Rates and rating — New building — Liability of owner for unoccupied property rates — Proposal by valuation officer to make entries in the valuation list — Whether liability for rates limited to periods following entry of rateable value in the valuation list
Under the General Rate Act 1967 the respondent in this case is the “owner” of the Angel Centre, a modern office complex in Islington. The complex comprises two buildings: the smaller building was first occupied on July 9 1984, and the larger on April 29 1985. In June 1983 the appellant rating authority served a completion notice under the provisions of Schedule 1 of the 1967 Act specifying September 1 1983 as the deemed date of completion for the purposes of the commencement of liability for rates on unoccupied property. On March 24 1984 the valuation officer made proposals under section 69 of the 1967 Act to include both buildings in the valuation list as office hereditaments with rateable values of £579,638 and £43,722 respectively. The respondent objected to those proposals, and the appeal to the local valuation court stands adjourned; at the present time neither building is a hereditament included in the valuation list.
The rating authority demanded unoccupied property rates from the respondent owner for the period December 1 1983 to July 9 1984 for the smaller building, and to March 31 1985 for the larger building. The respondent contended that there was no liability to pay unoccupied property rates until the subject hereditaments had been entered in the valuation list. That contention was accepted by Mervyn Davies J ([1986] 1 EGLR 187) and by a majority in the Court of Appeal ([1987] 1 EGLR 184). There have been concurrent proceedings by an associate company of the respondent disputing the effective date of the completion notice, and the periods reasonably required for fitting out; those periods have yet to be finally determined: London Merchant Securities Plc v Islington London Borough Council [1987] 2 EGLR 162.
Held The rating authority’s appeal was in part allowed. An owner of an unoccupied hereditament is made liable for rates for a relevant period of vacancy by paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 1 to the General Rate Act 1967 “… the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly as if the hereditament were occupied during that relevant period of vacancy by the owner”. The rating authority is enabled to operate the interim machinery of section 6 of the 1967 Act to collect rates due from an owner of an unoccupied hereditament. The effect of section 6 is to enable the rating authority to levy rates on the basis of the value proposed to be ascribed to the new hereditament in the valuation list pursuant to the valuation officer’s proposal, notwithstanding that an objection to that proposal has been made. Although it is correct that paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 1 states that the rateable value for the purposes of unoccupied property rates is the rateable value ascribed, or subsequently ascribed to the hereditament, any proposal to ascribe a value may operate retrospectively. The quantification of the rating authority’s claim is now dependent on the concurrent proceedings for determining the proper commencement date of the relevant period of vacancy.
B Kettle Ltd v Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council
[1979] RA 223 and
Hastings Borough Council v Tarmac Properties Ltd [1985]
RA 124 approved.
Lord Silsoe QC and Matthew Horton (instructed by the Borough solicitor) appeared for the appellant rating authority; and William Glover QC and Guy Roots (instructed by Michael Conn & Co) appeared for the respondent ratepayer.