UK Construction and Law

A self build VAT refund of 43,912 pounds fails because the three month deadline cannot be extended

By Staff Writer  |  30 August 2026

The First-tier Tribunal struck out an appeal against the refusal of a claim under the refund scheme for people who build their own home. The claim was almost two years late. Exceptional personal circumstances made no difference, because no tribunal has power to extend the period in regulation 201.

A person who builds a dwelling for their own use, otherwise than in the course of a business, can recover the VAT charged on the goods used in the work. The right comes from section 35 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994. The conditions come from regulation 201 of the 1995 regulations, and they are conditions of making the claim at all rather than matters of administration.

The regulation requires the claim form to be furnished within the prescribed period after completion, with the full particulars, and at the same time to be accompanied by a certificate of completion or other evidence of completion acceptable to the department, and by documentary evidence that planning permission has been granted.

Here the house was completed on 1 December 2022, on the face of the completion certificate the claimant himself relied on. The three month period then in force meant the claim had to be in by 1 March 2023. It was made on 31 January 2025, nearly two years late. The department refused it and upheld the refusal on statutory review in October 2025.

The reason for the delay was accepted and did not help

The appeal did not dispute the dates. It asked the tribunal to extend time because of exceptional personal circumstances following a serious injury to a family member and a long rehabilitation. The tribunal accepted for the purposes of the application that those circumstances were real and had a heavy effect on the family.

It made no difference, because the appeal turned on a question of law.

In our judgment, no such power exists. The binding authority is Patel, in which the Upper Tribunal held that the requirements of Regulation 201 are mandatory and that the Tribunal has no power to extend the statutory time limit or waive the prescribed requirements.

Tribunal Judge Stapenhurst

The claimant relied on a recent decision allowing a penalty appeal on the ground of reasonable excuse. The tribunal held it did not assist. That case concerned a statutory reasonable excuse defence to a late payment penalty and had nothing to do with section 35, regulation 201 or the refund scheme. There is no reasonable excuse defence written into regulation 201.

An earlier decision questioning whether the department itself retains some residual discretion, on the wording that it shall not be required to entertain a non-compliant claim, was also raised. That decision expressly recognised it was bound, and accepted that any discretion of that kind would belong to the department and not to the tribunal.

Jurisdiction, and why the appeal still failed

The department argued the tribunal had no jurisdiction at all. That argument was rejected. The tribunal has jurisdiction to determine appeals against decisions on section 35 claims. What it does not have is any power to grant the relief this appellant wanted. On that basis the strike out was ordered on the second ground, no reasonable prospect of success, rather than on jurisdiction.

What self builders and their advisers should take from it

The period is now six months rather than three, for buildings completed on or after 5 December 2023, which is a real improvement for anyone finishing a house today. It does nothing for older completions, and six months is still short for a project that has run for years.

Three practical points follow. The completion certificate fixes the clock, so the date on it is the date to diarise the moment it is issued, not the date the last invoice is paid or the family moves in. The supporting documents have to go in with the form, not after it, and a claim sent in on time without the planning evidence is as vulnerable as a late one. And there is nobody to appeal to on grounds of hardship: illness, bereavement and injury have all been argued and none of them creates a power the tribunal does not have. If the deadline is at risk, the conversation to have is with the department while there is still time, not with a tribunal afterwards.