News

In 2017 new regulations were introduced for England only regarding the procedure for challenging the assessments of properties for all rating lists compiled on or after 1 April 2017.

The new system in England is referred to as Check Challenge Appeal.

For rating lists in Wales and for rating lists compiled before 1 April 2017 in England the previous procedures still apply.

This section is divided into chapters to reflect the different procedures that are applied, so it is important that the correct regulations are followed for the relevant rating list year and location of the property.

Summary of Relevant Legislation and Practice Statements

Most of the references in this document refer to SI 2009/2268, the ‘Appeal Regulations’, where other Regulations are referred to these are identified.

Relevant legislation

a. The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/ 2268) (‘Appeal Regulations’) as amended by (SI 2017 /155)
b. The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 (SI 2017 /155)
c. The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009 / 2269) (‘Procedure Regulations’) as amended by (SI 2017/156), 2018 (SI 2018/911)
d. The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/156)
e. Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists, Appeals and Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 (SI 2018/911)
f. The Non-Domestic Rating (Material Day for List Alterations) 1992 (SI 1992/556) (as amended by SI 2017/155)
g. Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists) and Business Rate Supplements (Transfer to Revenue Accounts) (Amendments etc.) (England) Regulations 2018 (SI 2018/1193) Part 4
h. Consolidated Practice Statement - Valuation Tribunal Service

For consolidated current regulations please use Lexis Nexis: (how to register and use)

VOA - Ryde on rating

Glossary

‘VO’ in this document refers to Valuation Officer

‘VOA’ refers to the Valuation Office Agency

‘CVO’ refers to the Central Valuation Officer

1.1 Changes

For further information please see CCA homepage

For consolidated regulations please use Lexis Nexis: (how to register and use)

VOA - Ryde on rating

When the 2017 rating lists came into force on 1 April 2017, new Regulations (SI 2017/155 and 2017/156), amending SI 2009/2268 and 2009/2269, were introduced changing the process for altering and appealing a rating list in England.

The new procedure is commonly known as Check, Challenge (proposal stage), Appeal. Unlike previous proposal and appeal procedures prior to 2017, the progression through to the next stage of the process is not automatic. The Interested Person (IP), defined below, has to actively submit information via the specified electronic portal to initiate the start of each stage.

The main changes in the Regulations are summarised below:

1. Introduction of VOA’s electronic portal to request and supply Check information (Reg 4B(5a)) or other manner as agreed with the VO. The portal is also used by the VOA for parties to register their identity and legal interest before a check can be submitted.
2. Grounds of proposal are set out in Reg 4 (largely as before but with the requirement for additional information that must be supplied)
3. Check process requirements (Reg 4A-F)
4. Challenge - Submission of proposals (Reg 6-7)
5. Incomplete proposals (Reg 8) replaces invalidity
6. Procedure for dealing with proposals (Reg 9)
7. Appeal process and changes to the grounds of Appeal (Reg13) via electronic Valuation Tribunal (England) (VTE) portal (Reg 13C)
8. Material day - changes (SI 1992/556)
9. Introduction of new Penalty processes for false information provided by the IP (Reg 9)

The new process now comprises Check, Challenge (submission and consideration of the Proposal) and Appeal (see CCA Process overview Appendix1) The new system is based on a three stage process – Check, Challenge, and Appeal (CCA).

The three stages manage the flow of cases through the system and allow IPs to make an informed decision before proceeding to the next stage. Both the IP (or their agent) and the VO are required to set out the issues and arguments early in the process to encourage early settlement and reduce the number of speculative appeals. The aim is that the issues in dispute are fully addressed where possible at each stage of the process.

The VOA has developed a digital service to support the new system. The majority of checks and challenges are handled through this new digital service. Guidance to the service can be found on GOV.UK Find and check your business rates valuation - GOV.UK

The digital service requires the IP to declare their legal interest in property and, if the IP is represented by an agent, to formally declare the instruction through the VOA portal. The portal holds documents and correspondence between the VO and the IP, which both parties can view and which potentially could form part of a later appeal.

Summary of each stage of CCA (England 2017 only)

Please see Appendix 1 for a summary chart of key CCA events and legislation

1.2 Check

The Check stage requires the IP to confirm the accuracy of the facts upon which the rating list entry is based (as held on VOA’s database) and any subsequent changes to the property.

The IP is required to certify details of the property attributes and other facts upon which the valuation is based. The IP can view the valuation on-line for most classes of property. However, due to the sensitive or complex nature of some classes, those valuations are redacted and the IP can make a request for the valuation details, known as a Detailed Valuation Request (DVR).

Check allows the VO to fully consider the facts and decide whether its records can simply be amended to reflect any changes declared by the IP or whether investigation or a discussion of the facts is necessary. Facts are corrected in Check where possible but facts in dispute might have to be dealt with in Challenge. The outcome of the Check stage may be

the facts are agreed and the rating list is either confirmed as correct or altered when necessary to reflect the correct facts
the facts are not agreed but points in dispute are clearly established so they can be addressed at the Challenge stage
some of the facts are agreed and the rating list is altered to reflect the correct facts, where necessary, and the remaining points in dispute are clearly established so they can be addressed in Challenge.

The IP should understand at the end of Check why the VO has or has not taken action to amend the rating list. This stage is not where the IP disputes the valuation.

A Check must be made, before a proposal can be made, through the electronic portal or as otherwise agreed with the VO (Reg 4B(5)).

On the VOA computer system (RSA), Check case reference numbers start with ‘CHK’ and the reference number for use in Caseworker Suite (the VOA portal where documents are saved) will be found in the RSA case notes.

1.3 Challenge (proposal stage)

If all the issues cannot be resolved in Check, if the IP is unhappy with the outcome of Check, or they wish to challenge the basis of the assessment or the valuation, they can make a Challenge:

Stages of making a challenge

a) IP makes a proposal

The grounds for challenging the valuation (i.e. grounds of proposal) are the same as available in the previous appeals system, this has not changed.

b) Provision of evidence with the proposal

If the IP is disputing the valuation at the Challenge stage, as opposed to just disputing facts, they have to provide an explanation of what aspect of the valuation they are disputing and why, together with an alternative valuation and supporting evidence or information with reasons and an explanation as to how they relate to the grounds.

The IP is expected to include all the evidence with reasoning, on which they intend to rely at the outset in their proposal.

c) VO reviews evidence

The VO considers the proposal and the evidence, discusses if necessary, and may issue an initial response. All evidence which the VO considers relevant should be included at this stage. Further evidence relating to the grounds of the proposal from the IP or information relating to the proposal supplied by the Billing Authority may be considered. If the proposal can be ‘well-founded’ or agreement can be reached, the VO will amend the rating list if appropriate. The IP may also withdraw the proposal. All agreements or withdrawals will require the signature of the current ratepayer if they are not the maker of the proposal.

d) Issue of Decision Notice

If settlement cannot be reached, the VO will issue a Decision Notice. In the absence of an agreement, the VO asks the IP or their representative to outline what issues remain outstanding. The VO ensures that the Decision Notice addresses all of these unresolved issues and that their opinion is supported by evidence as necessary. No new evidence may be included in the Decision Notice at this stage. At the end of Challenge the IP should have a clear understanding of the VO’s view of the valuation and the issues in dispute.

When the Decision Notice is issued, or if 18 months has elapsed from the date of Proposal, this denotes the end of the Challenge stage.

1.4 Appeal

Only a proposer or substitute proposer may make an appeal to the VTE and where:

Reg 13(A)

a. the VO has not altered the list
b. the VO has altered the list otherwise than in accordance with the proposal
c. the VO has not issued a Decision Notice within 18 months of the date of proposal (or such longer period as is agreed in writing by the parties) and it has not been either withdrawn or agreed.

The Appeal stage allows the IP to dispute the VO’s Decision Notice at the end of the Challenge stage.

An Appeal has to be submitted with specified documents within 4 months of the Decision Notice being issued or 4 months after the time period in (c) above has lapsed. A fee is payable to the VTS when an appeal is lodged under (a) or (b).

The VTE considers if the VO’s decision is correct based only on the information presented at the Challenge stage. New evidence may only be admitted by the VTE in limited and specific circumstances.

This restriction is designed to ensure that the IP and the VO engage at the Challenge stage and do not expand the case with new evidence at Appeal stage.

The VTE may conclude that the existing rating list entry is correct, that the IP’s proposed alternative rating list entry is correct or it may substitute its own.

The IP appeals directly to VTE with a statutory fee which may be refunded if the appeal is successful.

The Appeal is submitted via the VTE electronic portal and the Challenge documents constitute the evidence basis of the appeal.

Hearings follow the VTE Consolidated Practice Statement directions and the Procedure Regulations.

Appeal against the VTE decision is to the Upper Tribunal. (See RM section 8 for further details on this process)

2. Definitions

The definitions of the parties involved in the CCA process are within the legislation and these are summarised below and may be found in the Appeal Regulations Pt 2 Interpretation: General

Interested Person - IP

a. This is defined in the Regulations as: for Crown Estate hereditaments - the Crown Estate Commissioners
b. for other hereditaments

i. the occupier
ii. any other person with a legal estate or equitable interest entitling possession to the hereditament or any part of it
iii. any person having a qualifying connection with the occupier or person falling within (ii) This may be where one company is a subsidiary of another, or subsidiaries of the same company, or is a holding company of the other.

The BA is not an IP who can make a proposal unless it has an interest in the actual property in question.

Former Interested Person (former IP)

There are two types of former IP

(1) An individual or a company who was an IP in relation to the hereditament at the time of requesting or confirming a Check, but has since ceased to be an IP.

This type of former IP has completed a Check can go on to make a Challenge (within 4 months of that Check) under any grounds, even though they are no longer an IP (Reg 4(2)(aa))

(2) An individual or a company that is no longer an IP but has been an IP during the life of the list. (Reg 4(2)(c))

This type of former IP can still make Checks, Proposals and Appeals at any time, but only in relation to the time they were an IP, and only on the following grounds:

(Reg 4(1))

(c) A hereditament’s rateable value is inaccurate due to a change in which types of plant and machinery need to be taken into account (Reg 4(1)(c)).

(d) The rateable value is inaccurate following a change by the VO (Reg 4(1)(d)).

(f) The list shows an alteration as applying from the wrong date. (Reg 4(1)(f)).

Party to an appeal

A party to an appeal under the penalty procedures (either for providing false information under the Check procedure or for failing to complete a Form of Return (RALD)) includes the appellant and the VO or CVO, as appropriate.

A party to an appeal to the VTE (Reg 13A) includes:

every person whose agreement is required under Reg 12 and
anyone who has been a ratepayer of the hereditament since the date of confirmation of check and has notified the VO before the hearing/determination that they wish to be party to the appeal

Proposer

means the person making a proposal

Ratepayer

means the occupier or if the hereditament is not occupied, the owner

Relevant Authority

means the authority in whose area the hereditament is situated

Smaller Proposer (see Reg 3A for further details)

A smaller proposer is a person who during the previous 12 months has, on average, employed fewer than ten employees and:

a. they have a balance sheet total (assets) or turnover of less than or equal to £2 million
b. where the IP or former IP has been in business for less than 12 months, the turnover requirement is adjusted according to the time they have been in business and the average number of employees is calculated based on the number of months the undertaking has been in business

A small proposer means:

i. means a person who qualifies as a smaller proposer under Regulation 3A on the day the person provides a confirmation
ii. an individual who is not a business, community body or voluntary body, is always a smaller proposer

Valuation

At appeal stage, (Reg 13A(3)) ‘Valuation’ means the ‘Rateable Value’ as determined under Schedule 6 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988.

‘VO Electronic Portal’

Means the online facility provided by the VO for use in connection with proposals for the alteration of a local list compiled on or after 1 April 2017.

Working days

A working day is any day except:

a. Saturday or Sunday
b. Christmas Day
c. Good Friday
d. any Bank Holiday

Service of documents

For service of documents in compliance with the VT practice statements on appeals these must be received by 5.00pm on the specified day (Reg 14 of the Procedure Regulations)

SI 2009/2268, Reg 3 Interpretation of Part 2, see 3A (specific details re qualifying as a small proposer)

Part B: check (Reg 4A-F)

3. Background

Before a proposal (Challenge) can be submitted a check must be made and completed. (Reg 4A(1)). The purpose of this is for the IP to confirm or correct the facts about the property on which the valuation is based.

3.1 New 2017 procedures

The requirements for Check are set out in Regs 4B-F and a check is completed when the VO serves a notice under Regulation 4F(1) or it is taken to be complete under Reg 4F(3) when the VO has not served a notice by the end of the permitted period (12 months from date of confirmation of check).

3.2 Check Procedure and VO Portal

Check involves the IP requesting the detail that the VOA holds about the property, and then confirming whether that information is correct and providing any missing information.

The VOA has a digital portal to display and collect the relevant information about a property for the majority of check cases, but has an alternative system for those who cannot access that portal (Reg 4B(5)).

