HDR Group Limited v Lucy Formela-Osborne (Valuation Officer)

The right to propose an alteration to a rating list is limited to the persons and circumstances specified by the applicable regulations. A person is not entitled to propose merely because a rating decision affects them financially. A conditional agreement for a lease does not itself give the prospective tenant a legal or equitable interest in the property where the condition for the lease has not been met. An equitable interest qualifies only if it would entitle the holder to possession after any prior interest ends.

HDR Group Ltd entered into a conditional agreement for a lease of a former industrial site owned by Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council. Pending a required environmental permit, HDR had only a temporary, non-exclusive licence to enter for preliminary works, which it completed in 2019. In May 2021, it proposed a reduction in the site’s rateable value. The Valuation Tribunal for Wales dismissed HDR’s appeal on the ground that there had been no material change of circumstances, without considering its standing. On appeal to the Upper Tribunal, the valuation officer argued that HDR had not been entitled to make the proposal. The central issue was whether HDR qualified as an interested person, or otherwise had a right to propose an alteration.

1. The appeal was struck out because HDR was not entitled to make its proposal and therefore had no standing to pursue the appeal. The valuation officer’s objection was considered first as an application under rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010.

2. Under section 55(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, regulations may specify who may propose an alteration and the circumstances in which a proposal may be made. Regulation 4(2) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (Wales) Regulations 2005 limits eligibility to the persons and grounds it lists. Regulation 6(1)(b) confirms that a proposer must identify the applicable category. There is no residual right for anyone directly or indirectly affected by a rating entry, and the Tribunal cannot allow a person to participate where the regulations preclude it.

3. HDR was not occupying the property when it made the proposal. It had completed the preliminary works and vacated the site two years earlier; the agreement gave it neither possession nor a continuing right of entry. The question whether an occupier must be in rateable occupation therefore did not arise. The judge added, in any event, that “occupier” in regulation 2(1) refers to someone in rateable occupation, with the qualities described in John Laing & Son Ltd v Assessment Committee for Kingswood Assessment Area [1949] 1 KB 344.

4. HDR had no legal or equitable interest in the property when it made the proposal. The agreement made the grant of a lease conditional on obtaining the environmental permit, which HDR had not yet obtained. Its preliminary works did not alter the agreement’s terms. Once the permit was granted, HDR would have a specifically enforceable right to a lease, treated in equity as equivalent to a lease; until then its rights were contractual only. In any event, regulation 2(1)(b)(ii) requires an equitable interest that would entitle its holder to possession after any prior interest ceased. HDR had no such entitlement before the lease was granted.

5. The fact that HDR was obliged to indemnify the Council for rates did not give it standing. The appeal was struck out; the appellant accepted that this was the appropriate order if the standing objection succeeded.

1. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): struck out HDR’s appeal for lack of standing.
2. Valuation Tribunal for Wales: on 4 August 2025, dismissed HDR’s appeal against the valuation officer’s refusal of its proposal, finding no material change of circumstances. It did not consider HDR’s standing to make the proposal.