Nelson Plant Hire Ltd v Dawn Bunyan

A rating appeal is confined by the proposal made to the valuation officer. The 2017 Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009 did not alter that established rule.

A proposal must nevertheless be construed objectively, in its legislative and procedural context, without excessive technicality. Even taking account of check-stage material, a proposal which challenges only the rateable value and gives no indication that a hereditament should be divided cannot found an appeal seeking a split assessment.

Where a recent arm’s-length rent exists, it should be assessed and adjusted rather than dismissed merely because contractor’s-basis valuation is ordinarily used for that class of property. The rent may provide a sound valuation basis where comparable evidence is scarce.

Nelson Plant Hire Ltd appealed against the Valuation Tribunal for England’s decision of 8 February 2022. The tribunal had upheld a rateable value of £28,750 for a waste transfer station in the 2017 rating list.

At the check stage the ratepayer had sought to divide the yard between associated companies. Its subsequent proposal selected only the ground that the rateable value was wrong and relied on the rent under a lease. The Valuation Tribunal held that the proposed split was outside the appeal and preferred the valuation officer’s contractor’s-basis valuation.

The Upper Tribunal considered the scope of the proposal, the adequacy of the appeal grounds, and the correct rateable value if the hereditament remained a single assessment.

1. Appeal allowed. The rateable value of Nelson’s Yard was reduced from £28,750 to £22,500 with effect from 12 March 2018.

2. The proposal to alter a rating list remains central under the amended Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009. It defines the scope of any subsequent appeal to the Valuation Tribunal for England and to the Upper Tribunal. An appeal cannot be based on an inaccuracy that was not the subject of the proposal.

3. Proposals should not be construed excessively technically. Their meaning is determined objectively, using ordinary principles of construction, their legislative and procedural context, and information generally available to an informed reader. The Tribunal did not finally decide whether check-stage material may be used to interpret a later proposal. That issue did not affect the result.

4. Even if all the check-stage material were considered, this proposal could not reasonably be read as seeking a split assessment. The selected ground challenged the rateable value only. Its narrative referred solely to the lease rent and did not mention separate occupation or a division of the yard. The Valuation Tribunal was therefore right to decline to determine the proposed split.

5. The grounds of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal were sufficient to permit a valuation challenge. Valuation fell within the proposal, the valuation officer had met that case, and the tribunal’s case-management decision caused no unfairness.

6. The recent arm’s-length rent was material evidence. Scarcity of comparable rents and the valuation officer’s usual use of the contractor’s basis did not justify rejecting it. After allowing for post-agreement improvements, plant and machinery, the site’s irregular shape and shared access, the rent provided the sounder valuation basis. The yard remained a single hereditament under the appellant’s paramount control.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Allowed the appeal from the Valuation Tribunal for England and reduced the rateable value to £22,500.
• Valuation Tribunal for England: On 8 February 2022, dismissed the ratepayer’s appeal, declined to consider a proposed split of the hereditament, and confirmed a rateable value of £28,750.