for this period • Tenancy agreements for your current occupiers have been received, which conflict with a letter sent to this office in May 2007 where you state that a company called Building Design Services have leased the property. Again the property has been referred to as 296 Uxbridge Road. You have not supplied any documentation to support this transfer of lease. • Our bailiff visited the property in 2006 and reported back to the council that there were numerous occupants in residence and they could not supply any tenancy agreements.[13]Before turning to the question of whether Miss Moghaddam received that letter, I shall complete the relevant description of events leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. On 23rd July 2007 Miss Moghaddam paid the outstanding council tax arrears to avoid the forced sale of her property. She then appears to have taken no steps over the summer and autumn in respect of her liabilities for council tax. On 26th November 2007 Miss Moghaddam wrote to Janet Chaplin. Her letter purported to attach a copy of the “lease” to her father as Building Design Services and a letter from Mr. Ahmadi (who the Council knew to be her father). The letter from Mr. Ahmadi asserted that the property had been under his management since September 2000 and that the property had been rented to tenants since then. There is a disagreement about whether Miss Moghaddam enclosed just the front page or all three pages of the ‘lease’ with that letter. Nonetheless the front page purports to be a lease dated 30th September 2000 of the whole property for five years. The landlord is Miss Moghaddam and the tenant her father, Ali Ahmadi, trading as Building Design Services. Mrs Chaplin acknowledged that letter by e-mail. She queried which part of the property the correspondence referred to. In reply, again by e-mail, Miss Moghaddam told her that it referred to the whole property. In a long e-mail of 5th December 2007 Mrs Chaplin maintained the Council’s earlier position and referred to more “yet more conflicting information”. Following the receipt of that letter, Miss Moghaddam attempted to utilise a procedure available in the magistrates court to set aside her liability for council tax but, as she discovered, that was inappropriate for reasons that are not relevant to this appeal. Thus it was that in January 2008 Miss Moghaddam decided to appeal to the Tribunal. The possibility of an appeal was referred to in the e-mail of 5th December 2007. In her notice of appeal she identified her letter of the 8th June 2007 and ticked a box beside the statement:
“If the Council has not written back to you within 2 months, please tick this box”
. The Tribunal wrote to Miss Moghaddam seeking clarification of whether the Council had ever determined her initial appeal. It asked that any correspondence from the Council be forwarded to them. On 11th February 2008 Miss Moghaddam responded to that request her letter contained this:
“I have made an initial appeal to the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham council with respect to liability. I have attached and sent the letter I had written to the appeal officer (Ms Dickson dated 8th June 2007) at the council to you, with all the rest of the documents. I have had no reply from them and also I was told by the telephone that my appeal was not successful. I have no formal correspondence from them about the appeal. This is why I have applied at the Valuation tribunal as I was advised to do. Please check all the documents I have sent which will include my letter to the appeal officer from whom I have had no reply since June 2007.”

The Tribunal’s Decision

[14]The notice of decision of the Tribunal dated 18th July 2008 contained the Council’s case as advanced by Mrs Dixon. The commencement date for liability was the 1st August 2000. The Council appeared to have been unaware that Miss Moghaddam only purchased the property in September 2000 and it is a curiosity of the proceedings before the Tribunal that Miss Moghaddam did not produce any documents relating to the purchase by her of the property. Be that as it may, the Council through Mrs Dixon explained that they were satisfied tenants were registered for the upper flat until 7th February 2003 and that Miss Poojari was responsible for the basement flat from 30th April 2006. The Tribunal recorded Miss Moghaddam’s case as follows:
“Ms Moghaddam appealed on 23 January 2008 stating that the property is not in multiple occupation and that the property had been leased since September 2000. She stated that she was not liable for the payment of Council Tax. Ms Moghaddam submitted a number of documents including: a copy of a lease on the premises naming the appellant as landlord demising the appeal property to ‘Building Design Services – Ali Ahmadi’ as tenant; a letter from Mr Ali Admadi dated 24 November 2007 stating the property had been under his management since September 2000. She also submitted a page from a tenancy agreement on the first and second floor of the premises and various other letters and a utility bill showing that other named persons had been responsible for the maisonette’s electricity.”