Check procedure

3.3 Check Stages

The stages of check are as follows (Regs 4B-4F):

1. Request from the IP for information held by the VO
2. Provision of information and request for missing information from the VO to the IP
3. Confirmation of the accuracy of the information by the IP
4. Acknowledgement of the receipt of confirmation
5. Amending the rating list if necessary, completion and notification of check from VO to IP (Reg 4A(3) and Regs 4E &F)

3.4 Number of checks and proposals

There are no restrictions on the number of Checks which an IP can make.

Different IPs may make checks at the same or different times, for example an owner and occupier may make separate checks at the same time.

There are no restrictions on the number of proposals that can be linked to a check provided they are made by the same IP who made the check and are made on different grounds.

There is no facility in the regulations for anyone other than the Proposer to be party to a check.

The IP is not obliged to give reasons for the check however the VO does ask for reasons for the check being made to assist with resourcing.

3.5 Material Day for list alterations arising from Check

Any alterations made to the rating list as part of the Check decision will be by VO Notice. The Material Day applicable to the alteration will depend on the reason for the change and will follow the provisions of 3(7)(b)(i) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Material Day for List Alterations) Regulations 1992, (SI 1992/556) as mentioned in Part 4 of the Rating Manual:

For example:

for a compiled list change the material day will be compilation date
for a deletion the material day will be the date the circumstances first arose
for MCCs given effect to by VON, this will be:

1. the date the circumstances first arose or
2. the day the list is altered (‘Date of Schedule’) if that date is not known (Material Day Regs 3(7)(ii)(bb))

Regarding to proposals for an MCC, then please see MCC proposals

3.6 Facts

The facts declared as part of a Check are the up-to-date facts at the date the Check is submitted.

For proposals, other than those for a material change in circumstances, the facts at the material day may be different for example it may be the date of compilation or date of event, so the caseworker may have to agree different facts at a different date when the case reaches the challenge stage.

Care should also be taken as to whether an historic assessment is being challenged in which case different facts may have to be agreed as opposed to those submitted at check.

3.7 Time Period

If the VO has not completed a Check within twelve months of the date of confirmation, the Check is taken to have been completed and the IP can make a Proposal (Challenge) (Reg 4F(3))

The date a check is completed starts the 4 month period within which proposals must be submitted apart from external MCCs which is 16 months from the date of check confirmation.

3.8 Request of information held (Reg 4B) and new list entries

Check requires that a person entitled to submit a proposal must first request from the VO the information held about that hereditament. This information must be provided if the VO considers it reasonable to do so. The VO can also request any missing information to be provided. The request or provision of information must be by using the VO electronic portal (or other manner as agreed with the VO. (Reg 4B))

In the situation where the IP requests that a new property is inserted into the rating list they still have to make a check request regarding any information we may hold and the IP will be required to provide the VO will all the relevant details relating to the hereditament in question in order that a check may be initiated. Separate manual procedures are in place for this scenario.

3.9 Historic Assessments

A proposal may be made against an historic assessment by an IP. However, the valuation and survey data attached to check on the VOA website shows the current list entry. The IP will need to advise the VO if he is challenging an historic assessment so that the correct valuation may be linked to the case.

See also Rating Manual section 6 Part 5B - where proposals may need re-linking following later amendments to the rating list which take effect before the Material Day of the subject proposal (precedent here was set by the judgement known as the Sheep St Decision (1A 2 Sheep Street, Wellingborough (RA 1 2003))

3.10 Confirmation of accuracy of information (Reg 4C)

The person (IP or former IP) making the check then must confirm the completeness and accuracy of the information they have given and also that held by the VO (Reg 4C (1)) as well as including a statement as to whether the person is a smaller proposer, (as defined in Part A, 2 above). (Reg 4C(3)).

A declaration is also required that the information provided is accurate.

If the person providing the VO with information in, or in connection with the proposal (which will include Check), is false or incorrect then a penalty notice may be issued, but only after a complete proposal has been made (Reg 9A(1))

For more information see the penalties section at part D. (Reg 9A)

Once the penalty process has been implemented during challenge, the CCA process is paused until the penalty has been resolved.

3.11 Confirmation of Check and Material Day

Note, there is no ‘material day’ for check.

Check is the exchange and confirmation of information following receipt of which the VO may decide to alter the list, in which case the normal Material Day rules apply.

However, the date that a check is confirmed sets the material date for proposals on the grounds of a material change in circumstances under Reg 4(1)(b) see VOA - Part 4 - Material Day

Proposals may be on any of the grounds specified in Reg 4(1) (a)-(o) and the Material Day to apply will depend on the ground chosen for the challenge.

NB - If as a result of check, the VO has amended the rating list for an MCC, the Proposer has the option if he wants to make a challenge in respect of an MCC by submitting a proposal under

(a) Reg 4(1)(b) - as an MCC proposal - in which case the Material Day will be

1. the date of the event if it is known or
2. the date of schedule if the date of event is not known

or (b) Reg 4(1)(d) against the VO alteration - in which case the Material Day will be the same date as in the VO notice of alteration

For the purposes of a proposal, if the facts agreed at the date of confirmation of check are different to those existing at the Material Day of the proposal, then it will be necessary for the caseworker to agree the facts as at the Material Day.

3.12 Acknowledgment (Reg 4D)

The VO must, on receipt of the confirmation, serve a written acknowledgement of receipt stating the date on which the confirmation was received and the date of the acknowledgement.

3.13 Completion of Check (Reg 4E and 4F)

On receipt of the Reg 4C(1) confirmation from the IP, (completeness and accuracy of the information held by the VO), the VO has to acknowledge the receipt (which must include certain information (Reg 4D))

The VO must then decide if the information provided is accurate or not and then alter the rating list to correct any inaccuracies regarding the rateable value (RV) or other information shown in the list about the hereditament (Reg 4E) (such as the description or composite indicator).

The VO also has to update any additional information that is held for the property (Reg 4(E)(c))

3.14 Notification of Completion of Check (Reg 4E and 4F)

When steps under Reg 4B-E have been completed the VO must serve a notice on the person making the check stating that a Check has been completed in relation to the hereditament (Reg 4F). This notice must include the following (Reg 4F(2)):

1. date on which the notice is served
2. the name of the person who made the request
3. identity of the hereditament
4. details of any alteration made to the list as a result of the check
5. a summary of any changes to information held as a result of the check
6. a statement regarding the person’s right to make a proposal

(d) relates to any alteration relating to the entry appearing in the rating list eg RV, description etc

(e) relates to any changes we make to information we hold on the property, i.e amendments made to the survey data or valuation of the property itself.

The date of completion of check starts the 4 month period within which proposals must be submitted (Reg 6 (1)). The exception to this is the extended period allowed in respect of material changes in circumstance external to the hereditament only (Reg 6A(2).

3.15 Deemed completion of Check (Reg 4F(3))

A check is taken as completed if the VO has not served a Reg 4F notice (completed check) within 12 months from the date the VO having received confirmation under Reg 4C (completeness and accuracy of the information held by the VO), or as agreed in writing with the VO before the end of that period (Reg 4F(3))

3.16 Deemed Checks giving rise to rights to make a proposal on reconstitutions

SI 2018/1193 The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists) and Business Rate Supplements) (Transfers to Revenue Accounts) (Amendments etc.) (England) Regulations 2018.

Checks on assessments which have become historic prior to the completion of the check 4AA(2)

(2)Where this regulation applies:

a. for the purpose of regulation 4A(1), a check in relation to a new hereditament shall be deemed to have been completed where a check has been completed on or after the creation day in relation to each historic hereditament, and b. for the purpose of these Regulations a check is completed in relation to a new hereditament on

i. the date on which the VO serves a notice under regulation 4F(1) in respect of the final historic hereditament, or ii. the date on which the check in respect of the final historic hereditament is taken to be completed under regulation 4F(3).

A new hereditament may come into existence because:

i. it was previously rated as a single hereditament but is now split,
ii. it was previously rated in parts and is now merged as a single hereditament, or
iii. the hereditament or any part becomes a different hereditament.

Where this happens before the subject check has been completed,

a. for one of the three reasons above, and
b. the new hereditaments first existed on the ground prior to the completion of the check,

then this triggers the right for the IP to be able to make a proposal against the new hereditaments without the need to submit further checks on the new entries first.

N.B. The’creation day’ is not the same as the effective date shown in the list, it is the date the new hereditaments first came in to existence on the ground.

The IP would then have the usual time limit of 4 months from the date of completion of check to submit a proposal, or 16 months from the date of completion of check to serve an external MCC proposal under Reg 4(1)(b).

This is because by virtue of Reg 4AA (2)(a)

‘a check in relation to a new hereditament shall be deemed to have been completed where a check has been completed on or after the creation day in relation to each historic hereditament.’

For practical purposes for CCA

A deemed check exists, for the purposes of this section of the Act, against the new entries, if the new reconstituted hereditament(s) existed on the ground before the completion of the check on the originating hereditament, regardless of when the list is updated.

At the same time the check is completed on the original hereditament, the ‘deemed’ checks are treated as being completed on the same date in respect of the new hereditaments. (Reg 4AA(2)(a) & (b) SI 2018/1173).

The deemed check will then trigger the right for the proposer in respect of the new hereditament(s) to submit proposals in respect of those new units within the required time limits depending on the type of proposal without having to go through another check first.

One to one address changes are not reconstitutions for the purposes of the 2018 Regulations.

With a list amendment relating to the address only the hereditament does not change, even though the VO IT system treats it as a reconstitution. Consequently in this situation, a deemed check (as defined above) does not arise, but the previous check should be re-linked to the new address.

Illustrative examples

Example 1

Where a property is merged and the creation date is before the completion of checks on the original historic hereditaments, then the completion date for the deemed check on the new hereditament is taken as the date of the last check to be completed on the parts being merged. (Reg 4AA(2), SI 2009/2268 as amended by SI 2018/1193).

For example:

Merger of units A and B to form unit C takes place on 1 April 2017. The rating list was updated on 1 January 2018. Creation date of unit C (merged unit) is 1 April 2017 i.e. the date it physically appeared on the ground

A Check was submitted on Unit A on 1 July 2017 and completed on 1 September 2017 and Unit B on 1 September 2017 completed on 1 November 2017

The creation date of Unit C, 1 April 2017, is prior to the completion of either of the checks on Unit A or B. A deemed check is therefore assumed to exist the new hereditament C.

The date for completion of the deemed check on Unit C is 1 November 2017. (i.e. the date on completion of the last check to be finished on the units to be merged, in this case unit B).

This will be the date from which the time limits start for submission of any proposal in respect of unit C

Example 2

A Check has been submitted by a landlord but before that check is completed the property has been split into 2 by a reconstitution.

The landlord, by virtue of the ‘deemed check’ on the new assessments will have the right to submit appeals against both new addresses if he wishes. However, the tenants of the new parts will have to submit fresh checks against their new assessment in order to have the right to submit a proposal.

In this example, if the initiating check was submitted by a tenant, who after the property has been split, only occupies part of the premises, then he will only be entitled to submit a proposal in respect of the part of the split he occupies. The occupier of the other part of the split will have to submit his own fresh check and proposal as he did not make the original check.

3.17 Request of Information and disclosure of FOR and receipts information held

Disclosure of RALD/ FOR information is covered by the provisions of s18(2)(a)(i) of Commissioner of Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (CRCA) regarding the VO’s statutory function to compile and maintain rating lists. Disclosure is subject to reasonableness, proportionality tests and being a necessary part of litigation.

If a ratepayer requests to see their own information there is little reason to refuse. An agent may see the FOR on the property only if they are authorised to act for the person who completed the FOR.

If the request relates to a period before or after the client’s occupation or a comparable hereditament then the situation is different and access may not be appropriate.

With premises valued on receipts and expenditure, the valuation is normally based on Fair Maintainable Trade (FMT). This figure is normally included in the valuation provided at check by the IP. The actual trade figures should be facts that the IP provides at check and confirms if they are correct.

If there is a dispute over actual trade figures on which the valuation has been based then this is a matter for discussion at challenge. Access to this information by the IP is subject to the normal rules of disclosure.

Similarly, the interpretation of receipts etc. and how they affect the adopted FMT are valuation matters. Check is designed to establish the facts and then for the VO to decide, based up on those facts if they are accepted and whether the list should be altered as a result. It is not appropriate at check stage, to discuss matters such as receipts and expenditure or valuation issues as these would form the basis of discussions at Challenge.

At Challenge, a Regulation 17 notice should be issued regarding the use of FOR information likely to be referred to at VT by the VO, if relevant to the case. At that point the proposer may request to view the actual FOR information referred to. See under Challenge below for the procedure to follow.

On no account can a copy of the FOR/RALD be provided to the ratepayer or agent

Please refer to CCA Toolkits and information sharing guidance and Disclosure advice on the internet for further advice. Disclosures under CCA and Proposals.

