Rating list – Alteration – Reduction in rateable value – Regulation 4A(1)(c) and (d) of Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993 – Proposal accepted for reduction in rateable value of premises on ground of inaccuracy under ground (c) – Subsequent proposal for further reduction on ground (d) relating to inaccuracy resulting from tribunal decision in relation to another hereditament – Valuation tribunal accepting proposal – Whether successful ground (c) proposal precluding making of ground (d) proposal – Appeal dismissed
In 2001, the respondent’s retail warehouse was entered in the rating list with a rateable value of £319,000 with effect from April 2000. In 2004, the respondent made a proposal to alter the list under regulation 4A(1)(c) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993 on the ground that the rateable value was inaccurate. The proposal was settled by agreement and a new rateable value of £195,000 was entered. It was to take effect from April 2003 on the first day of the financial year in which the proposal had been made.
In 2005, the respondent made a further proposal to reduce the rateable value on the ground that it had been shown to be inaccurate by reason of a valuation tribunal in respect of another hereditament, pursuant to regulation 4A(1)(d). By virtue of regulation 13A(12), any such reduction would take effect from April 2000. The appellant valuation officer did not agree that proposal and the matter went to the valuation tribunal, which upheld the proposal.
The appellant appealed. She contended that the proposal was invalid because, inter alia, a ratepayer who already had a proposal determined on any of grounds (a) to (c) in regulation 4A(1) was not entitled to make a further proposal under ground (d) to secure an earlier effective date. She submitted that it was not possible to show a causative link between the tribunal decision in relation to the other hereditament and inaccuracy in the rateable value of the respondent’s premises; the rateable value could not be shown to be inaccurate by reason of that decision since the issue of inaccuracy in relation to the respondent’s premises had already been raised and determined prior to that decision.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
The determination of the rateable value pursuant to the respondent’s first proposal did not preclude the making of a further proposal under ground (d). The fact that a reduction in rateable value had been achieved under ground (c) did not rule out a further proposal under ground (d) in respect of the period before the effective date of the ground (c) alteration. Where a proposal was made on any of the grounds, the issue to be determined was simply whether that ground was substantiated. The question under ground (d) was whether the rateable value was shown by reason of the tribunal decision to be or have been inaccurate. If it was, then the list had to be altered from the date that was relevant to the applicable ground. The respondent’s ground (d) proposal was directed at inaccuracy in the list for the period from April 2000 to March 2003. The fact that the respondent had accepted the accuracy of the rateable value from April 2003, as a result of the alteration made pursuant to the ground (c) proposal, did not prevent it from claiming that the rateable value was inaccurate in respect of the earlier period. The respondent’s proposal was valid.
Such a result was not inappropriate or anomalous. On the contrary, permitting a ratepayer who had already made a ground (c) proposal to make a subsequent ground (d) proposal might avoid anomalous results in particular circumstances. That might be the case where the ground (c) alteration was for one of a number of exactly comparable hereditaments, such as identical shops in a parade, and the occupiers of the other shops were thereby enabled to make proposals under ground (d) in relation to their own premises and achieve the same reduction with an earlier effective date.
David Forsdick (instructed by the legal department of HM Revenue & Customs) appeared for the appellant; the respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Sally Dobson, barrister