The reference to a tenancy agreement for the 1st and 2nd floor of the premises is clearly a reference to the tenancy agreement with Mr. Farid and Miss Ali, with Mr. Golpeycar acting as the landlord’s agent. Miss Moghaddam had produced the front page of the tenancy agreement dated 12th February 2006 and then the front page of the tenancy agreement dated 12th February 2007. Each is in a standard form with further terms and conditions printed on the back of the agreement which have not been re-produced. It is immediately apparent, however, that in respect of ‘lease’ from September 2000 the Tribunal did not suggest that it had other than the entire document.[15]The Tribunal then went on to give its decision and reasons. It made no finding as to whether Miss Moghaddam had received the letter of 19th July 2007 but decided not take any time point against her. The substance of its conclusions then followed:
“The Tribunal looked carefully at the lease provided by Ms Moghaddam and found it did not contain the rent, or any consideration, making it defective as a lease. Under questioning by the Tribunal Ms Moghaddam was unable to accurately state the rent passing on the property. The lease was also not at arm’s length in that Ms Moghaddam stated at the hearing that originally the house had been given over to her by her father; however, the lease submitted purported to return it to his control to manage. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is unable to attach any weight to this evidence. The tenancy submitted by the appellant states the agent, Mr Ali Golpeycar let the first and second floors of the property to Mr Shahzad Farid and Miss Iram Ali for 12 months beginning on 12 February 2006. This was extended on 12 February 2007 for a further term of 12 months. The Billing Authority was unable to trace Mr. Golpeycar as resident at the address shown on the tenancy agreement, though it was assumed that this was Ms Moghaddam father. A copy of the tenancy had not been produced prior to the Billing Authority’s decision to make the owner, Ms Moghaddam, liable. On 23 August Ms Moghaddam wrote to the Council enclosing copies of tenancy agreements relating to tenants living at the property since August 2000 stating that any gaps were due to the property being refurbished. It is to be expected that a reasonable landlord will notify the Billing Authority in a timely manner of any changes to tenancies, void periods and periods where the property is empty, else they can expect the Billing Authority, not unreasonably, to charge them for periods which are unaccounted for. The Tribunal notes that an officer of the Council has inspected the premises and found it to be occupied by numerous persons in separate rooms and have been unable to ascertain Ms Moghaddam’s main residence. In the absence of a reliable tenancy for the whole of the period in dispute, the difficulty in tracing the occupiers or leaseholder, and the absence of any evidence to suggest where Ms Moghaddam‘s main residence is, the Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Moghaddam, as head leaseholder, owner or freeholder and possibly occupier of the appeal property, is the liable person for council tax on the basis that no other person meets the conditions in the hierarchy.”

The disputed Factual Issues in the High Court Appeal

[16]The first question I must resolve is whether Miss Moghaddam received the letter of 19th July 2007 within a few days of its being posted, as the Council suggest. Miss Moghaddam filed evidence in a witness statement dated 27th April 2009 dealing with this issue and also the others identified in the order Sir Thayne Forbes. Mrs Dixon and Mrs Chaplin responded in statements dated 18th May 2009. On the day before the hearing in the High Court, Miss Moghaddam prepared a document containing evidence and argument responding to those two witness statements.[17]There are three evidential strands upon which the Council rely is support of the contention that Miss Moghaddam must have received the letter of the 19th July 2007 promptly. The Council does not shy away from the submission that Miss Moghaddam has quite knowingly lied about this matter in the course of a telephone discussion with Mrs Dixon, in documents before the Tribunal, in her witness statement for this Court and on oath before me. The three evidential strands are these. First, Mrs Dixon recalls having a telephone discussion with Miss Moghaddam a few days after she wrote the letter. Her memory is that the conversation was on the 23rd July or there abouts. The letter, written on Thursday 19th July 2007, would have been put out for post that day. Depending upon the time it got into the outgoing post tray, it would have been posted that afternoon or the following day. It was the habit of the Council to send such letters out 2nd class, said Mrs Dixon. Therefore, if the conversation with Miss Moghaddam took place on the 23rd or 24th of July the letter would only just have arrived. Mrs Dixon did not make any note of the telephone conversation. She told me that it had stuck in her mind because the way in which the administrative appeal before her developed was very unusual. First, the toings and froings and conflicting information was itself unusual. Secondly, this was the first significant internal appeal that