Non-domestic rates – Valuation – Certificate – Regulation 15 of Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2009 – Appellant ratepayer running public house – Appellant completing form of return containing trading information – Respondent valuation officer issuing certificate under regulation 15 more than two years later certifying rateable value at end of March 2010 when 2005 rating list coming to an end – Whether respondent impermissibly impugning rating list – Whether failing to comply with duty to issue certificate as soon as practicable – Whether certified value wrong – Appeal allowed
The appellant ratepayer ran a public house in Oxenhope, Keighley, in West Yorkshire. The property was a 300-year-old coaching inn over two storeys, situated in a rural location in “Bronte country”, and one of the directors of the appellant had run it as a country inn/restaurant for more than 20 years, first with her husband and later through the appellant. The property was extended in 2007 to enlarge the restaurant capacity from 52 covers to approximately 78 covers, after which its rateable value in the 2005 rating list was increased from £9,650 to £10,750.
Between 1995 and 2008, the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) sent a number of forms of return requesting trading information for the property but none of these were returned. A form was eventually completed and returned in January 2011. The VOA did nothing in response to that information until April 2013, when it increased the rateable value under the 2010 rating list to £77,000 with effect from April 2013 and also issued a certificate, under regulation 14 of the Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2009, certifying a rateable value of £77,000 with effect from April 2010. The respondent valuation officer also issued a further certificate, under regulation 15 of the 2009 Regulations, certifying the same rateable value as at the end of March 2010, when the 2005 list had ended. The rateable value in the rating list and the certificates was later reduced by agreement to £68,000, but it still resulted in a significant increase in the appellant’s liability for rates, backdated for three years.
The appellant contended that the respondent was not entitled to issue the regulation 15 certificate since it: (i) involved the respondent impermissibly impugning an entry in the list for her own area; and (ii) was contrary to her duty under regulation 17(1) to issue any certificate as soon as practicable after the circumstances calling for certification came to her attention. It also contended that the certified rateable value was wrong. Those contentions were dismissed by the Valuation Tribunal for England and the appellant appealed.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
(1) The issue of the regulation 15 certificate did not involve the respondent impermissibly impugning the rating list. The respondent was simply invoking a regulation under a statutory instrument. The purpose of the 2009 Regulations revolved around ratepayers’ liability and transitional phasing certificates. While regulation 15 did not provide for an assessment in a previous rating list to be altered, it did provide for the valuation officer to serve a certificate indicating what that assessment would have been had she been able to alter it, in order that the ratepayer’s base liability going into the new list was correct. The effect of that provision was that a ratepayer’s liability in the new list should be no different than if the valuation officer had altered the assessment in the old list by notice during the lifetime of that list. That was a very different situation from a valuation officer simply saying that an assessment in the list was incorrect since she no longer agreed with it, which would involve impugning the list. Further, while the ratepayer was entitled to expect the valuation officer to place accurate valuations on hereditaments, it was relevant that the valuation officer had consistently been asking for trading information from the ratepayer, with the implication that she was going to have another look at the assessment when trading information was forthcoming: Shearson Lehman Bros Ltd v Humphrys (VO) [1991] RA 125; [1999] 2 EGLR 224 applied; Shrewsbury School Governors v Shrewsbury Borough Council (1960) 7 RRC 313 distinguished.
(2) The respondent could not be said to have issued the regulation 15 certificate “as soon as practicable” after the relevant circumstances came to her attention, contrary to the duty under regulation 17. The respondent was obliged to certify under regulation 15 in circumstances where she was of the view that the rateable value shown in relation to a hereditament for 31 March 2010 was inaccurate. After receiving the form of return in January 2011, the respondent had no satisfactory answer as to why it took until April 2013 to issue the regulation 15 certificate. The VOA rating manual suggested a period of six weeks for issuing a certificate in response to a request. While the timescale might be longer in cases where a valuation officer was issuing a certificate of own volition, it could not, on any reasonable view, extend to a period of more than two years after the valuation officer became aware of the circumstances giving rise to the view that the assessment was incorrect. In the instant case, the respondent had not complied with the duty to issue the certificate as soon as practicable and this had caused undue hardship to the ratepayer by backdating a significant rate liability.
However, the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to order the withdrawal or replacement of a regulation 15 certificate on that ground. Under regulation 18, the appeal against a certificate was against the “value so certified”, rather than the circumstances or timing of the certification; accordingly, the only appeal that could succeed was an appeal against the valuation itself.
(3) The rateable value of £68,000 upheld by the VTE was wrong. Using the VOA’s “Valuation of Public Houses: Approved Guide” in respect of the 2005 rating list, and applying percentages to the notional fair maintainable trade/receipts on a “wet” and “dry” basis in accordance with the guide, as well as taking into account evidence of comparable premises, produced a rateable value of £41,000 with effect from 31 March 2010. The respondent was directed to substitute a certificate in that amount accordingly.
James Yarwood MRICS, of Fleurets, appeared for the appellant; Martin Spencer, of the Valuation Office Agency, appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
