Part 4 - Pre CCA England and Wales
Source: gov.uk (2025-02-17)

The Valuation Office Agency's (VOA) technical manual for the rating of business (non-domestic) property.

Part 4A - Procedures Pre CCA : 2010 Rating List (England), 2017 Rating List (Wales)

Executive Summary

This covers procedures for the 2010 Rating List England and 2017 Rating list Wales and previous rating lists. It covers proposal forms and requirements, rights to make proposals and grounds of proposals, service of notices, transfer to representatives, insolvency of occupier and service of copies of proposals on other parties. Also included proposals outside the VO area, statutory requirements for Wales, invalidity procedures (including invalidity notices, invalidity at VT, late identification if invalidity)

1.0 Relevant Legislation

England (2010)

The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/2268/made)’ (SI 2009/ 2268) (‘Appeal’ Regulations)

The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/2269/contents/made)’ (SI 2009 / 2269) (‘Procedure Regulations’)

The Non-Domestic Rating (Material Day for List Alterations) 1992 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/155/contents/made) (SI 1992/556)

The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists) and Business Rate Supplements (Transfers to Revenue Accounts) (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2018 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/1193/contents/made)(SI 2018/1193)

Wales (2017 and earlier)

The original procedures as per the 2010 Rating List still apply

The Non-domestic (Alteration of Lists and Appeals)(Wales) Regulations 2005 [WSI 2005 No.758 (W.63)] (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2005/758/contents/made)

2.0 Propsoal Forms (England 2010 and earlier, Wales 2017 and earlier)

2.1 VO proposal forms

Although no statutory proposal form has been prescribed by law, a standard form has been produced by the Valuation Office. Occupiers, Owners and BAs should be encouraged to use the official Valuation Office form whenever they wish to make a proposal.

For 2017 rating list in Wales the standard form for use by persons who wish to make proposals is Form VO7012. A Welsh version is available if requested in the Welsh language.

2.2 Agents’ proposal forms

Some of the larger firms of rating surveyors and organisations such as the Solicitors Law Stationery Society (Oyez Printing) have devised their own proposal forms based on the VO’s versions. Although they may differ in certain ways from the VO forms they should be accepted provided all the information statutorily required is supplied

2.3 Proposals in the form of a letter

A letter may be accepted as a valid proposal if it fulfils all the statutory requirements and purports to be a proposal.

It is important, therefore, that any letter so identified should be processed as a proposal and attached to a blank proposal form, the required coded data should be entered in manuscript in the “Official use only” panel on the blank proposal form. The data should be input on RSA and a copy kept in EDRM.

Any letter which does not meet all the statutory requirements should be returned to the sender. It should be accompanied by a covering letter VO 7043 enclosing a blank proposal form and a set of guidance notes on the completion of a “Proposal” to Alter the Rating List. A copy of the ratepayer letter should be made and retained by the VO. The proposal form should be pre-stamped in the top left-hand corner with the correct VO’s address and telephone number

All proposals should be able to stand in their own right and be clear as to its grounds and reasoning. If there is ambiguity or there is confusion then the proposal should be made invalid and the invalidity procedures followed

2.4 Proposals which have a schedule of properties attached

Current provisions generally require a proposal to deal with one hereditament only. The exceptions are where a proposal seeks a split or merger of hereditaments or where the proposal relates to hereditaments within one building or curtilage and the maker of the proposal makes it in the same capacity for each hereditament (for example owner) - see Regulation 6(4) The provisions apply equally to email and hard copy proposals.

Consequently, proposals served on the VO in a ‘schedule’ format whereby properties are merely listed and rely on shared information such as grounds, proposer’s name and similar information are not valid, unless the hereditaments fall within the same building or curtilage.

However, if email proposals are served in schedule formation but on printing each stands on its own and does not share common information, such proposals will not offend and should not be invalidated (unless the proposals are defective in some other way). Emails containing (or comprising) multiple proposals which do not print out as individual stand alone proposals are not valid.

Invalidity procedures under Regulation 8 (SI 2009/2268 pre 2017 amendments) should be followed by treating the schedule as an invalid proposal against the first item in the list of properties

2.5 Petitions

A document in the form of a petition should be carefully examined to decide whether it contains all the necessary information to constitute a valid proposal. Although it is considered unlikely that a petition, signed by a number of signatories, will constitute a valid proposal, nevertheless such a document must not be ignored.

If it is the clear intention of the signatories to such a document to seek a reduction in their individual rating assessments, it will almost invariably be necessary to write to each of them individually, enclosing a set of guidance notes on the completion of a “Proposal to Alter the Rating List and an official proposal form with a request for it to be completed and returned to the VO within any statutory time limit.

2.6 Additional proposal forms

The VO should supply an additional proposal form to any intending proposer who requests one for his/her own retention.

2.7 Proposal forms for occupiers, owners and agents - 2017 Wales and 2010 Rating Lists

Occupiers and owners may be provided, free of charge, with a quantity of proposal forms corresponding to the number of hereditaments occupied or owned by the person(s) or business organisation concerned.

Where an agent is duly authorised to act on behalf of a number of individual occupiers or owners, the agent may be supplied free of charge with the number of proposal forms corresponding to the number of clients he/she represents

2.8 Bulk supplies of proposal forms

A reasonable quantity of proposal forms may be supplied free of charge, on request, to ratepayers associations, chambers of commerce and/or trade, and similar local organizations for use by their own members.

Before supplying the forms, however, the VO should arrange to discuss with the Chairman, or another officer of the organization concerned, the grievance(s) giving rise to the request for the proposal forms and to explain the basis of rating assessments.

Such a discussion may prevent the making of misconceived or frivolous proposals. If, following a discussion, the organization decides that its members still wish to make proposals, the VO should encourage the use of VOA online proposal application. If this is not suitable for any reason the VO should supply the necessary number of forms ensuring that each one is stamped with the office address and phone number of the Valuation Officer for the Billing Authority in which the hereditament concerned is situated.

Professional firms, such as surveyors, estate agents and solicitors, should similarly be encouraged to use the VOA website or web-services systems but may be supplied, on request, with no more than 50 blank proposal forms at any one time, free of charge. Where a firm indicate that they are acting for a particular group of occupiers, or for the owner(s) of a number of properties, either in the locality or nationwide, the firm may be supplied, free of charge, with the number of forms corresponding to the number of properties involved. A corresponding number of forms for retention by the firm as their own copies may be supplied, if requested.

In all other cases, the applicant should be asked to write to CEO (Customer Services) where the request will be dealt with on an individual basis.

BAs should be asked to issue blank proposal forms only to individual ratepayers and to forward to the VO any requests they receive for bulk supplies of proposal forms.

2.9 Completion of proposal forms before issue

Before a proposal form is issued to an intending proposer it should be completed in the top left-hand corner with the correct VO’s address and telephone number. The VO’s address should be inserted by means of a rubber stamp using a black ink pad. A clear legible impression should be made.

Normally, no other entry should be made on the blank proposal form. All the relevant information to be entered on the form is to be inserted only by the maker of the proposal. All the information which the proposer supplies constitutes part of the proposal itself.

If exceptionally, the VO wishes to make any notes on the proposal form before it is issued, eg. the assessment number, these should be made only in the column headed “Official use only”.

2.10 Guidance notes on the completion of proposals

Guidance notes in leaflet form VO 7012GN(2010) have been produced to assist makers of proposals to fill in the form correctly. A leaflet should be issued with the proposal form. The guidance notes are also available to download and print from the website in both English and Welsh (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100402134053/http:/voa.gov.uk/publications/index.htm).

3.0 Right to make proposals (England 2010 and earlier, Wales 2017 and earlier)

The right to make a proposal is governed by England (2010).

The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/2268/made) (SI 2009/ 2268)

The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009. (SI 2009/2268) (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/2268/contents/made)

This latter act provides limited circumstances in which 2010 proposals may be made between 17th December 2018 and 31st December 2019 see RM Section 7: Property in Common Occupation (PICO) & Nursery grounds for specific requirements for proposals under the PICO legislation.

Wales (2017)

The Non-domestic rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (Wales) Regulations 2005 No 758 (W.63).

Regulation 4 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2005/758/regulation/4/made) sets out the circumstances in which proposals may be made in respect of the 2005 lists and subsequent lists.

Regulation 5 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2005/758/regulation/5/made) sets out the periods in which proposals may be made in respect of the 2005 and subsequent lists.

Regulation 6 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2005/758/regulation/6/made) sets out the manner of making proposals and information to be included.

3.1 Who may make proposals

Reg 2(1)

(1) An interested person, a relevant Authority or in specific circumstances described below, a former interested person may make a proposal to alter the rating list in appropriate circumstances.

“Interested person” means:-

(a) in relation to a hereditament which forms part of the Crown Estate and is held by the Crown Estate Commissioners under their management within the meaning of section 1 of the Crown Estate Act 1961(b), means the Crown Estate Commissioners;

(b) in relation to any other hereditament’

(i) the occupier;

(ii) any other person (other than a mortgagee not in possession) having in any part of the hereditament either a legal estate, or an equitable interest such as would entitle him (after cessation of any prior interest) to possession of the hereditament or any part of it; and

(iii) any person having a qualifying connection with the occupier or a person described in (ii).

“Qualifying connection” is defined in Reg 2 (2).

A qualifying connection will exist where both persons are companies and either one is a subsidiary of the other or both are subsidiaries of the same company; or where only one person is a company, the other person has such an interest in the company as would result in its being, (if the person was a company), a holding company of the other.

Mainstream Ventures Limited v Woolway (VO) [2000] RA 395 confirmed that “an interested person” has to be an interested person at the time the proposal is made. In this case at the time the proposal was made the maker of the proposal was no longer the occupier of the hereditament to which the proposal referred.

There is a third category of persons who can make proposals, A ‘former interested person’ who can only submit a proposal challenging a VO’s list alteration on the grounds that the VO has chosen:

(a) the wrong Rateable Value or

(b) effective date

By Regulation 4(2)(c), a proposal may be made by someone who was an interested person during the period for which the list alteration had effect.

“Relevant authority”, in relation to a hereditament, means the authority in whose area the hereditament is situated.

“National Assembly” means the National Assembly for Wales

3.2 Proposals against the compiled list entry where a reconstitution has occurred

An interested person can only make a valid proposal when they still have some interest in the hereditament referred to in the proposal. If a compiled list assessment is altered by a subsequent split or merger, the original compiled list hereditament no longer exists and therefore cannot be appealed against, a proposal against the compiled list entry will be invalid.

One situation where an interested person could lodge a valid proposal against a now deleted compiled list entry would be in the case of a former composite property which has become solely domestic and therefore had the Non domestic rating list entry deleted, the original occupier of the property could make a proposal against the now deleted compiled list entry during the life of the list provided they had remained in occupation of the property.

Similarly, where the VO has altered the historic entry(ies) from which the reconstituted entries were derived, perhaps to correct the compiled list entry or to reflect a pre-reconstitution MCC, a person who was an interested person during the period affected by the VO alteration may make a valid proposal.

It is important to identify the hereditament when considering validity. If an assessment has changed because of, for example, a temporary reduction for road works, the hereditament hasn’t changed. Provided the proposer is an interested person on the day the proposal is made, they could still make a valid compiled list proposal.

4.0 Grounds of proposals (England 2010 and earlier, Wales 2017 and earlier)

An interested person may make a proposal to alter the rating list in respect of a hereditament, subject to prescribed time limits on the following grounds:

Reg 4(1)

(a) Compiled list

The rateable value shown in the list for a hereditament was inaccurate on the day the list was compiled.

(b) Material change of circumstances

The rateable value shown in the list for a hereditament is inaccurate by reason of a material change of circumstances which occurred on or after the day the list was compiled.

See below for an explanation of “material change of circumstances”.

Also see Upper Tribunal decision in RA/24/2018 UT Merlin v Cox (http://landschamber.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j1466/RA-24-2018.pdf)

(c) Plant and Machinery

The rateable value shown in the list for a hereditament is inaccurate by reason of an amendment to the classes of plant and machinery set out in the Schedule to the Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) (Wales) Regulations 2000(1 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2005/758/regulation/4/made#f00006)) which comes into force on or after the day on which the list was compiled

(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.