Part C: challenge stage

4. Proposals (Reg 4 and 6)

The grounds for making proposals have not changed between rating lists. However, more detailed information is required when submitting a proposal under Challenge in order for it to be accepted as complete.

4.1 Completion of check first

A proposal cannot be submitted until the Check stage has been completed (Reg 4E) or deemed completed under Reg 4F(3) (the elapse of 12 months from the date of confirmation of Check with no notice of decision being issued) or under Reg 4AA(2)) (in relation to deemed checks on historic entries).

4.2 Proposals - time limits

A proposal must be submitted within 4 months of the date of completion of a check relating to the proposal, (i.e. steps in Reg 4A-F have been completed).

However, there is an exception, under Reg 6A(2), regarding external MCCs relating to proposals for changes on the grounds of:

LGFA 88 Schedule 6 para 7(d), changes in the locality

LGFA 88 Schedule 6 para 7(e), changes in the mode and category of properties in the locality.

In these exceptions the period for submission of a proposal is extended to 16 months from the date of receipt of the confirmation of check (Reg 6A(2)).

Subsequently, if a decision notice has not been issued by 18 months from the date of receipt of proposal the proposer can then go on to make an appeal to the VTE.

4.3 Evidence

For the 2017 and subsequent lists the proposer is required to submit all the evidence on which they intend to rely, along with a statement explaining how that evidence has lead them to their valuation, at the start of the Challenge process (Reg 6). The proposer may submit further evidence in reply to the VO initial response or if the evidence could not have been reasonably known and obtained before the proposal was submitted.

Submission of further evidence later in the process at Appeal stage may only be made in specific limited circumstances if at all (Reg 17A, Procedure Regulations SI 2009/2269). So the caseworker should be aware of this when initially responding with information, including rental evidence, during the Challenge process.

Consequently, if it is appropriate for the VO to issue an initial response, then the response should contain comprehensive evidence to support the basis of valuation adopted and the issues raised by the IP, for example 5-6 rents. This will help to avoid issues of admittance of additional evidence later at an appeal hearing.

Note - The VO initial response should have regard to the fact that this evidence is potentially all that may be referred to at any later hearing and should cover all the required evidence that the VO would wish to rely on.

4.4 Use of rental evidence

If rental evidence is referred to in the initial response, proposer should be informed of their rights to view FORs and ensure full compliance with the requirements of Reg 17 (SI 2009/2269), before any Decision Notice is issued.

For further details on rental evidence and Reg 17 SI 2009/2269 regarding the notification of rents and the parties’ rights to view FORs etc. please see Rating Manual, Section 8.

On no account can a copy of the FOR/RALD be provided to the ratepayer or agent

4.5 Standard of Proof

The standard of proof for the proposal to succeed is to demonstrate that the Rateable Value (RV) in the rating list is unreasonable (Reg 13A(2)).

4.6 Incomplete Proposal

For 2017 invalidity procedures do not apply. However, if a proposal does not contain all the requisite information then it will be deemed incomplete and returned to the proposer. See incomplete proposals (Reg 8).

A proposal may be made incomplete up to the point a decision notice is issued.

There is no right of appeal against the decision to make a proposal incomplete but a further proposal may be submitted provided it falls within the time limits for submission (Reg 8(3)).

Caseworkers should review the case papers on receipt to ensure that the proposal is a complete one and if not refer to the incomplete proposal procedures below (Section 5).

Checks for completeness should also include

ensuring that the Proposer is entitled to make the proposal
explanation of how the grounds are applicable
reasoning as to how the evidence supports the grounds raised
that the proposal is lawful
the correct time limits have been complied with
rental details have been supplied with as required by the Reg 6(6)
if the grounds cite a Tribunal or court decision Reg 6(5) has been fully complied with

4.7 Penalties

The VOA may impose a penalty on an IP or former IP at Challenge if they knowingly, recklessly or carelessly provide information which is false in a material particular. i.e. the details of the proposal.

Any information supplied to the VOA as part of the Check related to the Challenge, or at any stage during the Challenge, can be subject to a penalty (see Penalties (Reg 9) for further information).

4.8 Making proposals

Only interested persons (IPs) or a person who was an interested person (within the meaning in the 2009 Regulations at the time the check of information was initiated, but is no longer an interested person in relation to that hereditament), may make proposals. (Reg 4 (2)).

Essentially, there are three scenarios regarding the IP and when proposals may be made:

Under Reg 4 (2) (a) (as amended)

an IP is someone who is a tenant or has a right to an interest in the property and they can make a proposal under any grounds (Reg 4(1)).

Under Reg 4(2) (aa)

if they are a former IP and submitted a check whist they had an interest in the property but have now left they can also make proposals under any grounds under Reg 4(1)

Under Reg 4(2)(c)

anyone who was a IP and left the property before they made a check can only make a proposal under restricted grounds, i.e. Reg 1(c) (d) or (f). These grounds are:

a. an amendment to the Plant and Machinery Order
b. the RV is inaccurate due to a VO alteration
c. the effective date of the VO alteration is wrong.

Therefore if a party left the property before a check was made, Reg 4(2)(c) applies - which means they cannot make a compiled list proposal but they can make proposals against relevant VO alterations that applied whilst they were in occupation.

So whilst they can make a check they cannot submit a proposal to challenge the compiled list

N.B. this does not preclude the VO from ensuring that the list is accurate and if there is an error that needs to be amended the VO should consider issuing a VON to amend the list.

4.9 Billing Authority rights

Billing Authorities do not have the right to make Proposals or Appeals or be party to a Proposal or Appeal unless they qualify as an interested person and have an interest in the property.

However the VO is still required to notify the Relevant Authority on receipt of the proposal and the determination of the proposal (Reg 9(4)) and provide certain information regarding the proposal. This is usually done by VO weekly schedules.

During Challenge, having received notification of the proposal the Relevant Authority may provide the VO with additional information for consideration. The VO must then provide this to the Proposer who can provide further evidence in response (Reg 9(6)).

As the BA cannot now make a proposal, the VO should involve the BA at an early stage and obtain all relevant evidence from them. This will be especially important in the case of deletions or large reductions following decisions in recent UT cases on Canary Wharf (repair), completion notices, exemptions and borderline CT/NDR cases e.g. scenarios involving property guardians.

In the case of Proposals for deletion (Reg 4(1)(h)) relating to the validity of a Completion Notices, the BA cannot be a party to the Challenge, unless it is a property for which they are actually an interested or former interested party. The VO should seek evidence from the BA in relation to the completion notice at an early stage of challenge and must then provide a copy of that evidence to the Proposer. The evidence would be included in any initial response and decision notice. Should the case then be appealed the VO could then call the BA as a witness at any later VT hearing.

It is however possible that the VT, at the appeal stage only, can make the BA a party to an appeal. Reg 11(2) SI 2009/2269 allows the VTE to give a direction to add a person as a party, i.e. the BA, to the proceedings. If the BA wishes to introduce evidence then the rules as to submission of new evidence under Reg 17A would apply. However, recent cases have shown that the VTE is reluctant to adopt this approach.

4.10 Timing submission and MCCs

Proposals may only be made within 4 months of the date of completion of the check (Reg 6) (or as extended under reg 8(4) when it has been made incomplete).

Proposals made in respect of external MCCs may be made up to 16 months from the date of confirmation of check (Reg 6A). (See MCC proposals).

Only one Challenge can be made for each MCC affecting a property (Reg 6A (3))

If a Challenge for a material change of circumstances is not made within the relevant time limit, then a Challenge cannot be made for that MCC (Reg 6A(5)) (4 months from date of completion of check for an internal MCC or 16 months from confirmation of check for proposals relating to external MCC proposals (the latter relating to MCCs under para 2(7)(d) or (d) of Schedule 6 LGFA 1988)).

Where a proposal is made where the VO has reduced an RV for an MCC by a notice of list alteration at check, and the proposer disagrees, the proposer may make a proposal against the list alteration (reg 4(1)(d) or as a MCC proposal (Reg 4(1)(b)). In the case of a 4(1)(d) proposal the time for submission is 4 months from date of completion of check.

4.11 Historic Assessments

A proposal may be made against an historic assessment by an IP where appropriate. However, the valuation and survey data attached to check on the VOA website shows the current list entry. The IP should have advised the VO if an historic assessment is being challenged. Caseworkers should therefore check that the correct valuation and survey data is linked to the case and the correct facts are agreed for the material date.

See also RM section 6 Part 5B - where proposals may need re-linking following later amendments to the rating list which take effect before the Material Day of the subject proposal.

4.12 Multiple Grounds of proposal

A Challenge cannot be made on more than one ground unless the grounds have the same Material and Effective Date (Reg 6A(4)).

4.13 Multiple properties on a proposal

Proposals can only relate to more than one property where:

a. the ground for the Challenge is that the properties have been divided or combined

b. the IP or former IP is connected to all the properties in the same way and all the properties are in the same building or built within the same area of land (Reg 6(7)).

4.14 Grounds for making Proposals (Reg 4, SI 2107/2268)

The grounds on which an Interested Person may make a proposal are set out in Regulation 4(1) and these are:

a. compiled list inaccuracies
b. the RV is inaccurate due to an MCC on or after compilation day
c. the RV is inaccurate by reason of amendment to the Plant and Machinery (PandM) Regs (Valuation for Rating (PandM) (England) Regulations 2000),
d. an alteration of the list by the VO is inaccurate
e. the RV is inaccurate by reason of a VTE, VT, Lands or Upper Tribunal or court decision
f. the Effective Date is incorrect
g. the hereditament should be shown in the list
h. the hereditament should not be shown in the list
i. the list should show that some part of the hereditament is domestic or exempt and does not do so
j. the list should not show that some part of the hereditament is domestic or exempt and does so
k. the property is shown as more than one hereditament and ought to be should be shown as one or more different hereditaments
l. the property is shown as one hereditament and ought to be shown as more than one hereditament
m. the address is wrong
n. the description is wrong
o. any statement about the hereditament under s42 of the Act has been omitted.

Former IPs

Any other person who is not an IP but who was an IP at any time during the time in which a list alteration had effect, may make a proposal on the grounds of a VO alteration, amendment to PandM or effective date (grounds 1(c), (d) or (f) only) (Reg 4(2)).

4.15 Grounds of proposal - Interpretation

See also Rating Manual: section 7: Proposals, part 2 - Interpretation of the Grounds of Proposal

(a) Compiled List Proposals (Reg 4(1)(a))

A “compiled list proposal” [RSA code of grounds “01”] is one made on ground 4(1)(a):”the rateable value shown in the list for a hereditament was inaccurate on the day the list was compiled;

The important thing to note from this is that the Rateable Value being appealed is that which appeared in the list ON 1 April 2017 (or 1 April 2010 for the previous list). It does notrefer to any rateable value subsequently entered into the list, regardless of the effective date appearing in the list.

For example: an assessment which was created by a VON on 1 June 2017 but with an effective date of 1 April 2017 is not the compiled list entry and must not be linked to an “01” proposal.

(d) Inaccurate VO alteration

The rateable value shown in the list for a hereditament by reason of an alteration made by a valuation officer is or has been inaccurate.

If the VO alteration did not alter the rateable value previously shown in the list then the proposer may not make an appeal under this ground.

No proposal under this provision may be made on this ground if

it is against a previous list alteration made as a result of a previous proposal (made by any person) relating to the hereditament or

to the decision by the Valuation Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal or a court determining an appeal or application for a review from either tribunal (Reg 4(3)(c) refers)

If the RV remains the same (ie unchanged) in the original VO alteration then the alteration cannot be challenged on this ground.

(e) Tribunal Decisions

The rateable value or any other information shown in the list for a hereditament is shown, by reason of a decision in relation to another hereditament of a valuation tribunal, the VTE, the Lands Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal or a court determining an appeal or application for review from either such tribunal, to be or to have been inaccurate.

Upper Tribunal decision must be final before a proposal can be served

Proposals may only be made citing a tribunal decision once the decision is handed down.

Where a proposal is made prior to the Up Reg 4(3)(c) states that no proposal may be made in respect of Reg 4(1)(d) if the VO alteration in question was made as a result of a previous proposal relating to the hereditament regardless of who made the original proposal.

A Regulation 4(1)(e) proposal is the only kind of proposal which can be made where there has been a previous tribunal decision in relation to another hereditament and arising from the same facts (unless the valuation tribunal dismissed the appeal because every party other than the VO failed to appear).

Tribunal Decisions - causal link

Regulation 4(1)(e) provides a proposal may be made to alter a list on grounds citing a tribunal decision in respect of a different hereditament. The wording of Regulation 4(1)(e) includes the phrase “…. by reason of a decision ….”. This implies that the decision of the tribunal has led to the opinion being formed that the list entry in respect of the hereditament on which the proposal is submitted is inaccurate. In other words, there should be a causal link between the decision and forming the opinion that the list entry on another hereditament is wrong.