Mrs Dixon had conducted herself. During the course of the telephone conversation as recollected by Mrs Dixon she got the clear impression that Miss Moghaddam had the decision letter in front of her. That was because of the nature of their discussion. Nonetheless, at the end of the conversation Miss Moghaddam told Mrs Dixon that she had not received the letter. It response, Mrs Dixon recollects saying to Miss Moghaddam that the letter would arrive within a day or two. In fact, in her own mind she was sure that Miss Moghaddam was lying to her at the time. The second strand of evidence is simply that the letter was not returned by the Post Office. That is in contrast with another letter sent in May 2008. Miss Moghaddam confirmed that the address to which the letter was sent was, at the time, the correct one. She said that occasionally post did go astray to an address nearby with a similar name. The third strand is simply that Miss Moghaddam did not get touch with the Council (either Mrs Dixon or Mrs Chaplin) in the weeks or months immediately following July 2007. The Council suggests that is inconsistent with any suggestion that Miss Moghaddam did not receive the letter because she would have inevitably made contact to discover the detail of the outcome of her appeal, especially as she had discussed the outcome with Mrs Dixon.[18]Miss Moghaddam has consistently asserted in the legal proceedings, that is before the Tribunal and this Court, that she did not receive any written communication from the Council concerning the outcome of her administrative appeal. I have earlier quoted from the notice of appeal to the Tribunal which is to that effect and also from her letter of 12th February 2008 in similar terms. It is right to say that Miss Moghaddam has been inconsistent in her statements and in her evidence before me about whether she had a discussion with Mrs Dixon at all. In the document prepared by her on 18th June 2009 she took particular exception with the suggestion that she and Mrs Dixon had conversed on 23rd July 2007, because that was the date on which she had paid the sums demand to avoid procession of the property. In doing so she became confused about what conversations had taken place. It is clear that there were a number of conversations with Mrs Chaplin earlier in the summer of 2007 when the County Court proceedings were outstanding. In the end, Miss Moghaddam accepted that she did have a discussion Mrs Dixon about the outcome of the administrative appeal. Such a conversation is recorded as having happened in the letter of the 12th February 2008. Miss Moghaddam readily accepted that a statement made much closer to the events in question was bound to be correct. Nonetheless, that does not answer the question whether the letter was received by Miss Moghaddam. Miss Moghaddam was not an altogether satisfactory witness. I formed the impression that she was not very good at distinguishing between argument, on the one hand, and evidence on the other. She was also apt to get exercised and answer questions without having listened properly to them. She was in some respects a careless witness. Yet this is a central factual issue about which I did not conclude, having heard her, that she was lying.[19]Furthermore, I am unable to see what purpose there would have been in Miss Moghaddam lying to Mrs Dixon in the way that is suggested by the Council. It is clear that Miss Moghaddam, having paid the council tax demanded, did not consider the matter closed. Had she received Mrs Dixon’s letter there would have been nothing to stop her utilising the appeal to the Tribunal within time. The letter gives details of how to appeal together with the time limit. Indeed, the history of this matter suggests that Miss Moghaddam is, if nothing else, extremely dogged in seeking to vindicate her rights.[20]Having heard Miss Moghaddam give evidence I do not consider her to be a dishonest witness. I do not consider that she manipulated the appeal process before the Tribunal to circumvent the time limit by lying in her notice of appeal and in subsequent correspondence. That said, I do not doubt that Mrs Dixon genuinely formed a strong suspicion that she was being lied to during the telephone conversation that took place after the letter had been sent. It is clear from the papers that both Mrs Dixon and Mrs Chaplin were deeply sceptical of much of the material being provided to them by Miss Moghaddam. Since I find that that Miss Moghaddam did not receive the letter of 19th July 2007, the time point raised in the respondent’s notice evaporates.[21]What then of the lease between father and daughter? Miss Moghaddam told me that she enclosed all three pages of the lease under cover of her letter to the Council of 27th November 2007. She told me that all three pages were before the Tribunal and that there was extensive discussion of its content. She was asked to account for the absence of any rent being specified in the lease. Furthermore, Miss Moghaddam recollects being asked by Mrs Chaplin whether the witness to the document, whose signature appears on the third page, was her mother. Mrs Dixon and Mrs Chaplin are adamant that when the ‘lease’ was sent to them in November 2007 that only its first page was enclosed. They are equally clear in recollecting that only 1 page was available at the Tribunal and not three. Mrs Chaplin emphasised that it would have been no part of her function to engage in any discussion at the Tribunal about the content of the lease because she was in essence an observer.