However, no proposal under this provision may be made where the list alteration is giving effect to the decision of a valuation tribunal, the Lands Tribunal or a court determining an appeal or application for a review from either tribunal (Reg 4(3)(c) refers).

It should be noted that under this provision a proposal may be made in respect of an alteration which gives effect to a well-founded proposal or an agreement.

There will not be many occasions where an agent or ratepayer who has just agreed an alteration of the list with the VO may wish to challenge it, but where this does happen it is likely to be difficult for the maker of the proposal to show reason why the previous list alteration is incorrect.

(e) Tribunal decision

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.

It should be noted that a Lands Tribunal decision is incomplete until all issues including costs have been determined. Sometimes an interim decision is given which deals with the substantive issues of an appeal but the decision on costs is reserved. Such a tribunal decision is not one that can be used as grounds for serving a proposal under regulation 4(1)(e).

Proposals may only be made citing a tribunal decision once the decision becomes final.

Where a proposal is made prior to the Lands Tribunal’s final decision, the VO should treat the proposal as invalid and issue a VO 7048 stating the following reason for invalidity:

The proposal is not valid because “the Lands Tribunal has not issued its final decision, this proposal should be re-served once the decision becomes final.”

See below regarding validity of proposals.

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).

(f) Inaccurate effective day in VO alteration

The day from which an alteration is shown in the list as having effect is wrong.

(g) Insertion of entry into list

A hereditament not shown in the list ought to be shown in that list.

(h) Deletion of entry from list

A hereditament shown in the list ought not to be shown in that list.

(i) Partially domestic or exempt

The list should show that some part of a hereditament which is shown in the list is domestic property or is exempt but does not do so.

(j) Not partially domestic or exempt

The list should not show that some part of a hereditament which is shown in the list is domestic property or is exempt but does so.

(k) Merger or reconstitution of hereditaments

Property which is shown in the list as more than one hereditament ought to be shown as one or more different hereditaments.

(l) Division of assessment

Property which is shown in the list as one hereditament ought to be shown more than one hereditament.

(m) Inaccurate address

The address shown in the list for a hereditament is wrong.

(n) Inaccurate description

The description shown in the list for a hereditament is wrong; and

(o) Omission of requirements of s42 (contents of local lists)

Any statement required to be made about the hereditament under section 42 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 has been omitted from the list.

4.1 Requesting other changes to the Rating list

Reg 6(5)

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:

a) the restoration of the list to its state before the alteration was made; and

b) 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.

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 bring the effective date forward to a later date on the appeal, 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.

4.2 Grounds of proposal - explanations Compiled List and MCCs

(England 2010 and earlier, Wales 2017 and earlier)

See RM Section 6, part 2: interpretation of Grounds of Proposal

4.3 Restrictions on making proposals

The “one bite at the cherry” rule : reg 4(3)(b)(i)

The regulations only permit an interested person to make a single proposal in respect of each event, defined as the compilation of the list, a material change of circumstances or an alteration of the list by the valuation officer regulation 4(3)(b)(i).

This is what is commonly referred to as the “one bite at the cherry” rule and for example prevents an interested person from making repeated proposals to alter the compiled list by instructing new agents even though a previous proposal has been agreed or withdrawn. A second proposal on the same grounds made by or on behalf of the same interested person is invalid.

The restriction only relates to a given interested person, so that where the occupier has changed the new occupier is able to make a fresh proposal. Similarly, both the owner and occupier of a property may each make a valid proposal.

A further proposal may not be made for the same hereditament arising from the same facts where the original proposal has been considered and determined by the Valuation Tribunal or the Upper Tribunal.

4.4 Periods in which Proposals may be made (England 2010 and earlier, Wales 2017 and earlier)

2010 List England

The 2010 Rating list is now closed and cannot be appealed or altered except to give effect to outstanding proposals or to properly give effect to an agreement from a settled proposal that has been incorrectly actioned or linked.

2017 List Wales

The period in which proposals may be made is governed by Reg 5: of SI 2009 No 2268[England] and Reg 5: of SI 2005 No 758 Wales (W.63)

(1) Subject to paragraph (2) below, a proposal to alter a list compiled on or after 1 April 2017 may be made at any time before the day on which the next list is compiled.

(2) A proposal on the ground set out in:

(a) regulation 4(1)(d) or (f) [RV or effective date of an alteration is incorrect – see paragraph 3.3.1 above] may only be made before the day on which the next list is compiled or within six months of the date of the alteration, whichever is the later;

(b) regulation 4(1)(e) [VT/LT or higher court decision affects value] may be made no later than 6 months after the day on which the next list is compiled.

In the absence of a VON or quoting a tribunal decision the last date for making a proposal on the 2017 list is 31.03.21.

A proposal served outside the period detailed by the legislation will be invalid (Esau Brothers v Rodd (1992) RA 257). This is regardless of the fact that the issue is identified upon receipt and dealt with by an invalidity notice or is only realised at some subsequent date.

Where a proposal is quoting a UT or VTE decision, the last date is 1/10/21.

The last date the VO can alter the 2017 list by VON is 31.03.21, and the last date for a proposal against a VON is 6 months after the VO alters the list.

Previous Rating Lists (England and Wales)

These are now closed and cannot be appealed or altered unless there is an outstanding appeal.

4.5 Grounds on which Billing Authorities (BAs) may make proposals

(England 2010 and earlier, Wales 2017 and earlier)

Relevant Authority

A BA is a relevant authority in relation to a hereditament if the hereditament is situated within that authority’s area - reg 2(1).

Right to make proposals

A BA has the right to make a proposal to alter the rating list for any hereditament of which it is an “interested person” - and has the same rights as any other occupier or owner.

The only other circumstances in which a BA may make a proposal are those contained within Regulation 4(2)(b). These are where the BA has reason to believe that the list is inaccurate because of:

a material change of circumstances which occurred on or after the day the list was compiled.

the RV 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 Lands Tribunal or a court determining an appeal or application for review from either such tribunal.

a hereditament not shown in the list ought to be shown in that list.

a hereditament shown in the list ought not to be shown in that list.

the list should show that some part of a hereditament which is shown in the list is domestic property or is exempt but does not do so.

However, Reg 4(3)(b)(ii) does not allow a proposal to be made (other than following a tribunal decision in relation to another hereditament), where a proposal to alter the same list in relation to the same hereditament and arising from the same facts has already been considered and determined by a valuation tribunal (other than where the valuation tribunal dismissed the appeal because every party other than the VO failed to appear) or the Lands Tribunal.

4.6 Grounds on which a former interested person may make a proposal

Reg 4(2) provides a limited number of circumstances in which a person who is not currently an interested person may make a proposal. Where he has reason to believe that:

(c) the RV shown in a list is inaccurate by reason of an amendment to the classes of P&M set out in the Schedule to the Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery)(England) Regulations 2000 (b) which comes into force on or after the day on which the list was compiled (the combined heat and power exception provisions), but see paragraph 3.3.1 c. above; or

(d) the RV shown in a list by reason of an alteration made by a VO is or has been inaccurate; or

(f) the day from which an alteration is shown in the list as having effect is wrong the may make a proposal if he was an interested person at any time during which the alteration in question had effect.

There is however no right to make proposals under:-

to make a proposal challenging the RV shown in a VO list alteration under 4(1)(d where the alteration in question gives effect to a decision of a valuation tribunal, the Lands Tribunal or a court determining an appeal or application for a review from either such tribunal in relation to the hereditament concerned Reg 4(3)(c);

or

(apart from 4(1)(e)) where a proposal to alter the same list in relation to the same hereditament and arising from the same facts has already been considered and determined by a valuation tribunal [other than where the valuation tribunal dismissed the appeal because every party other than the VO failed to appear under Reg 30(4) or by the Lands Tribunal Reg 4(3)(b)(ii). Reg 4(1)(e) requires that the list entry be shown to be inaccurate by reason of a decision in relation to another hereditament

4.7 Material Change of Circumstances (England 2010 and earlier, Wales 2017 and earlier)

Reg 4(1)(b) allows a proposal to be made to reflect a material change of circumstance.

The term is defined in Regulation 3 as follows:-

“material change of circumstances”, in relation to a hereditament, means a change in any of the matters mentioned in paragraph 2(7) of Schedule 6 to the Act”. (Local Government Finance Act 1988).

The matters referred to above are defined in the 1988 Act as follows:-

(a) matters affecting the physical state or physical enjoyment of the hereditament;

(b) the mode or category of occupation of the hereditament;

(c) the quantity of minerals or other substances in or extracted from the hereditament;

(cc) the quantity of refuse or waste material which is brought onto and

(d) matters affecting the physical state of the locality in which the hereditament is situated or which, though not affecting the physical state of the locality, are none the less physically manifest there; and

(e) the use or occupation of other premises situated in the locality of the hereditament.

4.8 Service of notices

General

Regulation 22 deals with the service of notices. This includes service of proposals on the VO and also service of notices by the VO.

Service of proposals on the VO

When completed, a proposal is to be served on the VO for the billing authority area in which the hereditament concerned is situated. Service is effected by delivering it by hand or sending it to the VO’s office either by post or by fax or email. If either fax or email is used it must be sent to the email address or fax number given for that purpose by the VO.

Electronic service is only effected when the transmission is capable of producing the text of the notice or proposal.

Where a hereditament straddles two or more BA boundaries, the proposal must be served on the VO who holds the rating list in which the hereditament is shown.

Service of notices by the VO

Where the VO is required to serve notice of a list alteration or a certificate of transitional relief the regulations state that service is to be on the ratepayer, but invalidity notices under reg 8 are to be served on the “proposer”. Where the proposal is made by an agent the invalidity notice must therefore be served on the agent, who is treated as having the authority of the interested person to accept service of such a notice, having already received authority to make the proposal.

When service has to be made on the ratepayer this may cause difficulty if the ratepayer’s agent wishes to receive the notice or a copy. It is VO policy not to issue a courtesy copy of a VO notice of list alteration under Regulation 17(2) to a retained agent, despite a limited time under Regulation 5 in which proposals may be made challenging a VO’s alteration made within 6 months before the end of a list.

Reg 22(1)(a)(ii) provides that a notice may be served by delivering it to the person on whom it is to be served or to any other person authorised by him to act as his agent for the purpose.

This does not oblige the VO to serve documents on a particular person but where an agent wishes the VO notice to be served on him/ her instead of the ratepayer the VO may exercise discretion and serve on the agent instead (but not in addition to) of the ratepayer. However, before doing so the written authority of the ratepayer must first be obtained. The following form of words to be used has been approved by the HMRC Solicitor and should be used:

“I/we are writing to you to authorise… [agent company name…whose normal office address is…] to act as my/our agent in accordance with Regulation 22(1)(a)(ii) of the Non domestic rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) [or (Wales)] Regulations 2009 SI 2268 [or WSI 758] to receive any notice required or authorised to be served by the Valuation Officer for the […Billing Authority], which would otherwise have been served on me/ us as ratepayer, in respect of [property address as above or properties identified in the attached schedule], for the purposes of the 2005 rating list.

This authorisation will remain in place for the duration of the 2005 rating list until such time as I/we notify you that it no longer applies. In the event that agent company name are no longer instructed to act on my/our behalf, or the property(ies) identified in this authorisation is/are no longer occupied or owned by me/us, it shall immediately cease to have effect.”

The authorisation must be signed and dated by the ratepayer or company, rather than the agent.

Reg 22(1)(c) provides that a notice may be served by leaving it at or forwarding by post to the usual or last known place of business of the recipient or, in the case of a company, its registered office.

Reg 22(1)(d) provides that service is effected by delivering a notice to some person on the premises to which the notice relates or, if there is no person on the premises to whom it can be delivered, then by fixing it to some conspicuous part of the premises.

Reg 22(1)(e) provides that where a hereditament to which the notice relates is a place of business of the person on whom it is to be served, service is effected by leaving the notice at or forwarding it by post addressed to that person at that place of business.

In the vast majority of instances where it is impossible to serve a notice by post to a hereditament (e.g. an advertising right, a car park or a mast) it is anticipated that the registered office of the occupier will be ascertainable either from information displayed on the hereditament or from the Billing Authority and so service of a notice may be effected by sending to the registered office of the company.