This interpretation was upheld in the Lands Tribunal decision in Downing (VO) v Corby Power Ltd [1997] RA 60. Note that the RA report erroneously names the VO as “Canning”

The case involved a proposal made under Reg 4 (4)(b) of SI 1993 No. 291 which has been superseded by Reg 4A (1)(d) but the then requirements for a valid proposal are still relevant in connection as there needs to be a causal link between the VT decision cited and the opinion that the assessment on the appeal hereditament is incorrect.

Reg 4(4)(b) provided for a proposal to be made if a Billing Authority or interested person “is of the opinion that by reason of - …(b) a decision of a valuation tribunal …. the rateable value or other information shown in the list for any hereditament is wrong

In Corby Power the appeal hereditament was a power station and was formula rated by reference to its potential output. The maker of the proposal cited a tribunal decision relating to a shop as grounds for the proposal. The proposer did not pretend that the decision in the case of the earlier proposal had any relevance to his proposal to reduce the assessment on the Corby power station, nor did he suggest that he had formed the opinion that the assessment on the power station was incorrect by reason of the decision in the earlier case. In light of this evidence, it was clear that in making the proposal the proposer had not formed the opinion that the assessment of the power station was incorrect by reason of the earlier decision, which he had not read, and which if he had read, would not have assisted in forming the opinion that the power station was incorrectly assessed. In the Tribunal’s view no experienced valuer could have formed that opinion on the basis of the decision relating to the shop.

The President agreed with the submission for the VO, that the formation of the requisite opinion is a condition precedent to making a valid proposal, and concluded by saying that in his judgement the proposal made in this case was not validly made.

It may not always be apparent from consideration of the proposal by itself whether there is a causal link. This may only become evident once the merits of the proposal are under consideration. If the VO forms the opinion that there is no causal link then, even though all the statutory information required for a complete proposal has been included, the proposal can still be made incomplete.

It should be noted that if the cited decision is not a reasoned decision but one merely confirming what has provisionally been agreed between the valuation officer and IP or agent, it is considered that the requirement to form an opinion that a list entry is incorrect “…. by reason of a decision …” is not satisfied.

Unless the cited decision explains why the particular decision was reached then it cannot form the basis for concluding that the assessment of any other hereditament is incorrect. Consequently, there will be no causal link between the decision and the proposal served citing the decision. It can however be argued that an ‘unreasoned’ decision may support a proposal where the result of the agreement confirmed by the tribunal is sufficient to make it clear that the rateable value of the interested person’s hereditament is wrong, particularly if the two properties are very similar. The argument loses its force as the characteristics and/or localities of the two hereditaments diverge.

Tuplin (VO) v Focus (2009) RA 226

In this case, although the VO’s invalidity point was rejected the door was left open by the President to the VO arguing that the proposal was in the alternative without grounds as there was no causal link between the case cited and the opinion that the RV of the subject was inaccurate.

In cases of doubt advice should be sought from the Technical Adviser to whom a copy the proposal should be provided.

(f) Deletions

It has been held by the Tribunals that the validity of the issue of a completion notice may be challenged by way of a proposal for deletion on the basis that the property has been wrongly included in the Rating List. See VT decision 246525454856/538N Gnd Flr The Horizon 99 Burleys Way Leicester LE1 3BE.

(o) Statements about the hereditament

This includes those statements about the property being wholly domestic, composite, exempt or part exempt or such information as prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations.

Requesting other changes to the Rating list

Reg 6(8)

This provides that where a proposal is made contending that either the RV or the effective date is incorrect by reason of an alteration made by the valuation officer, the proposer may request either or both of the following:

the restoration of the list to its state before the alteration was made; and
a further alteration of the list in respect of that hereditament.

This is particularly useful where it is contended that the effective date should be later than that adopted by the VO.

For example:

If this is the agreed outcome of the proposal then in order to give effect to the agreement the VO will not only have to amend the effective date to a later date, but will also as a separate step have to restore the entry in the list to what it was at the earlier (but incorrect) effective date. Otherwise, the list entry will remain from that date as a live entry up until the agreed later effective date.

4.16 Particulars of the grounds

The grounds establish what the proposal seeks to correct in the list. The particulars of the grounds are the detailed reasons as to why the list is inaccurate (Reg 6(4)(b))

4.17 Restrictions on making proposals

A proposal can only be made on more than one ground if the Material Day and Effective dates are the same for all grounds mentioned (Reg 4 (3)(a)).

‘One bite of the cherry rule’

An IP cannot make a proposal where one has already been made by that person (or someone with a qualifying connection) on the same grounds arising from the same event in respect of the same hereditament (Reg 4(3)(b)(i)).

Proposals are considered to be the same if:

the IP or former IP makes both challenges on the basis of having the same link to the property
they are against the same list
they concern the same property
the grounds for both Proposals are the same
the Proposals are made for the same event

‘Event’ means the compilation of the list, MCC or alteration of the List by the VO.(Reg 4(4))

A proposal cannot be submitted, where a proposal on the same facts has been made by another IP or former IP and considered and determined by a VT, VTE or Upper Tribunal (Reg 4(3)(b)(ii)).

No proposal may be made where it is against the list alteration made by the VO following a previous proposal or gives effect to a Tribunal decision or Tribunal review (Reg 4(3)(c)).

No proposal may be made unless a check has been completed (Reg 4A(1)).

The only exception to this is Reg 4AA, relating to reconstituted entries whose creation day was before the completion of the check on the originating hereditaments, whereby a check has been deemed to be made. see 3.1 deemed checks and the right to make proposals on reconstitutions

4.18 Proposals re Properties in Common Occupation Act 2018 (PICO) and former IPs

See also VOA - Identification of the hereditament Rating Manual: section 7 - Properties in Common Occupation: Appendix 4 - Limited circumstances for serving a 2010 list proposal

Proposals for merger under the PICO legislation would normally be made under Reg 4(1)(k) - the property is shown as more than one hereditament and ought to be or should be shown as one or more different hereditaments’.

For IPs who are current occupiers, or were former occupiers at the date of confirmation of check then proposals may be submitted under Reg 4(1)(k).

However, for Former IPs who are not occupiers at the date of check then the grounds on which they can make proposals are restricted to:

(Reg 4(1))

(c) A property’s rateable value is inaccurate due to a change in which types of plant and machinery need to be taken into account when valuing a property (Reg 4(1)(c)).

(d) The rateable value has been changed by the VOA which has made it inaccurate. (Reg 4(1)(d)).

(f) The list shows an alteration as applying from the wrong date. (Reg 4(1)(f))

Therefore such former IPs (i.e. who have left at date of check) cannot make a proposal in respect of the Properties in Common Occupation under 4(1)(k). In such circumstances the Former IP would have to contact the VO and then the amendment could be carried out by a Valuation Office Notice against which they would then have a right of appeal. If the VO refuses to amend the list there is no action the Former IP can take except submit a request for Judicial Review.

4.19 Unlawful proposals

If an attempt has been made to submit a proposal on grounds for which there is no right to make that proposal e.g. they are not legally entitled to make the proposal, no check has been made or the proposal is out of time or constitutes a ‘second bite of the cherry’ e.g. against a previous VT decision as above, then the proposal should be rejected. This is not the same as making the proposal incomplete. No Decision notice should be issued in this circumstance.

4.20 MCC proposals

See also: Rating Manual: section 7 - part 1 (i)(7) - Scope of Proposals ([VOA - Proposals to alter the Rating List

MCC proposals made under (Reg 4(1)(b) relating to matters mentioned in para 2(7)(d) and (e) Schedule 6 LGFA 1988 (changes in the physical locality or to the mode and category of other properties in the locality i.e. factors external to the hereditament only) may be made by the later of:

a. last day of 4 months from date of check being completed and
b. last day of a 16 month period from the date on which the VO received a confirmation (Reg 6A(2))

If information has been provided under check (4C(1)) regarding an MCC - but the IP does not make a proposal within the time limits above then a proposal on the grounds for that MCC cannot be made (Reg (6A(5)).

Therefore if a challenge was submitted and then returned as incomplete and the IP does not return the form within the original 4 month window then a further attempt at making a proposal is not allowed for that same MCC. Regarding external MCCs, the 16 month time limit cannot be extended if a proposal is made incomplete. As only one proposal may be made under 4(1)b (MCCs) in relation to each material change of circumstances (Reg 6A (3)) no further MCC proposal may be made.

A proposal may refer to more than one MCC only if the Material day and Effective Date are the same (Reg 6A (4)).

So if a proposal mentions more than one ground / MCC for which different MDs and or EDs are applicable then it is unlawful and should be returned to the proposer and no decision notice issued.

For details on material day amended by the new legislation relating to MCCs see VOA - Part 4 - Material day. For MCC proposals the Material Day is the date of confirmation of check.

Proposals may be on any of the grounds specified in Reg 4(1) (a) - (o) and the Material day to apply will depend on the ground chosen for the proposal.

N.B. - if as a result of check, the VO has amended the rating list for an MCC, the Proposer has the option if he wants to make a challenge in respect of an MCC by submitting a proposal under

(a) Reg 4(1)(b) - as an MCC proposal - in which case the Material day will be the date of confirmation of check

(Material Day SI 1992 / 556 as amended, Reg 3(7)(b)(i).

and / or (b) Reg 4(1)(d) against the VO alteration for an MCC change - in which case the Material day will be the same material date as in the VO notice of alteration (Material Day SI 1992 / 556 as amended, Reg 3(3)).

4.21 Submission of Proposal

The Proposal has to be served using the VO electronic portal or as otherwise agreed with the VO (Reg 6(2)).

4.22 Content of Proposal

The proposal must include the following (Reg 6(4)):

a. the name, address and contact details of the proposer
b. the grounds of the proposal including the particulars on which each of the grounds is based - known as ‘the particulars of the grounds of the proposal’
c. details of the proposed alteration of the list
d. the date from which the proposed alteration should have effect
e. the date on which the proposal is served on the VO
f. evidence to support the grounds of the proposal, and
g. a statement as to how the evidence supports the grounds of the proposal

If the grounds refer to a Tribunal decision (Reg 4(1)(e)) then the proposal should also include:

a. the date of the decision made in relation to another hereditament
b. the name of the Tribunal or court which made the decision
c. information to identify the other hereditament
d. the reasons why the decision is relevant to the hereditament, and
e. the reasons why the proposer believes that the decision shows the RV is inaccurate for the hereditament

It is therefore important that the caseworker checks when they receive the case that all the proposal requirements have been fully met as above, if not the proposal should returned as incomplete. In particular the supporting statement and how the evidence provided support the grounds raised.

4.23 Lease details (Rent and rent frees)

Where a proposal is made on grounds in Regulation 4(1)(a)-(g) and (i)-(l) (see (4.14 Grounds for making proposals) and the property is occupied under a lease, the amount payable yearly must be shown, the start date that amount became payable and details of rent free periods (Reg 6(6)) i.e. the rental details are not required for proposals made on the ground of deletion, incorrect address, incorrect description, or where a statement about the hereditament is incorrect.

This means that the lease details are required for all proposals other than ones relating to deletions or amending the address, description or other statements about the property in the list.

If the required lease details are missing then the proposal must be considered to be incomplete. See inaccuracies

4.24 Multiple properties

A proposal may refer to more than one hereditament only if it is made on the following grounds: Reg 4(1)

(k) the property is shown as more than one hereditament and ought to be or should be shown as one or more different hereditaments

(l) the property is shown as one hereditament and ought to be shown as more than one hereditament

and the proposer does so in the same capacity for each hereditament and they are within the same building or curtilage (Reg 6(7)).

Should this situation arise please refer to the CCA technical process team.

4.25 Requesting outcomes

A proposal made on the grounds of 4(d) or (f) - (alteration of the list by the VO was inaccurate or the Effective date is incorrect) may request either or both of restoration of the list to its prior state and a further alteration of the list in respect of the hereditament. (Reg 6(8))

4.26 Acknowledgement

The VO has to send an acknowledgement within 4 weeks of receipt of a complete proposal, specifying the date of receipt of the proposal, and a statement of the effects of Reg 9-13E (Reg 7) i.e. the procedures for the VOA responding to and resolving the challenge. The VOA does not have to send this acknowledgement if the proposal is refused as incomplete.

4.27 Requesting copies of Proposals

Proposals are public documents.

If a request is received under Schedule 9 paragraph 9(1) to inspect a proposal then the material contained in the initial proposal served under Reg 4(2), as required by Reg 6(4-8) and any further evidence provided by the Proposer under Regs 9(8), 9(9(b)), 9(10) or 9(11) will form part of the proposal.

The proposal does not include information provided at check, the VO initial response, or further material provided by the VO during the challenge period, or any information provided by the BA under Reg 9(6) or any other source of information obtained under Reg 9(9).

