Stock Auto Breakers Ltd v Chris Sykes (Valuation Officer)

In determining rateable value, an actual arm’s-length letting of the hereditament remains relevant evidence even if agreed after the antecedent valuation date. Its weight depends on evidence that market conditions have not materially changed. It is not automatically of prime significance.

Comparable rental and assessment evidence must be evaluated as a whole. A tone of the rating list is not established merely because few challenges have been made, particularly where challenges may still be brought and small business rates relief reduces the incentive to challenge.

On an appeal from the Valuation Tribunal for England, the Upper Tribunal applies its own procedural rules and may admit fairly disclosed new evidence.

Stock Auto Breakers Ltd, the ratepayer, appealed against the Valuation Tribunal for England’s determination of a rateable value of £16,500 for a loose-surfaced fenced vehicle salvage yard from 1 April 2017.

The ratepayer sought £12,000. The valuation officer contended for £22,500, relying principally on a three-year letting commencing nearly two years after the antecedent valuation date and on rental comparables. The parties also relied on assessment comparables and disagreed whether a tone of the 2017 rating list had been established.

A procedural issue concerned whether the Upper Tribunal could receive rental and assessment evidence not before the Valuation Tribunal for England.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal determined the rateable value at £20,000 from 1 April 2017. The ratepayer’s proposed figure of £12,000 was unsupported by the evidence. The valuation officer’s proposed figure of £22,500 failed to reflect the poor shared access, lack of drainage, water and toilet facilities, and limited visibility of the site.

2. The 2017 letting was an arm’s-length transaction and was relevant evidence of value. Although it occurred after the antecedent valuation date, it could not be ignored. There was, however, limited evidence of rental growth and no confidence that a material change in values had been established. The letting was therefore given weight, but not the primacy contended for by the valuation officer.

3. The comparable evidence disclosed a general value gradient between hard-surfaced, loose-surfaced and unsurfaced land, but was inconsistent and affected by major differences in size, location, accessibility and description. The Tribunal rejected both parties’ selective use of the evidence and fixed the yard rate at £11 per square metre. Adding the agreed value of the containers produced £20,175, rounded down to £20,000.

4. The 2017 list had not acquired an established tone. The small number of challenges, the continuing opportunity to make a check or challenge, and the effect of small business rates relief meant that unchallenged assessments could not establish a reliable tone.

5. Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009, regulation 17A did not bind the Upper Tribunal. It was governed by the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010. The new evidence had been disclosed and its admission was not unfair; it was admitted. No order for costs was made.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): dismissed the ratepayer’s appeal and determined a rateable value of £20,000: [2020] UKUT 52 (LC).
• Valuation Tribunal for England: determined the rateable value at £16,500 on 13 February 2019. No citation was stated in the judgment.