Where it is necessary to serve a notice by means of personal service or by attaching it to the premises, the person designated to do so should personally satisfy themselves that the notice specifically relates to the property in question, place the notice in a window envelope (ensuring the name and address of the addressee is clearly visible) and attach it in a prominent position to the premises.

After service a copy of the notice should be endorsed with the words “Served by hand on [date to be inserted]” or “Affixed to the premises on [date to be inserted]”. The person who served or affixed the notice should then sign and date the copy and print their name and grade below the signature. This document should be retained in case of dispute over correct service.

4.9 Multiple property proposals

Regulation 6(4) allows that a proposal may deal with more than one hereditament only where:

(a) the proposal is seeking to merge several hereditaments into a single unit or, to reconstitute several hereditaments to form a different number of separately rateable hereditaments; or

(b) the person making the proposal does so in the same capacity for each

hereditament, all of which must be within the same building or, if not in a building are within the same curtilage.

4.10 VO not to alter proposals

Proposal forms, or documents purporting to be proposals, are documents with a legal status

4.11 Transfer of proposal to different representative

As soon as caseworkers become aware that a company has gone into liquidation, been taken over or merged into another company they should inform the Central Ops Support team by email.

There are a number of situations where it may be suggested to the VO that a proposal originally submitted by a professional representative (PR “A”) should be resolved by discussion with a different professional representative (PR “B”):

a) Where PR “A” has gone into administration. This can include where a Liquidator or Administrator has been appointed,

b) Where a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) has been entered into so that PR “A” has been wound up and a new company PR “B”, possibly with a similar name, has acquired the business assets.

c) Where PR “B” has acquired the whole business of PR “A” and absorbed it into the existing company of PR “B”. This may be described by both PR companies as a ‘merger’ but is more accurately a takeover.

d) Where PR “A” has ‘merged’ with PR “B” to form a new company PR “C”.

e) Where PR “A” purports to simply transfer the proposal to PR “B” whilst PR “A” remains in existence.

f) Where PR “A” engages PR “B” to deal with the proposal on behalf of PR “A”.

In considering each of the above scenarios it is important to bear in mind the following principles:

A proposal can only be made by or on behalf of an Interested Person (IP) and a professional representative has no rights of their own in relation to the proposal.

An IP must give consent to the transfer of representation from one PR to another.

Where an IP instructs a PR company to make a proposal on its behalf, the instructions form a contract between the IP and the PR company.

Where a PR goes into administration, the Administrator stands in the shoes of the company directors and can do anything the directors could have done.

The table below sets out the options for each of the scenarios in a) – e) above:

Agents seeking to takeover an existing proposal must be in possession of a written Authority To Act (ATA) document provided by the Interested Person. The Agent must provide a copy of the ATA to the VOA when requested.

A valid letter of Authority to Act (ATA) for the purposes of Rating Settlement must be in writing and will need to:-

Identify the Interested Person and the authorised agent.

Be signed and dated by the Interested Person (IP)

State that the agent is authorised to prosecute and settle rating appeals on behalf of the IP and to take over appeals lodged for the IP by other agents.

Specify which Rating Lists the ATA applies to.

Specify which hereditaments the ATA applies to.

State the duration for which the ATA will be in force.

4.12 Appointment of more than one Professional Representative (Agent)

Where an Interested Person (IP) appoints more than one Professional Representative (PR) to make duplicate proposals in respect of a list entry for the same hereditament, the second proposal received will be invalid (see 3.3.4 above).

However, because the first proposal ‘belongs’ to the IP and not the PR who submitted it, the VO should establish whether the IP intends the first or second PR to act in respect of the valid proposal.

In cases of dispute between the two PR as to who is instructed to act the VO should send VO7276). If the IP confirms that instructions have been transferred to the second PR then the contact details in RSA for the valid proposal should be amended to show the new PR details and case remarks noted. On no account should the second proposal be made valid.

4.13 Professional Representative (Agent) company dissolved or ‘disappears’

Where a Professional Representative (PR) company has been wound up or can no longer be contacted the IP should be sent (either VO7271 or VO7272 as appropriate) to find out whether they wish to deal with the appeal directly or to appoint a different PR status. They should not, in any circumstances, be amended or altered by the VO.

4.14 Insolvency of occupier

Where the IP themselves becomes insolvent and enters administration there is no direct action required by the VO in respect of discussion of outstanding proposals/appeals. A PR may continue to represent the IP unless the appointed Administrator removes or transfers instructions, and this applies whether or not the IP continues to occupy the relevant hereditament. Where a new occupier takes occupation of the hereditament they will be a party to the appeal and are a required signatory for any agreement.

A new occupier includes a company formed under a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) which may give the appearance of being the same occupier (that is with the same or similar trading style and product branding) but which exists as a different registered company.

4.15 Requests from Agents

Agents may request the VO to treat as invalid any proposals made on behalf of a particular client by another agent. As a uniform approach, VOs should ask that the client writes to the VO to confirm the instructions. The letter should set out the extent of the instruction

4.16 Uninstructed Agents

Where a VO discovers an agent made a proposal ostensibly on behalf of an interested person but without instructions at the time, then this proposal is invalid and will be dealt with in accordance with the guidance set out below. The proposal will be invalid regardless of how it has been registered, if the lack of instruction is discovered later than 4 weeks after receipt then the proposal must be withdrawn by the agent or declared invalid by the VT.

Where VO’s become aware that an agent has attempted to make proposals on several occasions without instruction, this should be reported to Technical Advisers - NSU. Consideration will then be given to whether the particular agent should be asked to supply a copy of client’s instructions when submitting any future proposal.

Where an agent was instructed at the time of making the proposal but later uninstructed, the Occupier or other Interested Party can instruct a new agent to deal with the proposal or act for themselves.

4.17 Proposal received relating to a property not in the VO’s area

General rule

As a general rule, if the property which is the subject of the proposal is not within the VO’s area, it should be returned to the maker with a covering letter VO 7052 explaining that the proposal has not been properly served, and giving the name and address of the relevant VO to whom it should be sent. First class post should be used.

Exception to rule

An exception to this general rule will arise when a proposal is served on a VO in respect of a property falling within a Billing Authority area for which that VO is no longer responsible as a result of VOA restructuring or a local government boundary change.

Ratepayers or their agents will not necessarily be aware at the time of completing and posting a proposal that the responsibility for the particular Billing Authority area to which the proposal relates has been transferred to another VO from the one shown on previous correspondence or in the local telephone directory.

So as not to disadvantage a ratepayer or agent who, in good faith, has served a proposal on whom he/she believed to be the correct VO, the VO receiving the document should indicate the date of its receipt in that office using the official office date stamp. (The VO receiving the document will, in effect, be acting as agent for the correct VO).

The VO concerned should not carry out any test to determine the validity of the proposal.

After date-stamping the proposal, the VO should immediately forward it, by first class mail, to the VO now having responsibility for the Billing Authority area to which the proposal relates.

At the same time, the person who submitted the proposal should be informed in writing of the action taken. The name, address and telephone number of the office to which the proposal has been sent should be quoted so that the person concerned can make further enquiries to the appropriate VO should the need arise. This letter should not include any statement from which the recipient could claim that it has been accepted as a valid proposal. The question of validity is a matter for the correct VO to decide when it is received in his or her office.

The VO receiving the re-directed proposal should adopt as its date of receipt the date it was received by the first VO, as shown by the official date stamp already impressed on the form.

Offices affected by branch restructuring or a local government boundary change will need to be particularly vigilant when opening post to watch out for proposals which have been re-directed in accordance with these instructions. VOs concerned will need to ensure that such proposals are registered as having been received on the date they were received by the first VO, and not the date subsequently received by the correct VO. In these circumstances, therefore, the VO now responsible for the Billing Authority area concerned should not impress his or her official office date stamp on the proposal because this may subsequently lead to confusion as to the date of its receipt.

These arrangements should be operated for a period of twelve months, beginning with the day responsibility for the Billing Authority area was transferred to the appropriate VO. After that period has expired, any incorrectly served proposal should be returned to the sender with a covering letter giving the name and address of the VO on whom it should properly be served.

4.18 Information to be included on a proposal

General

It is important to distinguish between information that is statutorily required and other information which, although not statutorily required, nevertheless helps to support the proposal.

For example, the official proposal form asks for the name of the Billing Authority, the assessment number and the rateable value shown in the list. These are not statutory requirements. Nevertheless, they help to “identify the property to which the proposal relates”.

The omission of such information will not disqualify a form or a letter from being accepted as a proposal provided the property to which it relates can be identified from the address and, if stated, its description.

Any proposal which fails to meet the statutory requirements in Regulation 6 of SI 2009 No 2268 or SI 2005 No 758 (W.63) for the 2005 and subsequent lists should be treated as invalid.

Important differences between the Regulations: England and Wales

The requirement to state the rent under Regulation 6 (vi) in Wales differs slightly than under Regulation 6 (vii) in England. This is due to an amendment to the English Regulations made by SI 2006 No 2312 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/2312/regulation/2/made) which was not adopted by Wales).

This means that in Wales, the rent is not required to be stated for grounds of appeal under Reg 4 (1) j and k;

(j) Not partially domestic or exempt - the list should not show that some part of a hereditament which is shown in the list is domestic property or is exempt but does so.

(k) Merger or reconstitution of hereditaments - property which is shown in the list as more than one hereditament ought to be shown as one or more different hereditaments

This is in addition to the exceptions in England, namely for those proposals seeking; deletion; an address change; a description change or a proposal that a statement required has been omitted.

A further difference is that in England only, a relevant authority, or a former interested party submitting a proposal under grounds c, d or f, do not have to state the rent in the proposal.

If a proposal contains all the information statutorily required and it is served within the appropriate statutory time limit specified in Regulation 5 it should be accepted as valid.

5.0 Statutory requirements 2017 lists Wales

This section should be read in conjunction with the section below relating to validity of proposals.

The statutory requirements for a valid 2010 list proposal are set out in Reg 6.

England 2010

The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/2268/made)’ (SI 2009/ 2268) (‘Appeal’ Regulations)

Wales 2017

The Non-domestic (Alteration of Lists and Appeals)(Wales) Regulations 2005 [WSI 2005 No.758 (W.63)] (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2005/758/contents/made)

5.1 Statutory requirements (2017 Wales)

(i) Name, address and capacity of maker of proposal [reg 6(1)(a) and (b)]

These should be clearly stated on the proposal. Note that there is no obligation for the form to be signed. If any of this information is not stated the proposal should be treated as invalid.

(ii) Identify the property to which the proposal relates [reg 6(1)(c)]

The address of the property should be shown in box 1 on the proposal form. It may also be necessary to have regard to the description in box 2, especially if there is more than one hereditament at the same address, in order to satisfy the statutory requirement to “identify” the property.

It is emphasised that whilst it should be possible for the VO to positively identify the property to which the proposal is intended to relate with a reasonable degree of certainty, it is not a requirement that the address on the proposal should match exactly with the entry shown in the List. The decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Northamptonshire LVC, ex parte Anglian Water [1991] RA 93 gives some useful guidance.

The following extract from the decision of Nicholls L J at page 101 is useful.

“In my view … the adequacy of identification of the subject hereditament on a proposal, … falls to be determined according to the ordinary principles of construction: how would the proposal reasonably be understood by those on whom the proposal or a copy is to be served? In answering the question, as with all questions of construction, common sense is to be applied plentifully.”

and later in the same paragraph

“The proposal form is itself intended to be adequately definitive of the property affected.”

Any special knowledge of the VO was judged to be irrelevant. In Davey (VO) v O’Kelly [1999] RA 245 the members, Mr Clarke and Mr Francis found on page 254

“We hold that the originating proposal in this appeal is to be construed by reference solely to the wording of that document. We cannot look outside the proposal. We cannot have regard to extrinsic material, that is to say any special knowledge or understanding of the valuation officer … The test is: how would the proposal reasonably be understood by those on whom it was served, disregarding any extrinsic material.”