[22]The extraneous evidence is contradictory. First of all, the reasons of the Tribunal speak of their having seen a lease without noting that much of it was missing. By contrast, they noted the partial production of the lease to Mr. Farid and Miss Ali. On the other hand, one of the reasons why the Tribunal considered that the lease was invalid was because it had no rent or other consideration. If all three pages had been before the Tribunal it would have been clear that the document was executed as a deed. That would render the need for consideration redundant. It would very surprising if such a point were not obvious to the Tribunal. Both parties have sought to clarify with the Tribunal the state of the evidence before them. Unfortunately, the notes of the clerk to the Tribunal have not been secured. In an e-mail from the clerk to Miss Moghaddam he said “I confirm a 3-page lease document was submitted by you at the hearing”. But in an e-mail to Mrs Dixon he suggested that it was not a full lease and from memory thought was a two page document.[23]This point had resonance because of the conclusion of the Tribunal that the lease was not backed by consideration. Furthermore, the Council raised an additional point in the respondent’s notice. It was suggested that because it purported to be a lease for more than three years, Section 52(1) the Law of Property Act 1925 required it to be made by deed. If the Tribunal has all three pages both points would have gone. Conversely, there can no doubt that if the Tribunal had before it only the first page of the document, it was entitled to accord it no weight for the reasons it gave.[24]Now that the full document has been considered it is clear that even if the full document were available, the Tribunal it would have been obliged to accord it no weight. That is for a very straightforward reason. Clause 8 of the purported lease of 30th September 2000 is in these terms:
“IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND DECLARED as follows: (a) that this lease shall not in any way confer or impose upon either of the parties hereto any of the rights or obligations of a landlord or tenant (as the case may be) or any other rights and obligations save those expressed in this lease; (b) Control of the property shall at all times remain vested in the landlord and the tenant shall not therefore acquire any estate or interest therein save those expressed in this lease.”
Earlier in the document clause 1 purported to demise the property known as 296 Uxbridge Road and clause 3 specified that the “terms hereby granted” shall be for the period of 30th September 2000 until 30th September 2005. Clause 4 makes the grant for the “specific purpose of the Tenant’s Business and the tenant will be responsible for running and managing the entire property”. The clause which provided for payment to the landlord, which was left blank, described the payment as a fee rather than rent. Looked at in the round, it is clear that the document, whilst in part expressed in the language of a lease, was in fact an agreement for Miss Moghaddam’s father to manage the property on her behalf. In Bruton v. London and Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406 at 413E, Lord Hoffman observed:
“The decision of this House in Street v. Mountford [1985] AC 809 is authority for the proposition that a “lease” or a “tenancy” is a contractually binding agreement, not referable to any other relationship between the parties, by which one person gives to another exclusive occupation of land for a fixed or renewable period or periods of time, usually in return for a periodic payment in money”
. It is quite clear from the totality of the terms of the agreement that exclusive occupation was not granted to Miss Moghaddam’s father by the purported lease. On the contrary, although its terms are contradictory and in part opaque (possibly because the document was cobbled together from other agreements) it purported to reserve control of the property to Miss Moghaddam and anticipated no occupation by her father at all. The two flats in the property were always intended to be let. The Tribunal had difficulty in understanding what financial arrangement existed between Miss Moghaddam and father. She told me that he paid her a fee out of the rents collected and retained the balance for himself. Whether that is right or wrong in fact, it is certainly consistent with the document presented. It is also consistent with the terms of her father’s letter of the 27th November 2007, in which he referred to himself as the manager of the property rather than there being any suggestion he had an interest in the property. (a) that this lease shall not in any way confer or impose upon either of the parties hereto any of the rights or obligations of a landlord or tenant (as the case may be) or any other rights and obligations save those expressed in this lease; (b) Control of the property shall at all times remain vested in the landlord and the tenant shall not therefore acquire any estate or interest therein save those expressed in this lease.”

