Carecall Limited v Karen Giles (VO)

An appeal from a case-management decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England (VTE) proceeds by review. It succeeds only if the VTE’s decision was not a proper exercise of its discretion. A director’s illness and an agent’s failure to lodge an appeal may be insufficient to justify substantial delay where the company knew the appeal remained unfiled, another director could act, and replacement professional assistance could have met the deadline. On the circumstances here, the VTE was entitled to refuse an extension.

Carecall Limited, a care-home operator and ratepayer, challenged the Valuation Officer Karen Giles’s decision of 19 June 2025 concerning 124 Carholme Road, Lincoln. Carecall sought deletion of the property from the rating list. The four-month appeal period expired on 19 October 2025, but Carecall filed with the VTE on 7 June 2026, 231 days late. The VTE dismissed the appeal on 2 July 2026. Carecall’s director, Shiv Ghai, attributed the delay to its rating agent’s failure to file and to his serious ill health. The VTE also noted that Carecall had another director, Rishi Ghai, Shiv’s son. Carecall appealed to the Upper Tribunal, challenging the VTE’s refusal to admit the late appeal. The central issue was whether that case-management decision was a proper exercise of discretion.

1. Appeal dismissed. The VTE’s order was a case-management decision. Appeals from such decisions proceed by review and succeed only if the decision was not a proper exercise of discretion: see Simpsons Malt and others v Jones (VO) and others [2017] UKUT 460 (LC) and rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Practice Directions. The Upper Tribunal did not rehear the late appeal.
2. Regulation 13B(1) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009/2268 set a four-month period for appealing the Valuation Officer’s decision. Regulation 6(3)(a) of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009/2269 gave the VTE power to extend or shorten time. The VTE had applied the three-stage approach in Denton & Ors v TH White Ltd & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 906, including an assessment of all the circumstances at the third stage.
3. Judge Cooke accepted the medical evidence that Mr Ghai could not submit the appeal sooner. That did not excuse the full delay. The correspondence showed he knew by late September 2025 that the agent had not filed, and another professional firm could still have met the 19 October deadline. Carecall did not explain why its other director could not act or why it lacked arrangements for the company to be managed if Mr Ghai was unable to work. Given Mr Ghai’s age and his continuing responsibility for financial matters that kept the care homes operating, the absence of emergency arrangements required explanation.
4. Those circumstances had been before the VTE and supported its conclusion that no good reason for the delay had been supplied. The Upper Tribunal found no error in the VTE’s decision and considered its refusal appropriate.

1. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): In Carecall Limited v Karen Giles (VO), [2026] UKUT 369 (LC) , the appeal was dismissed.
2. Valuation Tribunal for England: On 2 July 2026, it dismissed Carecall’s appeal against the Valuation Officer’s rating decision as late.