Although O’Kelly was dealing with the scope of proposal rather than identification of the hereditament, it is considered that the principle holds good for all aspects of a proposal. Consequently VOs should follow the guidance from the Court of Appeal in Anglian Water and the Lands Tribunal in O’Kelly and must not rely on their special knowledge as VOs or their office records to supply necessary details which the proposal omits. If the VO is not able to identify the property in question or has serious doubts about its identity, the proposal should be treated as invalid.

If in addition to the address the proposal includes the RV and assessment number and there is any discrepancy between these which raises doubt as to the correct identity of the property appealed against, no assumptions should be made.

The proposal should be treated as invalid. Discrepancies between address, assessment number and RV are most likely to become apparent at input stage at which point the appropriate action must be taken.

(iii) Identify the manner in which the List is proposed to be altered (reg 6(1)(d))

The manner in which the proposer intends the list to be altered should be readily apparent from the proposal.

(iv) Other information (reg 6(1)(e))

Other information to be provided depends on the grounds on which the proposal is made.

(i) The proposal should include a statement of the grounds for making the proposal and,

(ii) in the case of a proposal made on the grounds set out in Regulation 4(1)(a), (c) or (g) to (o) - the proposal should include a statement of the grounds for making the proposal and a statement of the reasons for believing that those grounds exist;

(iii) in the case of a proposal made on the grounds set out in Regulation 4(1)(b) - (a material change in circumstances) - the proposal should include a statement of the nature of the change in question and of the date on which the proposer believes the change occurred;

(iv) in the case of a proposal made on any of the grounds set out in Regulation 4(1)(d) or (f) - (an inaccurate VO list alteration) the proposal should include a statement identifying the alteration in question, whether by reference to the day on which the alteration was made or otherwise;

(v) in the case of a proposal made on the grounds set out in Regulation 4(1)(e) - (a tribunal decision relating to a different hereditament) - the proposal should include the following information:

a) the identity of the hereditament to which the decision relates;

b) the name of the tribunal or court which made the decision;

c) the date of the decision;

d) the reasons for believing that the decision is relevant to the RV or other information to which the proposal relates; and

e) the reasons for believing, in light of the decision, that the RV or other information to which the proposal relates is inaccurate.

(vi) in the case of a proposal made on the grounds set out in Regulation 4(1)(f) - incorrect effective date above - the proposal should include a statement of the day proposed in place of the day shown in the list.

(vii) In the case of a proposal made on the grounds set out in Regulation 4(1)(a) to (g) and (i) to (l), the proposal should include information on the amount payable each year, as at the date of the proposal, in respect of the lease, easement or licence to occupy as required under Regulation 6(3).

Except when the proposal is made by a relevant authority or by a person who was an interested party at the time of a previous amendment or alteration and has reason to believe that a ground set out in paragraph (1) (c), (d) or (f) exists [an inaccurate VO list alteration or amendment to the Rating (Plant and Machinery) (England) Regulations 2000 (b)]

5.2 Other Requirements (2017 Wales)

Occupier’s name and address

The official proposal form asks for the name and address of the occupier (if different from the property address). This request in itself is NOT a statutory requirement.

Nevertheless, it is designed to assist the VO to fulfil the statutory requirement to serve a copy of the proposal on the ratepayer where the proposal has been made by someone other than the ratepayer (Reg 9(1)(a) refers).

In most cases, the omission of this information can be remedied by serving a copy of the proposal on “The Occupier” at the property. Where, however, it is obvious that the occupier’s address cannot be that of the hereditament, and the proposal has been made by another person (an “interested person”), the proposal should first be formally registered. The VO should then ask the proposer to provide the name and address of the occupier as soon as possible to enable a copy of the proposal to be served on that person.

6.0 Invalidity (England 2010 and earlier, Wales 2017 and earlier)

This section should be read in conjunction with the above dealing with statutory requirements for information to be included in proposals.

For the 2005 List and subsequent lists Regulations 5 allows a proposal to alter a list compiled on or after 1 April 2005 to be made at any time before the day on which the next list is compiled, so before 1 April 2021 for 2017 list proposals.

In addition a proposal on the grounds set out in Regulation 4(1)(d) or (f) [an inaccurate VO list alteration] may be made before the day the next list is compiled or within six months of the date of the alteration, whichever is the later; therefore the latest possible date will be 1 October 2021 for a VO notice served on 1 April 2021.

In respect of Regulation 4(1)(e) [a tribunal decision relating to a different hereditament] these proposals may not be made later than30 September 2021.

6.1 Legal procedure

Treatment of proposals which the VO regards as invalid is set down in Regulation 8. In such cases an “invalidity notice” must be served on the maker of the proposal - form VO 7048.

A decision on whether or not to serve an invalidity notice on the proposer should be made within 4 weeks of the VO’s receipt of the proposal. An invalidity notice must state the reasons why the VO considers the proposal to be invalid and must advise as to the effect of Regulations 8(6) to 8(9) - see below.

Identification of invalidity after expiry of 4 weeks from receipt

England 2010

If the VO becomes aware that a proposal is in some way defective and therefore invalid after the expiry of 4 weeks, in England it is still possible to serve an invalidity notice, with the consent in writing of the proposer. Provided the original was not invalid because it was made out of time or because it was a duplicate proposal one bite of the cherry rule this will allow the opportunity to serve a further proposal to correct any defect in the original. The further proposal must be on the same grounds as the original.

From 1st April 2015 the alteration to the effective date regulations mean that withdrawing and resubmitting a corrected proposal will result in a restricted effective date for the 2010 list.

A re-submitted proposal in response to an invalidity notice correcting the defect in the original proposal will have the same effective date as the original proposal. We will therefore need to follow the process to seek written consent under the NDR regulations in all cases where invalidity is identified after 28 days from receipt.

It is possible to seek written consent to serve an invalidity notice from the maker of the proposal at any time before the VTE has listed the proposal as an appeal for hearing. Once the appeal has been listed for hearing the Valuation Tribunal must be requested to determine validity as a preliminary issue at the hearing.

For the procedure to be adopted when the VO is of the opinion a proposal is invalid, see Procedures Manual.

This is not provided for in the Welsh regulations and validity would have to be argued before the Valuation Tribunal if not accepted as invalid by the proposer and withdrawn.

6.2 Reasons for invalidity

A proposal will normally be classified as invalid where:-

(a) it is made by a person who is not entitled to make the proposal in question (ie. he/she is not an “interested person” as defined in the regulations) or

(b) it is served on the VO after the statutory time limit has expired, if any such time limit is specified in the regulations or

(c) the proposal does not contain all the information statutorily required or

(d) lack of a causal link in proposals made citing a tribunal decision

(e) it duplicates the grounds of a previously validly made proposal lodged by or on behalf of the same interested person with the same effective date.

6.3 Withdrawal of invalidity notice by VO

Where a VO has served an invalidity notice in accordance with Regulation 8(1) he may at any time withdraw it by serving notice in writing on the proposer. If the proposer has already lodged an appeal against the invalidity notice (see below) the appeal is automatically treated as having been withdrawn.

6.4 Responses to invalidity notice

Within 4 weeks of service of the VO’s invalidity notice (unless the VO withdraws it) the proposer may serve on the VO either:-

a) a further proposal in relation to the same hereditament to replace the initial, invalid proposal. If between serving the invalid proposal and serving the further proposal any period in which a valid proposal was to be served under Regulation 5 has expired, the further proposal will be regarded as having been made within the allowed time period - Regulation 8(6)(a).

or

b) if the maker of the proposal disagreed with the VO as to the invalidity of the proposal, appeal against the invalidity notice to the relevant valuation tribunal by serving a notice of disagreement with the VO’s notice of invalidity - form VO 7044.

It should be noted, however, that if the initial (invalid) proposal is already out of time no further proposal as described above may be made.

Similarly, if the further proposal made under Regulation 8(6)(a) is itself invalid then the proposer may not make a new proposal in response to the VO’s notice of invalidity - Regulation 8(7)(b) refers. There is only one opportunity to make a new proposal to correct the reason for invalidity.

Additionally, it should be noted that service of a further proposal under Reg 8(6)(a) does not affect the material day of the proposal. Both material day and effective date fall to be determined by reference to the date of service of the substitute original proposal.

6.5 Service of a further proposal

If a proposer opts to serve a further proposal under Regulation 8(6)(a), the original proposal (which the VO regarded as being invalid) is treated as having been withdrawn - Regulation 8(8).

The further proposal must be received by the VO within four weeks (28 calendar days) of the date of service of the invalidity notice. The date of service of that notice is to be assumed to be the fourth working day after posting where second class mail is used. “Working days” are Monday to Friday, excluding any Bank Holidays. Saturday does not count as a working day.

If a fresh proposal is served on the VO after the four weeks’ time limit has expired it will be treated as unrelated to the earlier invalid proposal and will not benefit from the provisions of Reg 8(6)(a) mentioned in paragraph 6.5(a) above.

If it is suggested that the date of service of the VO’s Notice of Invalidity was actually later than that calculated by the VO and that as a consequence, the fresh proposal served on the VO is in fact within the 28 day time limit, details should be submitted to CEO via the Technical Adviser.

6.6 Notice of Disagreement

Where the maker of the invalid proposal decides to appeal against the VO’s decision the “Notice of Disagreement”, VO 7044 or equivalent, must be served on the VO within four weeks (28 calendar days) of the date of service of the VO’s invalidity notice. (The date of service of that notice is assumed to be the fourth working day after posting).

Where, within four weeks of the service of a Regulation 8(1) invalidity notice, a “Notice of Disagreement” (VO 7044) is received by the VO appealing against the invalidity notice and, having re-examined the facts, the VO then decides to treat the original proposal as validly made, a letter (VO 7313) to this effect should be sent to the maker of the invalid proposal withdrawing the Invalidity Notice.

6.7 Transmission to Clerk to VT

Unless the VO withdraws the Regulation 8(1) notice within four weeks of service of the notice of disagreement, he or she must transmit to the Clerk to the VT notification of:-

a) the entry in the list (if any) which it is proposed to alter,

b) the grounds on which the proposal was made, and

c) the reasons for his opinion that the proposal has not been validly made.

6.8 Proposal subsequently regarded by VO as valid

Where a Notice of Disagreement has been transmitted as an appeal to the VT, Regulation 8(5) provides that the VO may still withdraw the invalidity notice if a re-examination of the facts results in a revision of the opinion that the proposal was invalid and should after all be treated as a valid proposal. In such circumstances a letter (VO 7313) to this effect should be sent to the maker of the invalid proposal withdrawing the Invalidity Notice.

The Clerk to the VT must also be notified of the withdrawal of the Invalidity Notice as required by Reg 8 (11).

6.9 Suspension of operation of Regulations 9-13

Once the VO has served a notice of invalidity under Regulation 8(1), until the invalidity issue is finally decided, Regulations 9-13 (service of copy proposals, withdrawal, settlement or reference to the VT) do not apply – Reg 8(14).

If it is finally decided that the proposal is valid, Regulations 9-13 will apply as if the proposal had been served on the VO on the date of that final decision. For this purpose the date of the final decision under Regulation 8(15) is –

(a) the date the Invalidity Notice is withdrawn; or

(b) the VT having determined the appeal, the date on which the period for appeal from the VT to the Lands Tribunal expires (28 days) if no such appeal is made; or

(c) the date the Lands Tribunal determines the appeal.

6.10 Validity as an issue at VT

Regulation 8(16) provides that nothing done under Regulation 8 shall prevent any party to an appeal to the VT under Regulation 13 contending that the proposal to which that appeal relates is invalid.

It will sometimes be the case that a proposal was not identified as being invalid when served on the VO and as a consequence, no invalidity notice has been served. This does not preclude the VO raising the question of validity after the four week period in which an invalidity notice should have been served.

If the VO becomes aware of a proposal, the validity of which is questionable but no notice under Regulation 8(1) has been served before listing of the appeal by the valuation tribunal, both the ratepayer or agent and the valuation tribunal should be advised that it is intended to raise validity as an issue at valuation tribunal. Invalidity should then be taken as a preliminary issue at tribunal.

If the tribunal do not uphold the VO’s contention as to invalidity then under Regulation 33 of The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009 SI 2009 No. 2269 the tribunal may not immediately go on to hear and determine the substantive appeal unless all parties agree.

