Rating – Non-domestic rates – Procedure – Appeal by ratepayer to Valuation Tribunal for England – Relevant valuation officer (VO) barred from attending owing to failure to serve statement of case by relevant date – Ratepayer applying for ruling that VO not entitled to appeal against VTE’s decision – Whether VO “appeared” at hearing so as to give rise to right of appeal under regulation 42(2)(a) of Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals)(Procedure) Regulations 2009 – Whether informal attendance of “observer” for VO sufficient for that purpose – Application allowed
The respondent ratepayer appealed to the Valuation Tribunal for England (VTE) after the Valuation Office Agency rejected its proposal to amend the rateable value shown in the rating list for certain betting shop premises in Wigan. The relevant valuation officer (VO) failed to submit a statement of case within the deadline set out in the Standard Directions and, as a result, was automatically barred from taking any further part in the proceedings before the VTE, by virtue of regulation 10 of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals)(Procedure) Regulations 2009 and paras 10 and 11 of Practice Statement A7-1. An application to the VTE to lift the bar was unsuccessful; consequently, the VO played no part in the VTE hearing.
The VO sought to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The appellant was subsequently substituted in place of the original VO after taking over the case. The respondent contended, as a preliminary point, that the VO had no right of appeal against the VTE’s decision since he had not “appeared” at the hearing within the meaning of regulation 42(2)(a) of the 2009 Regulations. The VO claimed that he had sent a representative to attend the VTE hearing as an “observer”, which, he argued, was sufficient to preserve a right of appeal.
The registrar decided that the appellant was entitled to appeal but the respondent applied for a reconsideration of that issue by a judge, pursuant to r 4(3) of The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2010.
Held: The application was allowed.
The VO had not “appeared” at the VTE hearing for the purposes of regulation 42(2)(a) of the 2009 Regulations. While the VO remained a party to the VTE proceedings notwithstanding the bar on participation, the right to appeal under regulation 42 was given not to a “party” but to a party who had “appeared” at the hearing. A party could appear in person or, under regulation 13, by a representative, but the VO had neither appeared personally nor appointed a representative for the purpose of regulation 13. The VO had not given the name of the person who attended the hearing and there was no evidence that written notice had been given of that person’s details as required by regulation 13(2). Even if it could be said that a person was entitled to appear by a representative where the requirements of regulation 13 were not complied with, there was no record in the decision of any appearance or attendance of any representative on behalf of the VO. No one had been aware at the time that the VO had sent an observer to the hearing. There was nothing to show that the person who attended for the VO was doing so as a representative of the VO as opposed to in a personal capacity. A person could not “appear” at a VTE hearing by a representative who did not make themselves known as such but who attended anonymously as an observer: Electricity Supply Nominees Ltd v Sharma (VO) [1985] 2 EGLR 173 applied.
It followed that the appellant was not entitled to appeal against the VTE’s decision. For the purposes of the present application, it was not necessary to decide whether, in other circumstances, a party who had been barred from participating in a VTE appeal could “appear” at the VTE hearing for the purposes of regulation 42(2)(a).
The application was determined on the written representations of the parties.
Sally Dobson, barrister
