Catherine Bower (Valuation Officer) v The Valuation Tribunal for England

The extended window for proposals to alter the 2010 rating list applied only to proposals made by ratepayers whose legal position was changed by the amending legislation. It did not permit a valuation officer to pursue a separate reconstitution which was otherwise out of time. A proposal under regulation 4(1)(k) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009 could therefore be used to merge qualifying hereditaments, but not to add assessments for parts outside the ratepayer’s occupation where that reconstitution was not authorised by the extended statutory scheme.

The Valuation Tribunal for England ordered the merger of two hereditaments in the 2010 rating list following a proposal by Oaklands Plastics Limited under regulation 4(1)(k) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009. The agreed merged assessment reflected the premises occupied by the ratepayer.

The valuation officer appealed. During the discussions it emerged that offices and a canopy forming part of the original assessments had not been occupied by the ratepayer. The valuation officer sought to reconstitute the two hereditaments into three assessments, including assessments for those parts. The central issue was whether the extended period created by the 2018 Regulations permitted that reconstitution, although it was otherwise out of time.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The VTE correctly ordered alteration of the 2010 list to reflect the agreed merged hereditament at a rateable value of £56,500 with effect from 1 June 2015.
2. The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists) and Business Rate Supplements (Transfers to Revenue Accounts) (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2018 created a limited extension of time for relevant proposals under regulation 4(1)(k) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009. The extension was available to ratepayers whose legal position had been changed by the amendments made by the Rating (Common Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Act 2018.
3. Following Libra Textiles Limited T/A Boundary Mills Stores, Centric Assets Limited v Ritchie Roberts and David Alford (Valuation Officers) [2020] UKUT 237 (LC), the extended gateway was not to be interpreted broadly so as to admit proposals outside the statutory purpose. It could not be used for a reconstitution which was not itself provided for by the amending legislation and was otherwise out of time.
4. The valuation officer’s duty to maintain the list did not supply an alternative jurisdiction. Nor was the VTE’s reference to regulation 4(1)(l) material: that provision concerns property shown as one hereditament which ought to be shown as more than one, whereas the present case concerned two existing hereditaments.

The proposed reconstitution could not be included within the ratepayer’s proposal and could not be ratified by the VTE.

• Valuation Tribunal for England: On 10 January 2022, ordered the merger of the two assessments into one hereditament at a rateable value of £56,500 with effect from 1 June 2015, and declined to order the proposed reconstitution into three assessments.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Dismissed the valuation officer’s appeal on 19 October 2022.