Under normal circumstances the VO should decline such consent.

In summary, where proposals exist which in the view of the VO are invalid, whether or not the Regulation 8 procedure has been triggered, the validity issue should be argued at VT. This will either be in accordance with Regulation 8 or, if Regulation 8 has not been used, by arguing invalidity as a preliminary issue under Regulation 33 of SI 2009 No. 2269.

6.11 Late identification of invalidity by the VO

The need to identify invalid proposals at an early date and then to apply the Regulation 8 procedures cannot be over stated. However, there are some circumstances where invalidity is not apparent purely from the information included in the proposal. In such cases invalidity has of necessity to be raised at a later date.

The revised procedures introduced for 2005 and subsequent rating lists permit service of notice of invalidity outside the initial 4- week period from receipt with the written consent of the proposer. Guidance on the approach is provided in the NDR Procedures Manual IPP Registration Procedures.

Once an appeal has been listed for a hearing of the valuation tribunal, it is not possible to serve an invalidity notice, but it is still possible to raise the invalidity issue as a preliminary matter at the hearing.

The case of Mainstream Ventures Limited v Woolway (VO) [2000] RA 395 identified two different situations in this context. These are:-

(a) where a VO has not served an invalidity notice because there is no reason to suppose that the proposal is invalid since it appears to satisfy all the statutory requirements for a valid proposal but new information is later discovered suggesting that the proposal is invalid

(b) where, on a proper consideration of the proposal, it does not satisfy all the statutory requirements for a valid proposal but it has not been identified as such and therefore the Regulation 8 procedure has not been adopted. Nor has validity been raised at a valuation tribunal hearing.

In case (a) the President of the Lands Tribunal considered that the validity question can properly be argued at a substantive hearing.

In case (b), whilst the president considered that a VO could raise the validity issue before the Lands Tribunal he did observe that

“Unless a valuation officer follows the invalidity notice procedure he may be at risk of a finding that the appeal has proceeded on the basis of a common assumption that the proposal is valid and that it would be unconscionable for him to argue at this particular stage that it is invalid. I do not think, however, that an estoppel can arise where, as here, the invalidity consists of the absence of any power on the part of the proposer to make a proposal”.

In the Mainstream Ventures case the maker of the proposal did not satisfy the requirement of being an interested person and so, notwithstanding the VO’s failure to raise validity at an earlier date or to raise it in valuation tribunal, the Lands Tribunal found in favour of the valuation officer’s contention of invalidity, the president saying

“The provision as to who may make a proposal, creating as it does substantive statutory rights and duties, is not in my judgment capable of being overridden by the conduct of those who may have an interest in the proceedings that have been set in train by a proposal.”

The implication is that where the maker of the proposal has the power to make it (ie. he is an interested person), the proposal on the face of it does not satisfy the statutory requirements for a valid proposal but the valuation officer has failed to recognise this and raise it as an issue until the substantive Lands Tribunal hearing, there is a likelihood that the invalidity argument will not be upheld.

In a similar case, albeit under the Council Tax legislation, the High Court determined that where a proposal had been made outside the time limit specified in the regulations, even though invalidity had not been argued by the Listing Officer at valuation tribunal, the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal - see Scrivener v Wojcik (LO) and Rochford District Council [2001] RVR 273.

Turner J held (page 249) that

“the valuation tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and there is no jurisdiction whether by agreement …. or by estoppel ….”

These cases emphasise the need for validity to be considered at all stages of the appeal process and not just at initial receipt.

6.12 Further guidance on late identification of invalidity arising from the Upper Tribunal decision Kendrick v Mayday Optical (2014) RA

In April 2012 the President of the Valuation Tribunal, Professor Graham Zellick, considered the validity of two proposals containing inaccurate rental information. The default was recognised by Valuation Officer sometime after their initial receipt.

In his first judgement (Imperial Tobacco) the President undertook an overview of the legislation and provided a number of helpful observations.

The President noted that Regulation 8(1) states that where the VO is of the opinion that a proposal has not been validly made, the VO may serve an invalidity notice. This indicates that the VO has discretion in the manner he treated proposals and in his view if the errors or omissions were insignificant or trivial they should have no impact on a proposals validity.

He then went on to identify four different situations involving a departure from the regulatory requirements; and although the VO was able to challenge invalidity outside the Regulation 8 process in his opinion there was only two categories where a challenge of this nature should be successful.

The first category is where errors or omissions of substance impair the VO’s ability to consider the appellant’s case and which may cause an adverse impact on an assessment of the correct RV. It was this criterion which was closely examined by the Professor in the Imperial Tobacco case and the subsequent Mayday Optical case. In both cases the issue presented was whether the inaccurate rental detail should result in the proposals being treated as invalid. The President considered that the test encapsulated two questions:

(a) Has there been substantial compliance?

(b) Has it caused the VO any prejudice?

When he applied this reasoning to the facts of the cases before him the President decided that both the Imperial Tobacco and Mayday Optical proposals should be treated as valid.

The rent on the Imperial Tobacco hereditament was derived from a ground lease and had no relevance to the rateable value. Consequently it was hard to say the VO had been prejudiced by the inaccurate information provided on the proposal form. In the Mayday Optical case the rent was stated on the proposal to be £9,500, and this was held by the President to be an error in light of the FOR evidence that stated the rent passing as being £10,000 per annum.

Nevertheless applying his own criteria the President held that the proposal should be treated as invalid. The VO appealed this decision and it was eventually overturned by the Upper Tribunal as reported in Kendrick v Mayday Optical (2014) RA …. Counsel for the VO sought for the purpose of the appeal that the Upper Tribunal should proceed on the basis of the President’s analysis but contended that he had wrongly applied his own tests in finding the proposal was valid.

The Judge agreed with counsel’s submission that the 5% discrepancy in the rental declared was significant and this did not comply with the requirements of the legislation and further the VO was likely to be prejudiced by the error as this could lead to an under assessment of the subject property and potentially others like it. According on appeal the proposal was declared invalid.

The second category involve in the words of the President “errors or omissions so fundamental that the proposal cannot in any circumstances be treated as valid…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.”

In order to illustrate the point the President made reference to two case precedents: R v Northamptonshire LVC, ex parte Anglian Water Authority a Court of Appeal decision which dealt with the requirement to properly identify the property to which the proposal relates, and Mainstream Ventures v Woolway in which the proposer was not qualified to make a proposal as he was not the occupier.

Another case that illustrates a fatally flawed proposal is Esau Brothers v Rodd (1992) RA 257, in which case a proposal was served outside the time limits set by the legislation.

The President also drew attention to the comment of the President of the Lands Tribunal in Tuplin (VO) v Focus (2009) RA 226 in which the Valuation Officer’s late claim that a proposal was invalid due to an absence of causal link was rejected. In this case the failure to serve an invalidity notice deprived the appellant of making good the deficiency by serving a further proposal because of the intervening closure of the list. In these circumstances the failure to serve an invalidity notice within the prescribed period may be a good indication that the proposal was not invalid.

In summary then the Valuation Officer is able to challenge the validity of a proposal outside of the provisions of Regulation 8 but the circumstances in which this can be done are restricted to those detailed above. Each situation has to be considered on its own merits and it is recommended that if you have any doubt then you should contact your Technical Adviser who will assist you in following the correct approach.

6.13 Validity and proposals citing 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 with there needing 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 valid proposal has been included, validity can still be challenged.

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 ratepayer 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 it is submitted that 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.

In Tuplin (VO) v Focus (2009) RA 226 (http://www.landstribunal.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=609) 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. Since the burden of proving invalidity falls upon the VO, invalidity notices should therefore only be reserved for the most obvious cases.

6.14 Operational procedures

Operational procedures relating to proposals considered to be invalid are dealt with in Procedures manual.

7.0 Copies of proposals (England 2010 and earlier, Wales 2017 and earlier)

7.1 Service

Regulation 9(1) requires the VO within six weeks to serve a copy of any proposals served on him on the following persons or bodies if they are not themselves the maker of the proposal -

a) the ratepayer in relation to the hereditament to which the proposal relates; and

b) the relevant authority (defined in Regulation 2(1) as “the authority in whose area the hereditament is situated”), where that authority

(i) is a special authority, or

(ii) has served notice on the VO that it wishes to receive a copy of a class or classes of proposal, and the proposal falls within any such class.

The City of London is a special authority for the purposes of this regulation and will require a copy of every proposal.

“Special authority” is defined in s 144(6) LGFA 1988.

If an agent contends that the copy proposal required under Reg 9(1)(a) should be sent to them rather than the ratepayer.

Billing authority rights under regulation 9(1) are covered in more detail in [RM 1:4:7].

8.0 Inspections (England 2010 and earlier, Wales 2017 and earlier)

Circumstances where early inspections are required

Proposals requiring prompt action

In addition to the general requirement for VOs to deal with proposals as soon as possible, proposals referring to situations:

of a temporary nature; or

of which the effects are temporary;

or where hardship is claimed

Must be singled out for an early inspection. Letters in a similar vein, not necessarily yet classified as proposals, should be treated with the same degree of urgency.

Part 4B Programming

1.0 Programming policy

The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) receives all proposals for amending the rating lists. If the Valuation Officer (VO) cannot agree that a proposal is well founded, or cannot otherwise resolve the proposal the VO will be transmit it to the VT as an appeal. Management of appeals is by programming.

The VOA administers and manages the programming of rating appeals for the mutual benefit of all parties to the process including ratepayers (and their representatives), the Valuation Tribunal Service and the Valuation Tribunals for England and Wales.

Programming is the sensible grouping together of rating appeals to achieve settlement by planned negotiation, and to facilitate onward progression to Valuation Tribunal hearings for any cases that cannot be resolved in advance.

The VOA screen rating proposals to identify priority cases on receipt. These are cases where ratepayer hardship is apparent or where the proposal identifies physical changes to the property. The VO allocates priority cases for immediate attention.

The VO will settle these cases by discussion wherever possible. If this is not achievable the VO will provide the appellant with their considered decision within 2 months of receiving the proposal. It will then be for the appellant to determine whether to continue with the case.

The VO programmes any outstanding cases for formal discussion. The appellant can also approach the Valuation Tribunal Service to request an early listing which may avoid the need for programming.

2.0. General approach to programming

Sub-programmes (s-progs) are groups of appeals with a timeframe for discussion set by the start and target dates. The VOA composes s-progs in accordance with these principles:-

the VOA will usually give 2 months notice of a s-prog start date

the VO will include proposals in s-progs on receipt if it is sensible to do so. For example if an appropriate s-prog is due to start soon after a proposal is received by the VO it would be timely and in the ratepayers interests to include that proposal for discussion. In these cases the notice period will be reduced

S-progs will ordinarily be 2 months or more in duration. No s-progs should be less that 1 month long

S-progs involving Rating Surveyors Association (RSA) central discussion will be at least 4 months long and planned in accordance with the agreed framework

the VO will plan and manage s-progs involving any other centrally coordinated class of property according to the agreed framework

the number of cases in any one s-prog will vary according to the profile of outstanding appeals.

3.0 S-prog composition

The VO has to balance the need to progress appeals promptly with the aim of grouping similar appeals together. When the VOA receives appeals in bulk the VO can and should create very specific s-progs. When the VO receives appeals intermittently and without connection to other appeals it will be necessary to relax the composition of a s-prog to enable timely progression.

S-progs ideally group together appeals on similar properties which are valued in the same way. The exception to this would be where the common theme is a [material change of circumstances (MCC) e.g. a road works scheme, when it is sensible to group these appeals together irrespective of the property type.

The VO could adopt the following common themes for s-progs:-

valuation schemes. The VO has assessed properties by using valuation schemes. Valuation schemes are often related. This would therefore be a sensible starting point for composing s-progs

property type, if other physical factors are less value significant e.g. appeals on licensed property

property characteristics, where these are value relevant e.g. industrial properties of a particular age profile across a defined geographical area

location, where this is the significant factor that links the appeals in the s-prog, for example appeals on retail properties in a specified town.

The VO may also have to compose very general s-progs to ensure ratepayers receive prompt attention if is not possible to group the appeals as set out above and achieve the speed of handling which all parties will wish to see.

