Stormhill Properties Limited v Richie Roberts (Valuation Officer)

A late proposal to alter the 2010 rating list is invalid unless it falls within the retrospective regime introduced by the Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Act 2018. That regime reverses the effect of Woolway (VO) v Mazars only for hereditaments whose treatment was changed by that decision.

It does not reopen the list for hereditaments which were already contiguous and interconnected. Such hereditaments were unaffected by Mazars, so the statutory reversal cannot validate an out-of-time merger proposal.

Stormhill Properties Limited appealed against the Valuation Tribunal for England's decision of 16 February 2021 that its 2019 proposal to merge separate rating assessments in a nine-storey office building was invalid.

The proposal sought effect from 1 April 2010, after the ordinary period for altering the 2010 rating list had expired. The appellant relied on the extended opportunity created by the Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Act 2018.

The preliminary issue was whether the proposal met the conditions in section 64(3ZB)(b) and (c) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, and whether the 2018 legislation assisted premises which were contiguous and interconnected.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant's proposal was made on 7 November 2019, after the 31 March 2017 closure of the period for proposals against the 2010 rating list. It was therefore invalid unless the PICO legislation applied.

2. The Tribunal accepted the position stated in Libra Textiles Limited T/A Boundary Mills Stores, Centric Assets Limited v Ritchie Roberts and David Alford (Valuation Officers), [2020] UKUT 237 (LC), at [51]. The 2018 legislation did not alter the law for hereditaments which were both contiguous and interconnected.

3. On the appellant's own evidence, by 31 March 2017 it had rateable occupation of every floor and the common parts. The hereditaments were therefore contiguous and interconnected. Woolway (VO) v Mazars, [2015] UKSC 53, did not affect the property, and its statutory reversal could not provide a late right to propose a merger.

4. The Tribunal did not decide whether section 64(3ZB)(b)(i) requires all hereditaments to have ceased rateable occupation on the identical day, or only to have ceased occupation by that day. That issue was unnecessary to the result and should await a suitable future appeal.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): dismissed the appeal from the Valuation Tribunal for England and upheld its conclusion that the merger proposal was invalid.
• Valuation Tribunal for England: on 16 February 2021, found the proposal to alter the rating list invalid.