Any material included with the original proposal or subsequent submissions that is not pertinent to the proposal (extraneous documents or unconnected correspondence etc.) should be redacted, and this would include any personal details. Please see disclosure guidance. Disclosures under CCA and Proposals

The proposal only comprises information obtained under Reg 9, therefore any information provided at check which is submitted under reg 4C is not included in the proposal unless it has been re-submitted during the challenge process.

There is no obligation on the VO to send copies, either by email or hardcopy by post. Copies may be provided by the VO of any documents but only on payment of the relevant charge. Alternatively they may be viewed in a VO office on screen, or, if not available, in hard copy or printed, and redacted where appropriate.

Therefore it will be necessary to examine each document in detail included in the challenge portal to determine exactly what information/evidence is comprised in the proposal document.

Regulation 6, is clear as to what is required to constitute a complete proposal i.e.

a. name and address of proposer
b. grounds of proposal
c. details of list alteration proposed and effective date
d. evidence to support the grounds
e. statement as to how the evidence supports the grounds
f. where appropriate, details of the tribunal decision referred to
g. where appropriate, details of the rent passing and any rent free periods

Therefore when a copy of a proposal has been requested, or requires sending to the ratepayer, regard should be had to the CCA information sharing guidance and disclosure.(See Disclosures under CCA and Proposals

The proposal does not include any information provided as part of an appeal to the VTE.

Incomplete proposals

5. Incomplete proposals (Reg 8)

5.1 Background

There are no provisions to make a proposal invalid, instead a proposal will be refused if it is incomplete. There is no appeal against this decision.

5.2 Refusal of proposals

If a proposal does not fulfil all the requirements of Reg 6, i.e. it does not identify the grounds, contains all requisite information, evidence and reasoning etc., it will be deemed to be incomplete and must not be accepted. This principle should be applied strictly.

The items listed under Reg 6(4), (5) and (6) are statutory requirements, unlike the 2010 list requirements, so if any specified item is missing then the proposal must be made incomplete. This includes all the items specified at 4.27 above which includes the rent passing.

The VO must refuse the proposal (Reg 8) and there is no discretion. This may occur at any time after the proposal has been made but before it is resolved by settlement or issue of Decision Notice (including after the acknowledgement has been sent (Reg 7))

If during the Challenge process, it is found that a Proposal is incomplete then the process under Reg 8 must be followed. A Notice of Refusal MUST be served and in this event, no Decision Notice should be issued and the case should be closed on RSA and the Challenge process ceases.

Inaccuracies and late discoveries

See also Rating Manual: Section 6.17 below and Section 6 Part 9 : Errors and Omissions in Proposals

In considering errors and whether or not the proposal should be made incomplete, regard should be had to the principles established in the VT case Imperial Tobacco Group Ltd v Alexander (306019910109/5u NO5) and Mayday Optical Co Ltd v Kendrick (RA/24/2012) as to how such errors should be viewed.

Imperial Tobacco Group Ltd v Alexander (306019910109/5u NO5)

i. First are errors of or omissions of a clerical nature which are trivial, insignificant and de minimis. These have no impact on the proposal’s validity and should be ignored.
ii. Secondly, there are errors and omissions of substance but not the result of a deliberate attempt to mislead which do not impair the VO’s ability to consider the appellant’s case and which have no adverse impact on an assessment of the correct rateable value. This encapsulates two questions: (a) Has there been substantial compliance? (b) Has it caused the VO any prejudice? If the answer to (a) is yes and to (b) no, these failures do not render the proposal invalid.
iii. Thirdly, there are errors or omissions of a kind that misrepresent the appellant’s case or mislead the VO in considering the matter on its merits. Such error or omission will render the proposal invalid if the VO decides so to treat it. But if in the exercise of his discretion he chooses to disregard it and proceeds on the basis that the proposal is valid, that is entirely proper and the VO may either adjust the rateable value or allow the case to proceed to appeal before the Tribunal, but he may not thereafter raise or rely on the invalidity.
iv. Finally, there will be errors or omissions so fundamental that the proposal cannot in any circumstances be treated as valid (as in R v Northamptonshire Local Valuation Court, ex p Anglian Water Authority [1991] RA 93 CA, where a sewage works that no longer existed was named in the proposal instead of one half a mile away; and in Mainstream Ventures Ltd v Woolway (VO) [2000] RA 395, where the proposer was not qualified to make the proposal as he was not the occupier). In this category, the VO has no alternative but to pronounce the proposal (in his opinion) invalid; and should such a proposal come before the Tribunal, whether on appeal against an invalidity notice or otherwise, the Tribunal, whatever stance taken by the VO, would have to declare the proposal invalid and either uphold the invalidity notice or strike out the appeal on the basis that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain it. This is clear from the Mainstream case (supra) where the invalidity was raised for the first time by the VO on appeal to the Lands Tribunal although the defect should have been noticed at a much earlier stage.

See also Alam v Stoyles (UT) RA 71 2018 para 24

‘The proper approach to the validity of a proposal to alter the rating list laid down by regulation 6 of the 2009 Regulations was the same as was taken by courts and tribunals to the consequence of procedural errors in other statutory contexts. There were no special rules for rating.’

Para 25

‘where a statute lays down a process or procedure for the exercise by a person of some right conferred by the statute, and the statute does not expressly state what is the consequence of the failure to comply with that process or procedure, the consequence used to be said to depend on whether the requirement was mandatory or directory. If the requirement was mandatory the failure to comply was said to have invalidated everything which followed; if it was directory the failure to comply would not necessarily have that effect. That approach is now regarded as unsatisfactory and has been replaced:

“The modern approach is to determine the consequence of non-compliance as an ordinary issue of statutory interpretation, applying all the usual principles of statutory interpretation. It invariably involves, therefore, among other things according to the context, an assessment of the purpose and importance of the requirement in the context of the statutory scheme as a whole.” .

Para 26

As Etherton C explained at [25]-[29] in cases in which the decision of a public body is challenged or which concern procedural requirements for challenging a decision (in which category we would place the making of a proposal to alter the rating list), the courts have asked whether the statutory requirement can be fulfilled by “substantial compliance” and, if so, whether on the facts there has been substantial compliance even if not strict compliance.

Para 27

At [16] Lord Woolf identified the sort of questions which it is necessary to ask in cases such as this:

I suggest that the right approach is to regard the question of whether a requirement is directory or mandatory as only at most a first step. In the majority of cases there are other questions which have to be asked which are more likely to be of greater assistance than the application of the mandatory/directory test: The questions which are likely to arise are as follows:

a. Is the statutory requirement fulfilled if there has been substantial compliance with the requirement and, if so, has there been substantial compliance in the case in issue even though there has not been strict compliance? (The substantial compliance question.) b. Is the non-compliance capable of being waived, and if so, has it, or can it and should it be waived in this particular case? (The discretionary question.) I treat the grant of an extension of time for compliance as a waiver. c. If it is not capable of being waived or is not waived then what is the consequence of the non-compliance? (The consequences question.)

para 52

We do not regard it as of any significance in this case that the VO did not serve a notice of invalidity. The nature of the error in the notice was not apparent on its face, or from information which might readily have been to hand, and the VO was under no duty to investigate whether what the proposer said about his status was correct.

para 58

In cases such as this it will always be necessary to identify the requirement which has not been complied with and the extent to which information has not been provided, but once that has been done it is necessary to consider whether that degree of compliance was sufficient in the circumstances to amount to substantial compliance with the procedural requirements as a whole.

There will of course be cases where the consequence of omitting a single piece of information is that substantial compliance has not been achieved, but there may be others where the missing information adds little of importance to what has been provided and where the requirements of regulation 6 have been substantially complied with despite its absence.’

Consequently, it will depend on the nature of the error and its impact as to whether it is material and its existence fatal in considering whether the proposal is complete or otherwise.

Within four weeks of receiving a Proposal, the VO must acknowledge to the proposer that the Proposal has been received, this does not apply to incomplete proposals (Reg 7(1) & (2))

5.3 Notice of Refusal

In the event of an incomplete proposal, the VO must serve on the proposer a notice of refusal which specifies

(Reg 8(2)):

a. the missing information
b. the date the notice is served.

5.4 Further Submissions due to a proposal being incomplete

If a proposal is incomplete then the proposer may submit a further proposal within 4 months starting from the date on which the check was completed (Reg 8(3)).

5.5 Additional Time

The time period from when the initial incomplete proposal was submitted, to the date of the notice of refusal, is ignored when calculating the 4 month period (Reg 8(4)). This extension is only applied to the first re-submission even if multiple attempts are made to submit a proposal.

Once the 4 month period has elapsed, then no proposal may be made linked to the original check. However a new check may be submitted and further proposals made, with the exception of MCC proposals, where no further proposals may be made - see 4.20 above (Reg (6A(5))).

Proposals made under Reg 4(1)(b), external MCCs, (i.e. quoting grounds under schedule 6 para 2 (7)(d) or (e)), have to be submitted within a maximum time limit of 16 months from the date of confirmation of check or 4 months from the date of completion of check. Any re-submission of an external MCC proposal that was incomplete must be made within the 4 month period from completion of check or it cannot be made. The extension of time under Regulation 8(4) does not apply to these types of proposals.

5.6 Subsequent re-submissions

However if further attempts at re-submitting proposals are made and these are also incomplete then this time is not added to the 4 month period for acceptance (Reg 8(5)).

5.7 Rights of appeal re ‘incomplete’

There is no right of appeal against the decision to refuse a proposal because it is unlawful or if it is considered to be incomplete.

5.8 Replacement and subsequent proposals and ‘second bite’ of the cherry

Reg 6 sets out what must be stated in a proposal for it to be accepted as full and complete. By the document being incomplete a legal proposal has not been made as it does not fulfil the legal requirements. Therefore any re-submission will not constitute a duplicate proposal if the original document was treated as being incomplete and a fresh proposal may lawfully be made.

The definition of an incomplete proposal is set out in Reg 8(1), which consequently means that the restriction on duplicate proposals is not triggered merely because the first attempt was incomplete.

It is therefore open to the IP (or former IP) to submit a replacement proposal within the required 4 month period. The replacement proposal would then have the same effective date (subject to Reg 14) and Material Day as the incomplete version would have done.

If the proposer waits until the last day of the 4 month window to submit their first attempt at a challenge, this places them in a difficult position in submitting a replacement proposal under Reg 8(3) as they will effectively have run out of time to submit a fresh proposal.

There is nothing to stop an IP submitting a fresh Check and subsequent proposal if the original proposal was incomplete. The only exception to this is MCC proposals, whereby if a check has been submitted and a full and complete proposal under Reg 4(1)(b) (MCC) has not been submitted within the required time limits, then the IP cannot submit a further proposal in respect of that particular MCC (Reg 6A(5)).

5.9 Ambiguous wording on a proposal re MCC / against VO alteration for MCC following check

If an MCC has occurred, then when the check is concluded, the VO may make a list alteration to give effect to it or the VO may not take any action to amend the list and then the matter may be dealt with at challenge.

Following the completion of check, the IP has two choices to submit a challenge referring to the MCC:

1. If the list has been altered for the MCC and the IP does not accept the alteration, a proposal may be made challenging the VO alteration under Reg 4(1)(d),
2. Alternatively a MCC proposal under Reg 4(1)(b) may be submitted.

Both options are open to the IP. It is therefore possible that 2 separate proposals could be made, relating to the same MCC but in different contexts as they are made on different grounds under Reg 4(1).

For the purposes of making proposals these are considered to be different ‘events’ as defined in Reg 4(4).They will have different material days; the proposal against the VO notice, (4(1)(d) proposal), takes the same material day as that in the notice (the date giving rise to the event), whereas, for the MCC proposal (Reg 4(1)(b)), the material day is the date of confirmation of the check. The Effective Date of any changes will be the same for either type of proposal.

The proposal should be clear as to which ground under Reg 4 is being used as different time limits apply for submission.

A single proposal cannot be made on two different grounds if they have different material days or effective dates, the two types of proposal are mutually exclusive in this instance.

It is not for the VO to decide which is the appropriate ground to adopt. The proposal should be clear and unambiguous when read in its entirety. It the proposal is not clear as to which ground it has been made on then it should be made incomplete and rejected.

Challenge procedures (Reg 9)

6. Challenge procedures

Determining the proposal

7. Determining the proposal

See also Section 7: Proposal - settlement of proposals before a VT decision.

Reg 9D: Time Frame for Determining a Proposal if penalties are imposed

If a penalty (Reg 9) has been imposed then the VO must not determine the proposal ie end the challenge process until the end of the period for making a penalty appeal under Reg 9C.

If a penalty appeal has been submitted then the proposal cannot be determined until after the VTE has decided the appeal (Reg 9C).

This means that the caseworker cannot issue a Decision Notice if the penalty process has been imposed until that process has ended.