4.0 Material change in circumstance (MCC) appeals and s-progs

Ideally the VO will consider MCC appeals after any underlying base value appeals have been resolved, and at a point in time when all parties can reasonably assess the impact of the MCC.

However the VO must also consider the needs of ratepayers who may be suffering hardship as a result of the MCC, and the need to progress all rating appeals as promptly as possible.

There is therefore an expectation that planning will allow some flexibility. It is intended that the s-prog notice period will bring out any issues around s-prog planning.

5.0 Consultation

The VO will usually give 2 months notice of a s-prog start date. This is to allow appellants the opportunity to consider the planned timetable, and to raise any concerns in advance of the start date.

The VO will consider adding appeals to a s-prog when the request is made in advance of the start date. For example this may be appropriate if an appellant or professional representative has only recently decided to make a proposal.

The VO will also consider constructive feedback about s-progs from interested parties e.g. if appellants consider the timing of an MCCs-prog to be premature they should contact the VO to explain their reasoning.

The VO will take account of all contributions during the notice period, and if necessary review the timing and composition of any relevant s-progs. Any changes must account for the impact on all parties (including the VO). The VO will consult where appropriate.

6.0 Deferment

The intention of the notice period is to provide appellants with the chance to organise their activities to make themselves available for the discussion period. There may be occasions when this is problematic.

The appellant (or their professional representative) should contact the VO promptly to discuss any deferment need. In considering any deferment requests the VO will have to take account of the capacity of the appellant to meet general programming requirements.

The expectation is that a large national surveying practice should be able to meet programming plans whereas an unrepresented appellant or sole practitioner may be more likely to experience difficulties in meeting competing priorities. Requests must always provide full reasoned details to allow fair consideration. The VO will consider each request individually.

If an appellant is unable to participate in a planned s-prog it may well be that their own appeal(s) are deferred but the remainder of the plans should proceed. Deferment of a whole s-prog will be rare. Any such occurrences would require full consultation with all appellants.

The VO will also consider requests for deferment during the discussion period. The broad assumption must be that appellants (or their professional representatives) are ready and able to participate in the discussion period but appellants may encounter sudden changes in circumstances that prevent this. There may also be developments during the discussion period which make deferment is the most sensible course of action e.g. a significant Tribunal decision. The VO will consider all cases on their individual merits.

The VO must take into account the needs of all parties to the appeal process when considering deferment options, particularly when the notice period is foreshortened. Any final decision rests with the VO.

Part 4C Settlement of proposals - England - Pre CCA

Executive summary covers the settlement of 2010 list proposals (England) only. It includes well founded, withdrawal and agreement. Settlement of PICO relevant proposals and VT consent orders.

Decision (England only)

1.0 Legislation

References to regulations in this section of the Manual are to

2010 Rating List ENGLAND

(a) The Non-domestic rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals)(England) Regulations 2009 [SI 2009 No 2268] (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/2268/contents/made) unless otherwise specified

(b) The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/2269/contents/made)’ (SI 2009 / 2269) (‘Procedure Regulations’)

2.0 Background

2.1 Types of settlement of a proposal without a decision

Listed below are the main ways a proposal / (Appeal 2010 England) may be settled prior to a VT decison:

(a) Well Founded proposals

(b) Withdrawal of proposals

(c) Withdrawal (prior to transmission to VT as an appeal) - 2010 Rating List

(d) Withdrawal (after transmission to VT as an appeal) - 2010 Rating List

(e) Settlement by agreement

(f) Settlement of ‘Relevant’ Proposals/Appeals by agreement (2010 Rating list - PICO proposals/appeals)

(h) Valuation Tribunal Consent Orders

2.2 (withdrawn)

3.0 Methods of settlement

3.1 Well Founded Proposals

Reg 10 (SI 2009/228)

The authority to well-found a proposal is set out in Regulation 10:

” 10 Proposals agreed by valuation officer

Where the valuation officer is of the opinion that a proposal is well-founded, he shall as soon as reasonably practicable alter the list accordingly. “

Most well founded proposals will be to give effect to matters that have previously been established or to delete an entry from a Rating List.

It is recognised that a proposal to include a hereditament in the List (or for a split or merger) may also be treated as well founded.

These cases are likely to be rare in view of the need to propose correct entries in respect of the description, address, rateable value, effective date and other matters required by section 42 of LGFA 1988 - ‘the Act’- and the list must show if the property is a composite hereditament or partially exempt.

There is nothing in the Appeal regulations to prevent the well founding of a proposal after it has been transmitted to the Valuation Tribunal as an appeal (2010 Rating List) or from well founding a proposal or appeal prior to a VT hearing (2017 Rating List) .

The Rating List must be amended as soon as reasonably practicable in accordance with the proposal and the well founded notices must be served in accordance with Reg 17 (SI 2009/2268) on all the necessary parties, within four weeks of altering the list.

3.2 (withdrawn)

3.3 Withdrawing of Proposals: 2010 Rating List

3.3 (a) General

Regulation 11 enables the withdrawal of a proposal before transmission of an appeal.

Regulation 19(1) (a) The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals)(Procedure) Regulation 2009 [SI 2009 No.2269] (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/2269/contents/made) enables the withdrawal of an appeal before the commencement of a VT hearing by notification to the VTE (a) in writing or (b) orally at the hearing.

3.3 (b) Withdrawal forms

The Regulations do not prescribe any form for withdrawals. A letter or written notice from the maker of a proposal clearly stating an intention to withdraw unconditionally should be accepted as valid. (If the case has reached appeal stage, see para 4).

Whenever possible form VO 7300 (RM Appendix 2:6:1) should be used for the withdrawal of a proposal If the withdrawal is in the form of a letter, it should be attached to a form VO 7300 and the space for “The proposer” to be marked “see letter attached”.

If a form of withdrawal imposes conditions or assumptions then it should not be accepted.

3.3 (c) Timing of withdrawal

A proposal can be withdrawn at any time before the appeal stage by obtaining the signature of the person who made it. However, if the proposal was made by a person in the capacity of ratepayer and that person is no longer the ratepayer for the hereditament at the date of withdrawal, or, if there is an ‘interested person’ who has served notice on the VO (Regulation 11(3))

3.3 (d) Parties to a withdrawal

Whenever it is intended that a proposal shall be withdrawn before it is transmitted to the VT as an appeal, the person who made the proposal may withdraw it by serving written notice on the VO (Reg 11(1)).

Where the VO has received a withdrawal of a proposal, prior to its referral as an appeal to the VT, from an occupier, who remains in occupation, the caseworker should arrange to have VO 7300 fully completed and signed by or for the VO and processed in accordance with NDR Procedure manual.

3.3 (e) Change of ratepayer

Where a proposal made by the ratepayer of the hereditament is to be withdrawn before the appeal stage, and that person is no longer the ratepayer, it cannot be withdrawn unless the ratepayer at the date of withdrawal has also given consent in writing (Regulation 11(2) ).

If the present ratepayer declines to give written consent to the withdrawal of a proposal made by a previous ratepayer, then the withdrawal cannot take effect. In this situation the proposal will have to remain outstanding and be transmitted to the VT as an appeal.

If the proposer was a tenant and the hereditament is unoccupied at the date of the withdrawal, the signature of the owner will be required. However if the original proposal was made by an owner/occupier and the hereditament is unoccupied at the date of the withdrawal provided the appeal stage has not been reached the signature of the proposer is sufficient if there is no change of ownership.

3.3 (f) Interested persons

Where the VO has received a withdrawal of a proposal, prior to its referral as an appeal to the VT, but an interested person has served notice to take part in the proceedings in relation to the proposal, under Reg 11(3), the VO must serve notice of the withdrawal on that interested person.

Reg 11(4) confers a right on that interested person, to serve written notice on the VO and may take over the original proposal. Such a notice by the interested person has to be served on the VO within six weeks beginning on the day on which the VO served the Reg 11(3) notice of the withdrawal of the proposal on the interested person.

No time limit is specified for the service by the VO of a withdrawal of proposal notice under Reg11(3).

However, the VO should serve the notice on the interested person immediately after receiving the withdrawal of the proposal using letter VO 7057 and form VO 7058, enclosing a copy of the original proposal.

Where VO 7058 Notice is returned to the VO by an interested person, within the time limit of six weeks, the proposal is still treated as withdrawn. However the person who served the VO 7058 on the VO becomes a new appellant if that person would at the date of the proposal have been competent to make it.

The VO 7058 Notice should be attached to a blank proposal form and, as per regulation 1(4)(a), registered in the RSA as a new proposal with a case remark to indicate that the proposal is made following the notice by an interested person under Regulation 11(4) pursuant to the original (now withdrawn) proposal.

It should be treated as if it were made in the same terms as the original (now withdrawn) proposal but, for administrative purposes, made on the day on which the notice was served on the VO.

Under regulation 11(4)(b) any resulting alteration shall have effect from the day which would have been applicable had there been no withdrawal under this regulation.

In the event that this proposal becomes an appeal, a copy of the VO 7058, together with a copy of the original (but now withdrawn) proposal should be forwarded to the VT.

Where VO 7058 is returned to the VO after the time limit of six weeks the interested person should be advised that it is out of time and no further action taken on the matter.

**If the VO 7058 is returned within the time period but the VO considers that the interested person would not have been competent to make the original (now withdrawn) proposal, then the Regulation 8 invalidity procedures should be applied.

3.4 Withdrawal of proposals (after transmission to VT as an appeal)

3.4 (a) Notification to Tribunal

Regulation 19(1) (a) The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals)(Procedure) Regulation 2009 provides that a party may give notice of the withdrawal of its appeal or any part of it by sending or delivering to the VTE a written notice of withdrawal.

In practice this will continue to be the standard letter VO7300, which after all parties to the appeal have signed, the VO will forward to the Clerk to the VTE.

When an appeal is withdrawn between the last electronic download to the Tribunal and the commencement of the hearing, it will be necessary for offices to agree locally the method of notification to the Clerk.

The regulations do not require written notification nor evidence of the withdrawal but a standard letter VO 7308 may be used if required. If, however, the Clerk of a particular VT requests that copies of the signed VO 7300 withdrawal form be supplied, VOs may comply accordingly.

Once all the parties to the appeal have signed the form VO 7300 it should be signed and dated by or for the VO and retained on the case file. The case should then be cleared as a withdrawal case on RSA and progressed to completion.

3.4 (b) Parties to a withdrawal (after transmission to VT as an appeal)

Before a proposal, which has reached the appeal stage, can be withdrawn under Regulation 11 The Non-domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals)(England) Regulations 2009 and Regulation 19(1) (a) The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals)(Procedure) Regulation 2009, the written agreement (where appropriate) of the following persons is required:-

a. the valuation officer;

b. the proposer;

c. subject to Regulation 11(2), the current ratepayer, at the date of the withdrawal of the proposal

3.4 (c) Notifying interested persons

Where an appeal to the VT is withdrawn under Regulation 19(1) (a) The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals)(Procedure) Regulation 2009 or Regulation 12 The Non-domestic rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals)(England) Regulations 2009 it is unnecessary for the VO to serve a withdrawal of proposal notice in accordance with Regulation 11(3) because any person who has exercised the right to be a party to the proceedings in respect of the proposal will already have consented to the withdrawal as required under Regulation 12.

3.4 (d) Notifying the Billing Authority

There is no requirement to notify the Billing Authority that a proposal has been withdrawn. Billing Authorities will be advised of the position via the normal electronic transmission of update schedules in accordance with NDR Procedures manual.

3.5 Agreements of proposals/appeals

*2010 Rating List

For agreement of relevant proposals in the 2010 list please see below.

3.5 (a) General

Settlements of proposals or appeals by agreement are dealt with under Regs 12 and 19A The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals)(Procedure) Regulation 2009 as amended by The Valuation Tribunal for England, Non-domestic rating and Council Tax (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2011.

3.5 (b) Agreement forms

Various forms of agreement, VO 7302 - VO 7307 (see below) have been introduced for use when agreements are made to alter the rating list depending on the type of alteration that is being agreed.

Where these are generated electronically care must be taken that the RSA or the Defence Support Package data is fully completed to ensure the correct documents are produced.

