Chris Wall & Anor v Valuation Tribunal for England

A statutory right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal against a decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England lies only in respect of a decision or order made on an appeal to that tribunal. It does not create a separate appeal against a refusal to review, or to set aside on review, an earlier decision.

An application for review is a judicial matter which must be considered by the VTE President or an authorised nominee. Administrative correspondence cannot determine it. A timely review application which has not been judicially determined remains outstanding, although that does not confer jurisdiction on the Upper Tribunal to hear an appeal from a later refusal of review.

The ratepayers appealed against the VTE Vice-President’s refusal, dated 31 October 2019, to review a 2012 VTE decision which had increased the rateable value of their racing stables.

They contended that the 2012 valuation was inconsistent with other decisions and that the VTE’s administration had failed to deal properly with their earlier correspondence. The appeal raised the preliminary question whether the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals)(Procedure) Regulations 2009 permitted an appeal to the Upper Tribunal from a refusal to undertake a review.

1. Appeal dismissed. Regulation 42(1) of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals)(Procedure) Regulations 2009 confers a right of appeal only from a decision or order made by the VTE on an appeal before it. Properly construed, it does not confer a distinct right of appeal from a refusal to entertain an application for review, or from a refusal after review to set aside the original decision.

2. Regulation 42(2) reinforced that construction. It identifies the limited circumstance in which time runs from notice that a review will not be undertaken or will not result in the decision being set aside. It does not make the review refusal itself appealable. The proper course was an appeal from the original 2012 VTE decision within the prescribed period.

3. The Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the ratepayers’ appeal from the 2019 refusal.

4. The Tribunal nevertheless observed that the ratepayers’ email of 7 August 2012 was a timely application for review under regulation 40. A review application had to be determined judicially by the VTE President or nominee. The clerk’s and team leader’s administrative explanation could not determine it. That first application appeared to remain undetermined, but the matter was not properly before the Tribunal for remittal. The ratepayers were invited to ask the VTE to determine it on its merits.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): dismissed the appeal against the VTE Vice-President’s refusal to review, holding that no statutory right of appeal lay from that refusal.
• Valuation Tribunal for England: on 31 October 2019, the Vice-President refused a review of the VTE’s 25 July 2012 rating decision on the basis that the application was more than seven years late.
• Valuation Tribunal for England: on 25 July 2012, increased the rateable value of the hereditament from £30,750 to £31,500.