7.1 Well founded

The VO may decide that a proposal is well founded. As soon as reasonably practical after making that decision the VO should amend the Rating List and serve a notice of that decision on the Proposer and the Ratepayer (if he is not the Proposer) (Reg 10). No formal Decision Notice under Reg 13 is required.

Once a proposal has been well founded then there is no right to appeal to VT or for subsequent new IPs to challenge the revised list entry.

The VO may alter the list in accordance with the proposal (effectively well founding the proposal) after an appeal has been made to the VTE (under Reg 13A). The VO should then notify the VTE of the fact. The appeal will then be treated as withdrawn on the date on which notice is served on the VTE (SI 2009 / 2269 Reg 19a (7)). No consent order for this alteration is required.

A proposal cannot be well-founded at a RV other than the figure in the proposal. If the VO alters the list at a different figure, whether higher or lower than that proposed (also includes rounding) then that is an alteration under Reg 13 (3)(a)(ii) or 13(3A)(a)(ii) and the agreement process should be followed (see below).

A proposal made by the landlord may be well founded by the VO. However, in this circumstance the ratepayer (occupier) has no involvement in this process. It is therefore a matter of best practice that in the event an IP or former IP proposal is made which the VO would normally well found, that the alteration should be agreed with the ratepayer and the agreement process followed below rather than well founding.

7.2 Withdrawal

A proposal may be withdrawn by the Proposer by notice sent to the VO at any time before the case is determined.

If the proposal was made by a ratepayer and he is now no longer the ratepayer, then the agreement of the new ratepayer in writing is required before the proposal may be withdrawn (Reg 11 (1 and 2)). If he disagrees, then a Decision Notice must be issued.

As the new ratepayer would not have been competent to make the proposal at the time it was made, he is not able to become a substitute proposer.

A person who is an IP at the date of proposal, or any person (P) who was an IP on the date of confirmation of check and the date of the proposal, may opt in to the proposal by notifying the VO within 2 months of date of receipt of the proposal by the VO, that they wish to become a party. The VO must then send notice of the withdrawal to those parties as well (Reg 11(3)). The signature of the opted in parties is not required in respect of the withdrawal unless it is required in another capacity.

The opted in IP then has 6 weeks from receipt of the withdrawal notice to contact the VO in writing stating that they object to the withdrawal. Only a person who was an IP at the date the proposal was made can object to the withdrawal and the party will be treated as if they had made the proposal on the same terms as the original proposal. The Effective Date of any change to the rating list is the same as that of the original proposal (Reg 11(4)).

Person (P), who was not an IP at the date of the original proposal may not take over as substitute proposer.

The effect of this provision (Reg 11 (4)) means that if an opted in party (not the proposer) objects to the withdrawal then they are deemed to take over the proposal. The proposal is then deemed to be made on the date the IP objection is received by the VO and the time limits for proposal would be calculated from that date regarding the service of notices etc. The content and detail of the new proposal is the same as the original proposer’s and the eighteen month deadline for the VO to complete the challenge stage restarts. The Effective Date and Material Day are the same as those in the original proposal.

If there is an objection by one of the IPs to the withdrawal and they become the substitute proposer it will then be necessary to reinstate and re- register the proposal in accordance with Reg 11(4).

There is no requirement in the regulations to discuss or exchange the evidence received under Reg 9 with the substitute proposer. The opportunity for them to submit evidence was during the challenge discussions, there is no provision for further evidence to be introduced at this stage. A Decision Notice should be issued against which he may appeal.

Any alterations which occur as a result of the new proposal have the same effective date as if the original proposal had not been withdrawn.

In the case where an IP has taken over a Proposal in accordance with Reg 11(4), if subsequently the proposal is not settled and a Decision Notice is issued then that IP will have the right to make an appeal to the VT if he so wishes as a ‘substitute proposer’.

CCA Sub-Process 3.4.20.01 et seq Withdraw Challenge Case deals with this, however for further advice of the process for dealing with opted in IPs and substitute proposers please refer to CCA Technical Process Team

7.3 Agreed alterations

To agree a proposal all the following persons must agree in writing to the list alteration (Reg 12):

a. VO,
b. Proposer,
c. Occupier of the hereditament at the date of proposal

this excludes the occupier of the hereditament who is no longer in occupation of any part of it at the date of agreement, provided the VO has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts,

d. the ratepayer at the date of agreement,
e. an IP or any person who was an IP on the date of confirmation of check who is party to the appeal because they have notified the VO within 2 months of date of receipt of the proposal that they wish to be a party, but excludes any IP who cannot be contacted at the address supplied to the VO,
f. any person who was at the date of check, an IP and has notified within 2 months of the VO receiving the proposal that he wishes to be a party

The VO then has 2 weeks after the day on which the agreement was made to amend the rating list. The proposal will then be treated as being withdrawn.

If an occupier has, since the proposal was made, ceased to occupy the property which is the subject of the proposal and cannot be contacted, despite the VOA taking all reasonable steps to do so, their consent to the agreement is not required (Reg 3(a)).

Where an agreement has been reached, the Challenge is treated as having been withdrawn and cannot subsequently be appealed (Reg 12(1)(b)).

If for any reason the VO is unable to get the agreement of all the required parties (under Reg 12 (2)), then the VO should make the appropriate amendment to the Rating List and issue a Decision Notice explaining the situation with reasoning (as per Reg 13 (1)) to all the interested parties to the proposal as per Reg 13(2)(c). eg in the case of splits of assessment

Under Reg 13A (1) ‘a proposer’ may appeal to the VTE, i.e. the person making the proposal.

Reg 12 Identifies the parties whose signatures are required to complete the agreement form. If any such party objects to the agreement so that the Proposal cannot be settled then the VO should issue a decision notice in accordance with Reg 13.

Under Reg 13A, only the Proposer (or deemed substitute in the case of opposed withdrawals, Reg 11(4)) has a right to make an appeal to the VT following the issue of the Decision Notice. The other IPs do have a right to become parties to the appeal although they cannot make an appeal in their own right (Reg 2(3)).

7.4 Other Alterations

If the VO decides to alter the list otherwise than as indicated in the proposal then this should be done as soon as reasonable after the decision has been made (Reg 13(5)).

This alteration should then be referred to in the Decision notice.

Decision Notice

8. Decision Notice

If the Proposal cannot be well founded or resolved by agreement or withdrawal the VO will need to issue a Decision Notice.

The VO will amend the Rating List if appropriate and issue the Decision Notice.

All particulars and issues raised in the proposal should be addressed in the notice together with evidence on which the VO intends to rely, as no further evidence may be submitted at the appeal stage except in exceptional circumstances. See additional evidence at VTE.

All evidence submitted by the Proposer during the challenge stage, as outlined below, forms part of the proposal (Reg 9(12)).

This is important as the evidence will be included as part of the proposal submitted to the Tribunal as part of the appeal process and no further evidence may be admitted except in limited circumstances (Reg 17A).

All correspondence and communications, written or verbal, should therefore be suitably addressed and documented as these will be included in any Appeal documents before the VT.

If evidence is still subject to review please see evidence appears incorrect

If the rating list needs to be amended this should be done prior to the issue of the Decision Notice. The ability to submit further evidence at the appeal stage is extremely limited and cannot be relied on to admit evidence that should have been agreed prior to the Decision Notice.

8.1 Issue of Decision Notice

The VO can decide a case without agreement if:

a. it disagrees with a Challenge, and
b. considers the current list to be accurate, or
c. considers that an alteration is justified but a negotiated agreement cannot be reached
d. the Proposer no longer exists

Having reached a decision and the proposal is not well-founded, agreed or withdrawn, the VO must as soon as reasonable after making his decision, amend the list if appropriate and serve a Decision Notice (Reg 13).

8.2 Time limit for issue of Decision Notices

The VO has up to 18 months from the date of receipt of a proposal to issue a Decision Notice, before a right to appeal automatically arises and the proposal has not been determined (well founded, agreed or withdrawn). The VO may agree a longer period than 18 months in writing with the Proposer (Reg 13A(1) (c)(iii)) if appropriate.

8.3 Service on Parties

The notice must be served on:

(Reg 13(2)

a. the Proposer
b. the Ratepayer (if not the proposer)
c. any IP (party to the appeal as per Reg 12(2)e) or an person who was an IP at the date of confirmation of check and is no longer there and have notified they wish to be party to the appeal
d. the Relevant Authority provided they have served notice that it wishes to receive a copy of the decision (see Reg 13 (2)(d))

It is important the opted in IPs are correctly identify and receive the correct notices. Please refer to CCA T018 challenge correspondence assessment tool which covers the process to be followed.

8.4 Content of Decision Notice

The decision notice must contain (Reg 13(3)):

A statement that the VO is of the opinion the proposal is not well-founded and

a. the VO disagrees with the proposed alteration and that either the list will not be altered or will be altered differently
b. the reasons for that decision, including a statement of evidence and information used to make that decision
c. a statement in relation to each ground setting out why it is not made out, as well as a summary of any particulars with which the VO disagrees
d. the proposer’s right of appeal against the decision

It should not contain any new evidence that has not been the subject of discussion during the challenge stage.

8.5 Rental Evidence

Any rental information contained in the Decision Notice must have been included in the evidence exchange during challenge and also fully compliant with the Reg 17 (Appeal Regulations SI 2009/2269) requirements regarding the use of FORs and rights to view further FORs allowed for during the Challenge period. (See RM Chapter 8 for further guidance on Reg 17 evidence). Best practice is that the Reg 17 evidence should be included in the initial response.

No new rental information that is not already disclosed during challenge, should be referred to in the Decision Notice.

Evidence held on FORs and SDLTs will carry the greater weight at any hearing and so that source should be the preferred source of rental information. The use of Costar or other sources of information are less reliable and of limited use in the context of hierarchy of evidence.

Should the proposer, after issue of the Decision Notice, request to view FORs and introduce additional evidence from those FORs, the admissibility of this evidence should be challenged and refused on the basis that this evidence could reasonably have been acquired during the challenge period and does not satisfy the requirements of ‘new evidence’ (Reg 17 SI 2009/2269). (There may be exceptional circumstances due to difficulties of access, for example, due to closure of offices due to Covid 19, in these case please refer to your technical advisor for advice on how to proceed).

8.6 Service of Decision Notice

It is important the opted in IPs are correctly identify and receive the correct notices. Please refer to CCA T018 challenge correspondence assessment tool which covers the process to be followed.

For further advice of the process for dealing with opted in IPs please refer to CCA Technical Process Team

a) On the proposer, ratepayer or an opted in IP who is still an IP when the DN is issued.

Notification must include:

(Reg 13(3)(a))

a. a statement that the VO is of the opinion that the proposal is not well founded, that the VO disagrees with the proposed alteration of the list and that the VO has decided > i. not to alter the list according to the proposal; or > ii. to alter the list otherwise than in accordance with the proposal; and b. the reasons for that decision, c. a statement regarding each ground of the proposal why the ground is not made out and a summary of particulars in disagreement, and d. details of the Proposer’s right to appeal the decision.

This requirement does not extend to providing detailed explanations of the evidence and considerations behind the decision.

b) Notification to an Opted In IP who is not an IP by the time a DN is served (Reg 13 (2)(c) subject to 13(3A))

Notification must include:

b. reasons for that decision.

c) Service on Relevant Authorities (Reg 13(2)(d))

If the Relevant Authority has served notice on the VO stating that it wishes to receive a copy of the decision notice regarding

a. the proposal
b. any proposal relating to the hereditament to which the subject proposal relates or
c. a specified class of proposal or hereditament and the subject proposal relates to that class,

Then the Decision Notice provided to the Relevant Authority (Reg 13(4)) must contain

a. a statement that the proposal is not well founded and the VO disagrees with the proposed alteration and has decided not to alter the list or alter it differently

and where the VO considers it reasonable to do so

b. the reasons for that decision, statement of evidence used, reasons why each ground was not made out and areas of disagreement.

The VO policy currently is that it is not reasonable to include (b) because that would share excessive data and information with the RA.

It should include the name of the document being referred to, the property to which the information relates and the information to be relied on together with rights of inspection of the documents. This also should have been included with the initial response notice in order to give the proposer chance to consider the evidence during the challenge stage.

Please follow the CCA processes for correspondence in this scenario. Customer Correspondence 5.1 the caseworker should then view case notes etc and send a copy of DN if BA have opted in, the T018 tool. For further advice of the process for dealing with BAs please refer to CCA Technical Process Team

8.7 Decision Notice not issued

If eighteen months elapse from the date a Proposal is made without an agreement, withdrawal or decision, the proposer can Appeal to the VTE without waiting for resolution from the VOA. The VOA and the proposer can agree in writing to extend this eighteen month time limit (Reg 13A(1) (c)(iii)).

Rights of the parties during challenge

8.9 Billing Authorities

Right to make proposals

Billing Authorities do not have the right to make Proposals or Appeals or be party to a Proposal or Appeal unless they qualify as an interested person.