Forms are also available as templates through Word / new / templates / rating

3.6 (c) Standard covering letter for agreement form

A standard letter, VO 7301, reproduced as RM Appendix 2:6:12, should be used to forward two copies of the agreement form to individual parties for their signature. A third copy of the form, showing the signature(s) obtained to date (if any), should be enclosed for retention by the party concerned.

Agreement forms should be signed by all the requisite parties as listed below. Before agreement forms, signed by at least one party, are forwarded to another party for signature, a copy of the original should be taken and kept on the case file.

This procedure should be followed each time a signature is added to the forms and the previous photocopy destroyed. In this way the signatures already obtained will be readily available should a partly-signed form be lost in transit or not returned.

3.5 (d) Parties to an agreement

The persons whose written agreement is required are set out in Regulation 12(2) The Non-domestic rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals)(England) Regulations 2009 No 2268 as follows:

a. the valuation officer;

b. the proposer;

c. subject to Regulation 12(3), the occupier, at the date of the proposal, of any hereditament to which it relates;

d. the ratepayer, at the date of the agreement, in relation to any hereditament to which it relates;

e. subject to Regulation 12 (3), any interested person or relevant authority who -

(i) would at the date of the [proposal]have been competent to make the [proposal]in question, and

(ii) not later than two months after the day on which the proposal was received by the VO, informs the VO in writing that the IP or the authority (as the case may be) wishes to be a party to the proceedings in respect of the proposal.

When the appropriate agreement form has been signed by all requisite persons mentioned above and returned to the Local Office, the caseworker should ensure that the agreement form is signed, and dated, by (or for) the VO.

3.6 (d) Missing signatories

By virtue of Regulation 12 (3): The persons referred to for signatures do not include

(a) the occupier of the hereditament at the date of the proposal who is no longer in occupation of any part of it at the date on which all the other persons mentioned above have agreed, provided that the VO has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain that former occupier’s whereabouts, and they have not been ascertained, or

(b) any IP referred to in paragraph (e) above who cannot be contacted at the address supplied to the VO.

Where

(i) the period of two weeks to give effect to altering the list would expire before the period of two months mentioned in paragraph (2)(e)(ii), and

(ii) the VO has not received a request under paragraph (2)(e)(ii) within that two-month period,

If any of the other required signatories are unobtainable, the proposal or appeal will have to be determined by the VT.

3.7 (e) Agreement of Billing Authority

Since 1 April 1993, BAs do not automatically become a party to a proposal simply because they were competent themselves to make a proposal on the same grounds.

An Authority must now also serve written notice on the VO within 2 months of the proposal being made stating that they wish to be a party to the proceedings in respect of that proposal.

Only if the BA serves notice and would have been competent to make the proposal can the Authority become involved in the proceedings for that proposal.

This provision should not be confused with the requirement under Regulation 9(1) of the 2009 Regulations for BAs to serve notice requiring copies of proposals.

3.8 (f) Time limits for giving effect to agreement

Where the parties to a proposal reach agreement in writing on an alteration to the list before the end of the period of two months from the day the proposal is served on the VO, the List should not be altered during that period. This is to ensure that the rights of interested persons, who may during that period under Regulation 12(2)(e) serve notice on the VO of their wish to become a party to the proceedings, are preserved (see Reg 12(3)).

If, between the date of the agreement and the end of the two months’ period, an interested person gives the VO notice of a wish to be a party to the proceedings, that person’s written agreement will be necessary before effect can be given to the alteration to the list already agreed with the other parties. If such agreement is not forthcoming the proposal will have to be settled by a VT decision.

If no person has become a party to the proceedings by the end of the two months’ period, the VO should alter the list to reflect the agreement within 2 weeks in accordance with Regulation 12(1)(a) and 12(3).

4.0 Notification to Tribunal (after transmission to VT as an appeal) (2010 List England)

Although there is a statutory requirement, under Regulation 19, The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals)(Procedure) Regulation 2009 for the Clerk of the VT to be notified that an appeal has been settled, there is no requirement for the VO to supply actual copies of agreement forms.

If, however, the Clerk of a particular VT requests that such copies be supplied, VOs may comply accordingly. Where an appeal has been constituted by means of electronic media transmission to the VT, notification of settlement will be automatically transmitted on the next weekly download.

Where an appeal has been constituted by means of manual transmission to the VT, the settlement of such cases will always be reported manually. Form VO 7308 should be used for this purpose.

5.0 (withdrawn)

6.0 Valuation Tribunal Consent Orders

After a Non Domestic Rating proposal has been transmitted or filed at the Valuation Tribunal, The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/ 2269) makes the following provisions:

Reg 35 (SI 2009/2269) Consent orders

(1) the VTE may, at the request of the parties but only if the VTE considers it appropriate, make a consent order disposing of the proceedings and making such other appropriate provision as the parties have agreed

(2) a consent order may provide for the alteration of a list and, where it does, shall specify the day from which the alteration is to have effect

(3) notwithstanding any other provision of these Regulations, the VTE need not hold a hearing before making an order under paragraph (1), or provide reasons for the order

This provision may allow for a list to be more accurately and correctly maintained than can be achieved by sole reliance upon service of a new proposal or issue of a Valuation Office notice.

Such further action may be restricted due to the expiry of legislative time limits or similar lack of legislative authority.

Reg 38 Orders other than consent orders eg for temporary allowances

An application for an order may typically be appropriate where the list requires an alteration following agreement for a material change that has an agreed duration (‘start’ and ‘end’ dates).

An order that specifies the day from which the alteration is to have effect, following the provisions in 35.(2), may also, within the ‘appropriate’ provisions of 35.(1), seek an end date for when those material circumstances subsequently ceased to have effect.

Such an order is compatible with Reg 38(7) that states:

38 (7)

‘where it appears that circumstances giving rise to an alteration ordered by the VTE have ceased to exist, the order may require the alteration to be made in respect of such period as appears to the VTE to reflect the duration of those circumstances’

PS 16 - end dating

Consolidated Practice Statement for the Valuation Tribunal for England 2022 (https://valuationtribunal.gov.uk/app/uploads/2022/04/Consolidated-Practice-Statement-1.pdf) effective from 1^st^ April 2022.

states that an application for a consent order may also include the date and entry that the list is to revert to if a temporary alteration is sought.

Rating Lists are shown on a daily basis and while it is not considered essential when applying for such an order to say what the entry should be for any day earlier or later than the period for which the alteration will have effect, the Valuation Office agrees that such a request may assist the VTE for clarification of the entry that must reappear in the list following a temporary alteration.

That entry should be the entry that is already shown in the list for the relevant day that immediately follows the last day for the agreed period.

Valuation Officers should not agree to a consent order that seeks to replace an entry that follows after such a period with a new entry that reflects a different material day and set of material circumstances to those that created the entry for the agreed period.

Such a different set of circumstances will be outside the scope of the proposal and the dispute that gives rise to the agreed temporary alteration. Such a different set of circumstances and grounds for any post period alteration cannot be seen as ancillary to the agreement.

i.e. The Rateable Value will revert to the original figure in the list as alterations/ inaccuracies in the RV cannot be taken into account by the VT.

If the list is inaccurate for the day and a period after the temporary alteration ceases, then such later period will have a different set of material circumstances and ‘matters’.

The list may be corrected for those later circumstances by a further proposal or VO notice. In the event that the legislation prevents either of those actions, the list will remain inaccurate. Such an outcome is wholly compatible with such legislative restrictions on the VO’s ability to maintain a list.

In order to maintain the correct entries to be shown in the list, RSA will require that the VO makes 2 clerical changes to give effect to the single agreement.

(1) To alter the list from the effective date of the alteration (the ‘start’) and

(2) another to fix the ‘end’ date.

That end date will be fixed by reinstating the entry that should remain in the list for the day immediately after the agreed period. Such administrative action is only to give full and proper effect to the agreement and is not a separate ‘alteration’ within the meaning and intent of the Regulations.

Form of request

PS 16 of the Consolidated Practice Statement for the Valuation Tribunal for England states that an application for a consent order must be in writing and include:

(i) the appeal number (ii) the existing entry in the list (rateable value, description and address) (iii) full details of the names of the parties (iv) the date(s) and amounts of any reduction together with the entry (if different) that the list is to revert to if a temporary reduction is sought

This meets the required criteria and should be used when applying for a consent order [Joint Application for a Consent Order under Reg. 35]

7.0 Completed casework

Caseworkers must complete all the necessary procedures in accordance with NDR Procedures manual and ensure matters including the issue of appropriate transitional certificates and valuation scale amendments or creation have been carried out as necessary.

8.0 Quality assurance checks

Quality Assurance Checks must be carried out in accordance with NDR Procedures manual.

Part 4D Settlement of proposals (Wales) - Pre CCA

Executive Summary covers the settlement of proposals in Wales before a VT decision. It includes well founded, withdrawals, agreements and consent orders.

1.0 Background

This section is relevant to Wales only, a corresponding section for England is available from the main index.

2.0 Legislation

The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (Wales) Regulations 2005 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2005/758/contents/made) (SI 2005/ 758 (W.63)) (unless otherwise specified)

3.0 Well founded proposal

3.1 Giving effect to a proposal

The authority to well-found a proposal is set out in Reg 10:

Reg 10 “Proposals agreed by valuation officer”

“Where the valuation officer is of the opinion that a proposal is well-founded, he shall as soon as reasonably practicable alter the list accordingly. “

Most well founded proposals will be to give effect to matters that have previously been established or to delete an entry from a Rating List but it is recognized that a proposal to include a hereditament in the List (or for a split or merger) may also be treated as well founded.

These cases are likely to be rare in view of the need to propose correct entries in respect of the description, address, rateable value, effective date and other matters required by section 42 of LGFA 1988 - ‘the Act’- and the list must show if the property is a composite hereditament or partially exempt.

There is nothing in the Appeal regulations to prevent the well founding of a proposal after it has been transmitted to the Valuation Tribunal as an appeal.

The Rating List must be amended as soon as reasonably practicable in accordance with the proposal and the well-founded notices must be served in accordance with Reg.17 (SI 2005/ 758) on all the necessary parties, within four weeks of altering the list.

4.0 Withdrawal of proposals

4.1 General

Reg 11 enables the withdrawal of a proposal before transmission of an appeal and Reg 24(1) enables the withdrawal of an appeal before the commencement of a VT hearing.

4.2 Withdrawal forms

The Regulations do not prescribe any form for withdrawals. A letter or written notice from the maker of a proposal clearly stating an intention to withdraw unconditionally should be accepted as valid. (If the case has reached appeal stage, see para 4).

Whenever possible form VO 7300 should be used for the withdrawal of a proposal. If the withdrawal is in the form of a letter, it should be attached to a form VO 7300 and the space for “The proposer” to be marked “see letter attached”.

4.3 Withdrawal (prior to transmission to VT as an appeal)

4.3 (a) Parties to a withdrawal

Whenever it is intended that a proposal shall be withdrawn before it is transmitted to the VT as an appeal, the person who made the proposal may withdraw it by serving written notice on the VO (Regulation 11(1)).

A proposal can be withdrawn at any time before the appeal stage by obtaining the signature of the person who made it.

However, if the proposal was made by a person in the capacity of ratepayer and that person is no longer the ratepayer for the hereditament at the date of withdrawal, see para 4.3(b) below or, if there is an ‘interested person’ who has served notice on the VO (Regulation 11(3)), see para 4.3(c) below.

Where the VO has received a withdrawal of a proposal, prior to its referral as an appeal to the VT, from an occupier, who remains in occupation, the caseworker should arrange to have VO 7300 fully completed and signed by or for the VO. and processed in accordance with the NDR Procedure manual.

4.3 (b) Change of ratepayer

Where a proposal made by the ratepayer of the hereditament is to be withdrawn before the appeal stage, and that person is no longer the ratepayer, it cannot be withdrawn unless the ratepayer at the date of withdrawal has also given consent in writing (Regulation 11(2)).

If the present ratepayer declines to give written consent to the withdrawal of a proposal made by a previous ratepayer, then the withdrawal cannot take effect. In this situation the proposal will have to remain outstanding and be transmitted to the VT as an appeal.