The Other Leases

[25]Mr. Gasztowicz QC, who appeared on behalf of the Council recognised that the conclusions of the Tribunal with reference to the alternative leases amounted to an implicit finding of dishonesty or fraud on the part of Miss Moghaddam. She had presented documents to both the Council and to the Tribunal which, if they were genuine, would have relieved her of obligations for council tax, at least for part of the time, just as did the lease to Miss Poojari and the early occupation of the upper flat before 2003 by others. This is different from the question whether the ‘lease’ to her father was an effective lease of the whole of the property. The question for the Tribunal was whether the leases to Mr. Farid and Miss Ali were genuine. The discussion by the Tribunal with respect to the documents purporting to be tenancy agreements with Mr. Farid and Miss Ali noted that the landlord’s agent was referred to as Mr. Golpeycar. The Tribunal suggests that the Council assumed he was Miss Moghaddam’s father although that is not an assumption the Council has ever made. No express finding was made in respect of those documents. The Tribunal went on to note that there was difficulty in identifying Miss Moghaddam’s main residence, and that an inspection had found the premises occupied numerous persons. That was a reference to a visit from a bailiff 2006, reported by Mrs Dixon, but in respect of which there was no record. However, the Tribunal did not endorse the earlier conclusion of the Council that both flats were houses in multiple occupation.[26]On enquiry in the course of these proceedings, it became clear that at no stage during the course the Tribunal hearing was it ever suggested to Miss Moghaddam that she had produced what amounted to fake or sham agreements. Furthermore, the reasoning of the Tribunal does not deal with those agreements or the other material provided by Miss Moghaddam. Two points emerge from this. First, it is an aspect of the requirement to deal fairly with parties to proceedings that a suggestion of dishonesty is put so that the party may deal with it. Mr Gasztowicz did not seek to avoid his obligation to make precisely such a suggestion in respect of the receipt of the letter of 19th July 2007. Secondly, although the reasons given by a Tribunal may be short and condensed there is a need to explain, albeit briefly, why an aspect of the case has been rejected.[27]That is especially important in the context of an implicit funding that there has been dishonesty or fraud. In the context of the material before the Tribunal, confused though it was, the relationship between those aspects of the history accepted by the Council (and endorsed by the Tribunal) and those which were not accepted were important and called for consideration. Thus the tenancy agreement for the basement flat with Miss Poojari described Mr. Golpeycar as agent and was accepted as genuine and subsisting by the Council. That was a development since the decision under appeal to the Tribunal. The Council accepted that Miss Moghaddam’s liability for council tax came to an end when that agreement was entered into. The tenancy agreements with Mr. Farid and Miss Ali are on the same standard form as was used for Miss Poojari’s tenancy. Mr. Golpeycar is again identified as the agent (albeit on this occasion an address is given for him different from 296 Uxbridge Road) and certificates for the purposes of council tax were produced by both Mr. Farid and Miss Ali from the West London School of Management and Technology. The Tribunal has implicitly found that the leases to Mr. Farid and Miss Ali are not what they seem. Whilst it is not for me to determine the genuiness of those agreements, in my view the Tribunal erred in not putting to Miss Moghaddam fair and square that she was possibly engaged in some sort of deception in producing leases which were fake or a sham. The Tribunal also erred, in my judgment, in not providing more detailed reasons to explain why they found against her on this aspect of the appeal and more generally. The question arises: why have all concerned accepted the Poojari lease but not the Farid and Ali leases?[28]It is correct to observe that in 2004 Miss Moghaddam provided contradictory accounts of who was living at 296 Uxbridge Road. Furthermore, the early documents which she produced as leases did not differentiate between the upper flat and the basement flat. Nonetheless, there is an essential simplicity in the factual arguments that she has advanced. First, her case has been that her father assumed responsibility for the whole of the property. That will not assist her in relation to her council tax appeal for the reasons I have given. However, there is a second line of argument. She suggests that for a period whilst she was a student (in respect which a certificate was produced) she lived in the basement flat of the property. Thereafter, the flat has been let. It may be that the rental agreements with Miss Haagel (September 2003) and Miss Sukkasam (February 2005) relate to the basement flat. That is unclear. The position so far as the upper flat is concerned has clarity for the early period. That is because the Council accepted that there were various students in occupation until 7th February 2003. Two of the names identified by the Council as being students present in the upper flat in that period coincide with the tenancy agreement dated 1st September 2000, which on its face made provision for its extension. The Council also accepted that students were there until the 11th October 2003. The Council’s case is that their names were Cui and Wang. One of those names coincides with the bills produced by Miss Moghaddam from 2004 through to 2006. Then, on her case, Mr. Farid and Miss Ali moved in.[29]For the reasons which I have identified in paragraph 27 above, I am satisfied that this appeal must allowed. The matter will be remitted to the Tribunal to re-determine the appeal. It seems to me that the Tribunal would be greatly assisted if Miss Moghaddam were to produce a chronological bundle of documents dealing with her purchase of the property and then the history of the two flats. She might also consider enlisting the direct evidence of her father or Mr Golpecar to explain clearly what has been going on. This case has been bedevilled by the piecemeal production of documents which has continued into the appeal before this Court. It is no surprise that the Council and then the Tribunal struggled to get to the bottom of the facts.