Notifications to BAs - Proposal and Decision Notice

However the VO is still required to notify the Relevant Authority on receipt of the proposal (Reg 9(1)) and the determination of the proposal (Reg 9(4)) within 6 weeks and provide certain information regarding the proposal. This is usually done by VO weekly schedules.

Additional information held by the BA eg Completion Notice information

During Challenge having received notification of the proposal the Relevant Authority may provide the VO with additional information for consideration. The VO must then provide this to the Proposer who can provide further evidence in response (Reg 9(6)).

This is of particular importance in respect of proposals relating to completion notices whereby evidence held by the BA will provide fundamental facts as to the state of the property etc. for the VO when considering the initial response and decision notice.

Following the evidence provided by the BA, they may become a witness at any future appeal hearing. It is therefore useful for the caseworker to establish who the potential witness would be for the authority, storing the confirmation email in CCA caseworker suite and a note made on RSA remarks.

Party to proposals

In the case of Proposals for deletion (Reg 4(1)(h)) regarding Completion Notices, the BA cannot be a party to the Challenge, unless it is a property for which they are actually an interested or former interested party.

Becoming a party at Appeal stage

Reg 11(2) SI 2009/2269 allows the VTE to give a direction to add a person as a party, to the proceedings. So that is may be possible for the BA to be added as a party. If the BA wishes to introduce evidence then the rules as to submission of new evidence under Reg 17A would apply (essentially, this new evidence is likely only to be admitted if all parties agree).

If a person is made a party to an appeal at VT stage and appears at the hearing, then they have the right to make an appeal to the UT in the event of an adverse decision.

However, in a recent VTE case concerning a completion notice (CHG 100047531) the VTE refused to add the BA as a party.

Therefore it is essential that the VO should include BA evidence in the Initial Response and also in the Decision Notice, so if necessary, the BA may be called as a witness at any hearing. This could be important if the validity or service of a Completion Notice is being challenged by a proposal for deletion.

For further advice of the process for dealing with BAs please refer to CCA Technical Process Team

8.10 Current Ratepayers who are not the Proposer

Vacant property

The landlord is the ratepayer if the property is vacant (Reg (2)).

Service of copy of Proposal

If the ratepayer is not the proposer then the VO must serve a copy of the proposal on them within 6 weeks of receipt (Reg 9(1)).

Party to a proposal

To be a party to a proposal the Ratepayer must have opted in within 2 months of receipt of the proposal by the VO.

Well-founded Proposals

The VO has to serve a notice on the IP of the well founding decision as soon as possible after making that decision.

There is no right of objection or appeal against well founding of a proposal.

The Current ratepayer will be bound by the outcome of the well-founded proposal and cannot make a further proposal in respect of that change.

Withdrawals

The signature of the current ratepayer is required if the proposal was made by a former ratepayer or former IP (Reg 11(2)). It is not required for withdrawals of proposals made by current landlords who have never been the ratepayer.

If the ratepayer has ‘opted in’, they can notify the VO within 6 weeks of the notification of withdrawal and then take over the proposal as a ‘substitute proposer’ (Reg 11(4)).

If the ratepayer has not opted in but refuses to sign the withdrawal the VO should issue a Decision Notice.

The ratepayer will have no right of appeal (unless he is a substitute proposer) but will be party to any appeal submitted by the Proposer to the VTE by virtue of Reg 2(3).

Agreements

The signature of the ratepayer at the date of agreement is required (Reg 12(2)(d)).

If the ratepayer disagrees then the VO issues a decision notice.

If the ratepayer has also ‘opted in’ then their agreement would also have been required by virtue of Reg 12(2)(e) unless they cannot be contacted at the address provided Reg 12(3)(b).

There are no rights to take over the Proposal, in the event of disagreement by the ratepayer. The VO in this circumstance should issue a decision notice.

The ratepayer will have no right of appeal but will be party to any appeal submitted by the Proposer to the VTE by virtue of Reg 2(3).

Decision Notice

The VO must serve a copy of the decision notice on the Ratepayer. The requirements are set out in Reg 13(2)(b).

8.11 Landlords and former landlords / occupiers (who are not proposers but were present at date of confirmation of check)

Proposals

Such IPs may make proposals on all grounds under Reg 4(1) provided they made a check during the time they were an IP and the proposal is relevant to the time for which they were an IP (Reg 4(2)(aa)).

Copies of Proposals

There is no requirement for the VO to serve copies of Proposals on receipt to landlords or former occupiers.

‘Opting In’ as a party

To become a party to a proposal the landlord or former occupiers, present at date of check, must opt in by notifying the VO within 2 months of receipt of the proposal that they wish to be a party.

Well Founded Proposals

If the VO well founds a proposal, the landlord or former occupier has no rights to object or appeal the decision.

Withdrawals

The signature of the landlord or former occupier is not required unless they have opted in to the proposal.

If the landlord or former occupier has ‘opted in’, they can notify the VO within 6 weeks of the notification of withdrawal and then take over the proposal as a ‘substitute proposer’. (Reg 11(4)) and submit an appeal if they wish following a decision notice.

Agreements

If the landlord has ‘opted in’ then their agreement would also have been required by virtue of Reg12(2)(e) unless they cannot be contacted at the address provided Reg 12(3)(b).

If the former occupier has ‘opted in’ then their agreement is also required (Reg 12(2)(e)) unless all the other parties required to sign the agreement have agreed and the VO has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts and they cannot be ascertained (Reg 12 (3)(a)).

There are no rights for the landlord or former occupiers to take over the Proposal, in the event of disagreement. The VO in this circumstance should issue a decision notice.

The landlord or former occupiers will have no right of appeal but may be party to any appeal submitted by the Proposer to the VTE by virtue of Reg 2(3) if they have opted in.

Decision notices

If the parties have opted in then the VO musts serve a copy of the decision notice on them (Reg 13(2)(c)).

8.12 Landlords or former occupiers/ landlords, not present at the date of confirmation of check

Proposals

If the landlord or former occupiers were not present at the date of check then the grounds on which a proposal may be made are limited to Reg 4(1)(c), (d) and (f). i.e. PandM, VO alteration and Effective day correction. They cannot make a proposal relating to PICO legislation for merger as this would fall under Reg 4(1)(k) and therefore would be unlawful.

‘Opting in as a Party’

As the person was not an IP at the date of check they cannot ‘opt in’ to a proposal.

Well founded

There are no rights for persons not present at the date of check against a proposal being well founded.

Withdrawals

If the party was not present at the date of the check then they cannot opt in, they are not party to the proposal and cannot become a substitute proposer.

Agreements

Their agreement is not required unless they are the proposer.

They cannot opt in and have no rights of appeal.

Decision notice

There is no requirement for the VO to serve a copy of the Decision Notice on this party unless they are actually the proposer.

Part D: penalties (Reg 9A)

Part D: Penalties (Reg 9A)

If a penalty is applied during the challenge, then the time limits are suspended until the penalty process is concluded and a decision notice should not be issued see Reg 9D

9.1 False Information

If any of the information provided by the Proposer in connection with the Proposal is false in a material particular and has been provided knowingly, recklessly or carelessly, then the VO can impose a penalty (Reg 9A). That is:

a. knowingly - information which the IP knows to be false in a material particular,
b. recklessly - information provided by the IP with little regard to the effect that information may have if it was inaccurate and relied upon by the VO, and
c. carelessly - information provided by the IP or former IP which is inaccurate and which by taking reasonable care could have been identified and corrected by the person submitting it.

This will also include information provided by the Proposer at the confirmation of check in connection with the Proposal (Reg 9A (5)).

Penalties are £200 for each piece of incorrect information for smaller proposers and £500 for each piece of incorrect information for other persons.

Although the penalties include erroneous information at Check, a penalty cannot be imposed if a Proposal has not been received (Reg 9A(1))

9.2 False in a material particular

This means that the information provided contains an inaccuracy which, if relied upon:

a. may alter the outcome of the Check or the Challenge or
b. may lead to an inaccuracy in the rating list.

9.3 Penalty Notice

If a penalty is to be imposed the VO must serve a notice on the proposer stating (Reg 9A(4)):

a. that a penalty has been imposed
b. the date on which the check to which the proposal relates was completed,
c. the date the proposal was made,
d. the date the proposal was determined, (i.e. the date that the decision notice was sent)
e. the false information,
f. the date the information was provided,
g. the date the penalty notice is served,
h. the amount of the penalty,
i. and the right to appeal to the VTE under Reg 9C.

9.4 Recovery of penalty (Reg 9B)

This is normally carried out by the VOA Penalties team. Money received by the VO under the penalty procedures must be paid into the consolidated fund and any outstanding penalties are a civil debt. Recovery of a penalty cannot be made until the end of the penalty appeal period under Reg 9C or if a penalty appeal is made, the penalty appeal is decided.

The VO may remit in full a penalty under Part 2 (Reg 9B (4)) and refund any amount paid in respect of the penalty (Reg 9B(5)).

A person receiving a penalty may make an appeal against the notice to the VTE, (Reg 9C) either against the imposition or the amount of the penalty.To make an appeal (Reg 9C(4)) the VTE electronic portal must be used (or other manner agreed with the VTE) and the appeal made within 28 days of service of the penalty notice or as extended by the VTE under Reg 6(3)(a) SI2009/ 2269.

9.5 Appeal against the penalty notice

Appeals are made to the VTE and the appeal must include

(Reg (9C(5)):

a. whether the appeal is against the imposition or the amount,
b. the date of service,
c. a copy of the penalty notice,
d. if the appeal is against the amount a statement that the person is a smaller, and
e. a copy of the confirmation of check to which the proposal relates.

If the appeal is submitted out of time then a request for an extension of time and reasons why the notice of appeal was not served in time should also be submitted (Reg 9C(7)).

See VTE practice statements, SI 2009/2267 and Rating Manual VOA - Part 3: Appeals to the Valuation Tribunal for procedures on appeals.

Part E: appeals

Part E: Appeals (CCA)

See RM Section 8: Appeals - Making and Settling - 2017 England (CCA)

1. Legal background

1.1 Summary of Relevant Legislation and Practice Statements

Most of the references in this documents refer to SI 2009/2268, the alteration Regulations, where other Regulations are referred to these are identified.

Relevant Legislation

1. The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009’ (SI 2009/ 2268) (‘Appeal’ Regulations) as amended by (SI 2017 /155)
2. The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2017’ (SI 2017 /155)
3. The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009’ (SI 2009 / 2269) (‘Procedure Regulations’) as amended by (SI 2017/156), 2018 (SI 2018/911)
4. The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2017’ (SI 2017/156)
5. Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists, Appeals and Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Regulations2018 (SI 2018/911)
6. The Non-Domestic Rating (Material Day for List Alterations) 1992 (SI 1992/556) (as amended by SI 2017/155)
7. The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2017’ (SI 2017/156)
8. NDR (Alteration of Lists) and Business Rate Supplements (Transfer to Revenue Accounts) (Amendments etc)(England) Regulations 2018 (SI 2018/1193) Part 4
9. Practice statement - Valuation Tribunal Service $LegislativeList

References

‘VO’ in this document refers to Valuation Officer
‘VOA’ refers to the Valuation Office Agency
‘CVO’ refers to the Central Valuation Officer

VTE Procedures

For VTE procedures at the hearing please refer to Rating Manual VOA - Part 3: Appeals to the Valuation Tribunal and the VTE consolidated practice and explanatory notes on the VTE website Practice statement - Valuation Tribunal Service PS2b

The Appeal Regulations (SI 2009/2268) set out the regulations for making an appeal (Reg 13) and the Procedure Regulations (SI 2009/2269) set out the procedures for dealing with the Appeal at the VTE.

1.2 Summary of changes

The appeal process has changed substantially and all appeals now have to be made direct to the VTE via the VTE electronic portal or as otherwise agreed.

The appeal is against the decision notice and not the proposal.

The Appellant is responsible for submitting all documentation, relating to the proposal arising at the Challenge stage, with the appeal and a fee is now payable which in certain circumstances may be refundable.

No new evidence may be introduced at the appeal stage unless specific exceptional circumstances apply.

The standard of proof required for valuation is that the Rateable Value is not reasonable (Reg 13(A(2)).

The procedures at VT for hearing now follow the new arrangements contained in the Consolidated Practice Statement and are different for 2017 compared to 2010 cases.

1.3 Making an Appeal

No appeal can be made if the proposal (challenge) was well-founded, withdrawn or agreed with the IP (Reg 13A(1)).

An Appeal can only be made where the VOA’s decision regarding the proposal

$LegislativeList * a. was not to alter the list (Reg 13A(1)(a)) * b. was to alter the list but not as proposed by the Challenge (Reg 13A(1)(b)) or * c. the VO has failed to make a decision and issue a notice within 18 months from the date on which the proposal was made and there has been no agreement or withdrawal. (N.B. The VO may agree in writing to a longer period). (Reg 13A(1)(c))

An appeal may be made on the following grounds only:

(Reg 13A (2))

a. the valuation is not reasonable
b. the list is inaccurate in relation to the hereditament other than in relation to valuation.

‘Valuation’ in this context refers to the Rateable Value (Reg 13A(3)).

In IP may, however, submit an appeal where they have formally objected to a withdrawal of the Proposal by compliance with the requirements of Reg 11(3) and are therefore deemed to take over the Proposal.

1.4 Who can make an appeal / Parties to an Appeal

Only a Proposer may appeal to the VTE (Reg 13A (1)).

A ‘Proposer’ is defined as being ‘the person making the proposal’. Consequently, if the current ratepayer or IP is not the maker of the proposal then they cannot appeal the Decision Notice even though under Reg 13(2) a copy of the Decision Notice is served on them. However, they may become party to the Appeal as set out in Reg 2(3)(b) which states that the following persons may be party to an appeal.

i) every person whose agreement is required under Reg 12 i.e.

a. VO,
b. Proposer,
c. Occupier (of any hereditament to which the proposal relates) at the date of proposal - subject to being able to be contacted (Reg 13(3A)),
d. Ratepayer at date of agreement,
e. Any IP (in occupation at date of check who has served notice to be a party to proceedings as per Reg 2(f)), $LegislativeList

ii) anyone who has been a ratepayer of the hereditament since the date of confirmation of check (as defined in Reg 4(1)(c)).

Note. General powers under Reg 11(2) allow the VTE to add any person as a party to the proceedings, so for example a BA may be added in respect of an Appeal relating to a Completion Notice.

1.5 Time Limit for appeal

An appeal to the VTE must be made within 4 months of the date of the Decision Notice (Reg 13B) or

Within 4 months, if no Decision Notice is issued, after the elapse of 18 months from the date of proposal or any longer time period as agreed (Reg 13(1)c(iii)).

If a penalty appeal has been submitted then the time limit for submission of an appeal against the decision notice may be extended (Reg 13A(5)(b)) as the Penalty appeal has to be determined first.

1.6 Notice of Appeal

An appeal must be made on the VTE portal (or as agreed with the VTE) (Reg 13C(1)).

The notice must set out and include the following (Reg 13C(2 and 3)):

$LegislativeList * a. the grounds of appeal * b. which particulars of the grounds of the proposal have not been agreed with the VO * c. a copy of the decision notice if one was issued * d. a copy of the proposal and any further evidence provided by the proposer under Reg 9 * e. any evidence or information provided by the VO under Reg 9 (Challenge stage) * f. and the fee (Reg 13D(1)), which is £150 for smaller proposers and £300 other proposers.

If the appellant submits a late appeal he must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for the request.

1.7 Fees

The fee is not payable if 18 months has elapsed and the VO has not issued a decision notice.

The fee is refunded in full if the VTE decides one or more ground is made out, there is a consent order or the VO alters the list in accordance with the proposal (Reg 19A(7)(SI 2009/2269)).

The fee will be refunded in part of the appeal is decided without a hearing and the full refund does not apply (Reg 13E(2)).

The fee is £150 for smaller proposers and £300 for all other proposers (Reg 13D(1)).

1.8 Appeal served out of time

If the appeal is served out of time then an extension must be requested giving reasons for late submission (Reg 13C (4)).

1.9 Notification of Appeal

On receipt of the appeal the VTE must send a copy of the appeal notice to the VO and any parties to the appeal (Reg 13C(5)).

Under Reg 11(2) SI 2009/2269) the VTE may give directions to add a person as a party to the appeal. This means, for example, in the case of deletion appeals regarding invalid completion notices, the BA could be added as a party to the appeal hearing. Submissions would then need to be made under Reg 17A for further evidence from them to be included at the hearing by the VTE. Alternatively if their evidence had been included at challenge stage then they may be called as a witness.

2. Appeal Process

The appeal process is now under the remit of the VT, however after submission by the Appellant the VO has various actions that need to be taken under the regulations before a hearing can commence.

2.1 Decisions without a hearing - written representations

If the appellant wants the appeal to be decided without a hearing, on the papers alone, they must request this at the time of submitting the appeal. The VO then has 2 weeks to object from the date of request to ask for a full hearing (VTE PS2(4and5)). The VO would only object where there was good reason to do so. Decisions without hearings may affect the refunds an appellant may receive.

Generally written representations may only appropriate in very limited cases e.g. it may be possible where there may be a legal issue only to argue. For valuation matters, issues regarding evidence or complex law matters an oral hearing should be sought to enable the issues to be explored fully and for cross examination to take place.

Requests for litigation without hearings should be referred to the LSRP for consideration before agreeing to this type of hearing with the VTE.

2.2 Checking the papers sent to the VT and omission of documents

On receipt of an appeal the VO should check that the information in SharePoint is correct and all the evidence exchanged at challenge has been included and nothing is missing or altered.( Reg 13C (2) and (3) (SI 2009//2268)).

If there is any omission or error then the VT should be notified within 4 weeks (VTE PS2(1)). The appellant then has 2 weeks to consider whether they wish to dispute the findings (VTE PS2b (2)).

If there is a dispute the VT will decide the matter on the papers or hold a case management hearing on this preliminary point (VTE PS2 (3)).

The VT has advised that they expect the VO to discuss any missing evidence (or additional evidence) with the Appellant and reach an agreed position if possible within the required time limits, and only approach the VT for a decision if agreement cannot be reached.

2.3 Additional evidence added

If additional evidence has been included the VO must notify the VT within 4 weeks that new evidence has been included. Again the VT will determine if there is a dispute whether this evidence can be admitted. If it is admitted, the VO should be able to submit a rebuttal to comment on that new evidence (VTE- PS2b(7)(3)).

2.4 Errors in the challenge stage

If on reviewing the documentation the appeal caseworker feels there has been a serious error in our approach then the matter should be referred to the team leader. If the RV is considered to be incorrect then attempts should be made to agree the revised valuation and a consent order should be sought.

If agreement cannot be reached then the Surveyor has a duty to the Tribunal that all relevant evidence is put before them and a request should be sought to admit the evidence (Reg 17A (1) SI 2009/2269).

(There may be an option of requesting a consent notice (Reg 35 SI 2009/2269) or to alter the list in accordance with the proposal (Reg 19A (7) SI 2009/2269)) if appropriate. In this event a further proposal against this list alteration will not be possible).

Depending on the type of error found in the challenge documents, it is most likely that the Tribunal will consider this to be new evidence. The VO or party, therefore, may have difficulties introducing these issues at a hearing and may have to raise them as preliminary issues.

Evidence

2.5 Admission of New Evidence

New evidence not submitted at challenge stage may only be admitted in very limited circumstances and the VTE is taking a strict stance on this point.

There are 2 circumstances in which new evidence may be provided:

1. the evidence was not known to the party and could not have been reasonably acquired before the Decision Notice and it is provided by a party to the appeal or
2. all the other parties to the appeal agree in writing to its provision (Reg 17A (1)(a) SI 2009 / 2269).

The notification of this evidence must be sent to all other parties.

If the VTE permits new evidence they may admit further evidence provided by another party to the appeal if it relates to the new evidence or the grounds on which the proposal was made (Reg 17A (2) SI 2009 / 2269).

In other words, in the circumstances that the VTE allows further evidence to be admitted, the other parties to the appeal may be allowed to submit evidence in rebuttal.

All rental evidence should have been previously submitted to the Decision Notice stage and accord with the requirements of Reg 17 (SI 2009/2269) and if additional rental evidence comes to light at a later stage the parties run the risk of the VT refusing to allow this evidence.

The alternative for admittance of new evidence, is that all parties to the appeal agree that the new evidence can be introduced and that agreement is in writing. This may be difficult to obtain if the evidence weakens the case of one of the parties.

2.6 Presenting the evidence

It is acceptable to prepare an advocacy statement and provide a hard copy pack but the evidence must be presented as it has been exchanged at Challenge.

The only way a different adjustment and analysis of the evidence can be presented is with the agreement of the appellant. If the adjustment and analysis have not been challenged during the Challenge stage then they should be treated as being accepted and a statement to this effect should have been included in the decision notice (Reg 17A, SI 2009/2269)

2.7 New evidence and rebuttal

If the Proposer has introduced new evidence either before or at the hearing and it is allowed by the VT:

The VO will need to consider the new evidence introduced and whether the evidence submitted by the VO is sufficient to deal with it. If it is prior to the hearing then the VT practice statement allows 1 week to request to submit further evidence by way of rebuttal.

If new evidence is introduced at the hearing itself, then the VO should raise the question of admittance of this evidence with the Tribunal as a preliminary matter. An adjournment should be requested if more time is needed to consider and respond to the evidence.

2.8 Adding parties to the appeal or appearing as witnesses

Regulation 11 (SI 2009/2268), permits the VT to add parties to a hearing.

If a party appears at the hearing then they have the right to submit an appeal to the Upper Tribunal in the event of an adverse decision.

However, the rules on admittance of new evidence (Reg 17A (SI 2009//2269)), will restrict the evidence from the new party being used at the hearing, unless their evidence has already been included, by virtue of Reg 9(6) or 9(9), by the VO during challenge and included in the Decision Notice.

As an alternative, if the VO has obtained information from the BA or another party which has been included at challenge, then consideration should be given as to whether to include that party as a witness in the VO case. This could be significant in respect of cases involving completion notices or deletions for example in respect of the BA.

3. Settlement of appeals

3.1 Withdrawal of appeal before a hearing

An appeal may be withdrawn at any time before a hearing by giving notice to the VTE but it shall not take effect unless the VTE consents to the withdrawal (Reg 19A(1 - 4) SI 2009/2269)

However, any other party to the appeal who disagrees, may apply in writing to the VTE to have the appeal re-instated (Reg 19A (5), SI 2009/2269). Such requests must be within 1 month after the date of notification from the VT (Reg 19A (6)).

3.2 Altering the list in line with the proposal request

The VO can alter the list in accordance with the proposal to which the appeal relates, in this case the VO must notify the VTE and the appeal is then treated as withdrawn on the date on which the notice is served on the VTE (Reg 19A (7) SI 2009/2269).

3.3 Consent Orders (Agreeing the Appeal)

After an appeal has been made the parties may reach agreement regarding the case outside of the proceedings and they can request that the VTE end the appeal proceedings by issuing a consent order. The VTE do not have to accept the request. The VTE does not have to hold a hearing or provide reasons when issuing a consent order (Reg 35. SI 2009/2269).

The consent order may provide for a list alteration and if so shall specify the date from which the alteration is to have effect.

3.4 Other Orders (including End dating MCCs)

Under Reg 38(4) the VTE can issue an order for the VO to alter the list in accordance with any provision under the LGFA 1988. This means that the VT may increase an assessment greater than that already shown in the Rating List or proposed by the Appellant. The Effective Date would be limited to the date of the VT decision.

In the case of MCC appeals, where the circumstances giving rise to the alteration have ceased the VTE can order the VO to alter the list for the duration of those circumstances only, i.e. they can specify the end date of any allowance. However, the VTE cannot determine a different figure at the end of the allowance period or correct an assessment (Reg 38(7)).

For application of Reg 38(7) SI 2009/2269 See Arnold v Dearing UT 2019 - ‘Crooked Spaniard’ case. As at June 2020 there are case running to UT on this issue so this advice may be subject to review.

4. VT Hearing

See Section 8 of the rating manual for VTE procedures at the actual hearing.

If there are multiple appeals outstanding on a hereditament then the appeals should be heard in the order in which they would have effect. (Reg 5(3) SI 2009/2269)

SI 2009 / 2269 Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009

IRRV Alert - week ending 7th August 2020

News

Reports

Part 4: Check Challenge Appeal (5 August 2020)

Rating Manual section 7: challenges to the rating list

Part 4: Check Challenge Appeal

Part A: overview

1. Background

Summary of Relevant Legislation and Practice Statements

Relevant legislation

1.1 Changes

Summary of each stage of CCA (England 2017 only)

1.2 Check

1.3 Challenge (proposal stage)

Stages of making a challenge

1.4 Appeal

2. Definitions

Interested Person - IP

Former Interested Person (former IP)

Party to an appeal

Proposer

Ratepayer

Relevant Authority

Smaller Proposer (see Reg 3A for further details)

Valuation

‘VO Electronic Portal’

Working days

Service of documents

Part B: check (Reg 4A-F)

3. Background

Part C: challenge stage

4. Proposals (Reg 4 and 6)

Incomplete proposals

5. Incomplete proposals (Reg 8)

Challenge procedures (Reg 9)

6. Challenge procedures

Determining the proposal

7. Determining the proposal

Decision Notice

8. Decision Notice

Part D: penalties (Reg 9A)

Part D: Penalties (Reg 9A)

Part E: appeals

Part E: Appeals (CCA)

Appendix 1: CCA process - summary

IRRV Software