If the proposer was a tenant and the hereditament is unoccupied at the date of the withdrawal, the signature of the owner will be required. However if the original proposal was made by an owner/occupier and the hereditament is unoccupied at the date of the withdrawal provided the appeal stage has not been reached the signature of the proposer is sufficient if there is no change of ownership.

4.3 (c) Interested persons

Where the VO has received a withdrawal of a proposal, prior to its referral as an appeal to the VT, but an interested person has served notice to take part in the proceedings in relation to the proposal, under Regulation 11(3), the VO must serve notice of the withdrawal on that interested person.

Regulation 11(4) confers a right on that interested person, to serve written notice on the VO and may take over the original proposal. Such a notice by the interested person has to be served on the VO within six weeks beginning on the day on which the VO served the Regulation 11(3) notice of the withdrawal of the proposal on the interested person.

No time limit is specified for the service by the VO of a withdrawal of proposal notice under Regulation 11(3).

However, the VO should serve the notice on the interested person immediately after receiving the withdrawal of the proposal using letter VO 7057 and form VO 7058, enclosing a copy of the original proposal.

Where VO 7058 Notice is returned to the VO by an interested person, within the time limit of six weeks, the proposal is still treated as withdrawn. However the person who served the VO 7058 on the VO becomes a new appellant if that person would at the date of the proposal have been competent to make it.

The VO 7058 Notice should be attached to a blank proposal form and, as per regulation 11(4)(a), registered in the RSA as a new proposal with a case remark to indicate that the proposal is made following the notice by an interested person under Regulation 11(4) pursuant to the original (now withdrawn) proposal.

It should be treated as if it were made in the same terms as the original (now withdrawn) proposal but, for administrative purposes, made on the day on which the Notice was served on the VO.

Under regulation 11(4)(b) any resulting alteration shall have effect from the day which would have been applicable had there been no withdrawal under this regulation.

In the event that this proposal becomes an appeal, a copy of the VO 7058, together with a copy of the original (but now withdrawn) proposal should be forwarded to the VT.

Where VO 7058 is returned to the VO after the time limit of six weeks the interested person should be advised that it is out of time and no further action taken on the matter.

If the VO 7058 is returned within the time period but the VO considers that the interested person would not have been competent to make the original (now withdrawn) proposal, then the Regulation 8 invalidity procedures should be applied

4.4 Withdrawal of proposals (after transmission to VT as an appeal)

4.4(a) Notification to Tribunal

Regulation 24 provides that the written consent to the withdrawal of an appeal by all parties must be given to the VO. When all the necessary consents have been received the VO should notify the Clerk of the Tribunal accordingly.

When an appeal is withdrawn between the last electronic download to the Tribunal and the commencement of the hearing, it will be necessary for offices to agree locally the method of notification to the Clerk DTS. The Regulations do not require written notification nor evidence of the withdrawal but a standard letter VO 7308 (RM Appendix 2:6:5) may be used if required. If, however, the Clerk of a particular VT requests that copies of the signed VO 7300 withdrawal form be supplied, VOs may comply accordingly.

Once all the parties to the appeal have signed the form VO 7300 it should be signed and dated by or for the VO and retained on the case file. The case should then be cleared as a withdrawal case on RSA and progressed to completion.

4.4 (b) Parties to a Withdrawal (after transmission to VT as an appeal)

Before a proposal, which has reached the appeal stage, can be withdrawn under Regulation 24(1)(b), the written agreement (where appropriate) of the following persons is required:-

a) the proposer;

b) subject to Reg 12(3), the occupier, at the date of the proposal, of any hereditament to which it relates;

c) the ratepayer, at the date of the withdrawal, in relation to any hereditament to which it relates; Reg 11(2)

d) subject to Reg 12 (3), any interested person or, for proposals made after 1 April 1993, relevant authority who

(i) would at the date of the proposal have been competent to make the proposal, and

(ii) has within two months beginning on the day on which the proposal was served on the valuation officer, served on that valuation officer notice in writing indicating a wish to be party to proceedings in respect of the proposal;

a. for all proposals made before 1 April 1993 the billing authority if, at the date of the proposal, that authority would have been competent to make it;

b. any other person who has been a ratepayer since the proposal was made and who has notified the Valuation Officer in writing that they wish to be a party to the appeal. Where:-

(i) the occupier of the hereditament at the date of the proposal is no longer in occupation of any part of it, at the date on which all the other persons mentioned above have agreed to the withdrawal, and the Valuation Officer has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain that person’s whereabouts, but they have not been ascertained, or

(ii) any interested person who has given notice as mentioned in Regulation 12(2)(e) cannot be contacted at the address supplied to the Valuation Officer (whether in the notice or otherwise), the agreement of that person is not required.

4.4 (c) Notifying Interested Persons

Where an appeal to the VT is withdrawn under Regulation 24(1), it is unnecessary for the VO to serve a withdrawal of proposal notice in accordance with Regulation 11(3) because any person who has exercised the right to be a party to the proceedings in respect of the proposal will already have consented to the withdrawal as required under Regulation 24(2).

4.4 (d) Notifying the Billing Authority

There is no requirement to notify the Billing Authority that a proposal has been withdrawn. Billing Authorities will be advised of the position via the normal electronic transmission of update schedules in accordance with NDR Procedure Manual.

5.0 Settlement of Proposals/Appeals by Agreement

Settlements of proposals or appeals by agreement are dealt with under Regulations 12 and 24(4).

5.1 Agreement forms

Various forms of agreement, VO 7302 - VO 7307 have been introduced for use when agreements are made to alter the Rating List. Where these are generated electronically care must be taken that the RSA or the Defence Support Package data is fully completed to ensure the correct documents are produced.

5.2 Standard covering letter for Agreement Form

A standard letter, VO 7301, reproduced as RM Appendix 2:6:12, should be used to forward two copies of the agreement form to individual parties for their signature. A third copy of the form, showing the signature(s) obtained to date (if any), should be enclosed for retention by the party concerned.

Agreement forms should be signed by all the requisite parties as listed below. Before agreement forms, signed by at least one party, are forwarded to another party for signature, a copy of the original should be taken and kept on the case file. This procedure should be followed each time a signature is added to the forms and the previous photocopy destroyed. In this way the signatures already obtained will be readily available should a partly-signed form be lost in transit or not returned.

5.3 Parties to an Agreement

The persons whose written agreement is required are set out in Regulation 12(2) as follows:

a) the valuation officer;

b) the proposer;

c) subject to Reg 12(3), the occupier, at the date of the proposal, of any hereditament to which it relates;

d) the ratepayer, at the date of the agreement, in relation to any hereditament to which it relates;

e) subject to Reg 12 (3), any interested person or, for proposals made after 1 April 1993, relevant authority who -

(i) would at the date of the proposal have been competent to make the proposal, and

(ii) has within two months beginning on the day on which the proposal was served on the valuation officer, served on that valuation officer notice in writing indicating a wish to be party to proceedings in respect of the proposal;

a) for all proposals made before 1 April 1993 the billing authority if, at the date of the proposal, that authority would have been competent to make it (see para 5.5 below);

b) additionally, any other person who has been a ratepayer since the proposal was made and who has notified the Valuation Officer in writing that they wish to be a party to the appeal.

When the appropriate agreement form has been signed by all requisite persons mentioned above and returned to the Local Office, the caseworker should ensure that the agreement form is signed, and dated, by (or for) the VO.

5.4 Agreements for temporary list alterations in the 2017 List after 1 April 2024

Where a reduction in RV or a deletion is warranted but the circumstances justifying the alteration cease to exist during the term of the relevant rating list, ordinarily the VO would end date the reduction/ deletion by raising a VOR.

After the first anniversary of publication of a new rating list, VO’s can face a problem agreeing a proposal for a temporary reduction or deletion in the former list since the regulations [Reg.14(7) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (Wales) Regulations 2005 SI 2005/758] prevent the VO from making a subsequent alteration end dating the proposed reduction.

In such circumstances, if a proposal or appeal was settled by agreement this would lead to an inaccuracy in the rating list from the date the circumstances justifying the reduction ceased to exist.

A solution is available as the VTW has the power to end date reductions in relation to appeals.

Consequently, in this scenario where the circumstances justifying a reduction/ deletion have ceased during the life of the 2017 list, it will be necessary to seek an order from the VTW once the proposal has been transmitted to the VTW as an appeal.

The VO should set out to the proposer that whilst the VO agrees in principle to an alteration of the list, due to the closure of the list it will not be possible to amend the previous list once the works are concluded without a decision of the VTW.

The end dating of a temporary allowance can only be achieved by an order of the VTW under regulation 34(6) of the Appeals Regulation (SI 2005/758).

Therefore, the VO will decline to amend the list by agreement, and the Proposer will have to proceed to appeal to secure the list alteration.

At the hearing, the parties, or just the VO can request the VT determine the appropriate RV or deletion and also apply to the VTW for an order under Regulation 34(6) to provide an end date at for the reduction or deletion for the list entry to be restored.

Where a scheme of redevelopment or reconstruction has rendered a property incapable of beneficial occupation, regulation 34(6) should not be used to end date a deletion from the List if the property remains vacant after the works have been completed, unless the property becomes occupied or a Completion Notice has been issued.

If the parties do not agree the amended list entry, then the matter will have to proceed to appeal and determination by the VTW and the VO will submit the Regulation 34(6) request at the hearing.

5.5 Missing signatories

By virtue of Reg 12 (3):

Where:-

a) the occupier of the hereditament at the date of the proposal is no longer in occupation of any part of it, at the date on which all the other persons mentioned in Regulation 12(2) have agreed and the Valuation Officer has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain that person’s whereabouts, but they have not been ascertained, or

b) any interested person who has given notice as mentioned in Regulation 12 (2)(e) cannot be contacted at the address supplied to the Valuation Officer (whether in the notice or otherwise),

the agreement of that person is not required. If any of the other required signatories are unobtainable, the proposal or appeal will have to be determined by the VT.

5.6 Agreement of Billing Authority

5.6 (a) Proposals made before 1 April 1993 – 1990 Lists

References to regulations in this sub-paragraph are to the Non-domestic rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993 No.291) as amended unless otherwise specified.

Because of the transitional provisions (Reg 54) of the Non-domestic rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993 No. 291 the position of the BA remains as it was for the first 3 years under 1990 No. 582.

Agreement forms VO 7303 and 7304 must always be signed by or on behalf of the Billing Authority. This is because all BAs are competent to make proposals for the deletion or insertion of entries as set out in Regulation 4(1) of the 1993 Regulations. This also applies to any agreement, on whichever form is appropriate, resulting from a proposal made on the grounds of a material change of circumstances or a decision by the relevant VT, the LT or a superior court. The BA in such cases would have been competent to make the proposal under Regulation 4(4).

Agreements in respect of proposals against the compiled List (Regulation 4(2)), for splits, mergers or reconstitutions (Regulation 4(3)), by new ratepayers (Regulation 4(5)) and in respect of VO alterations (Regulation 4(9)) do not require the signature of the BA.

A requirement for the signature of the BA, if appropriate, will have been decided on initial registration of the proposal and the BA shown as a party to the proposal on the “APP Parties” report.

5.6 (b) Proposals made after 1 April 1993

Since 1 April 1993, BAs do not automatically become a party to a proposal simply because they were competent themselves to make a proposal on the same grounds. An Authority must now also serve written notice on the VO within 2 months of the proposal being made stating that they wish to be a party to the proceedings in respect of that proposal.

Only if the BA serves notice and would have been competent to make the proposal can the Authority become involved in the proceedings for that proposal.

This provision should not be confused with the requirement under Regulation 9(1) of the 2005 Regulations for BAs to serve notice requiring copies of proposals see RM Vol 2 Sec. 2 para. 8.

5.7 Time limits for giving effect to agreement

Where the parties to a proposal reach agreement in writing on an alteration to the list before the end of the period of two months from the day the proposal is served on the VO, the List should not be altered during that period. This is to ensure that the rights of interested persons, who may during that period under Reg 12(2)(e) serve notice on the VO of their wish to become a party to the proceedings, are preserved (see Reg 12(4)).

If, between the date of the agreement and the end of the two months’ period, an interested person gives the VO notice of a wish to be a party to the proceedings, that person’s written agreement will be necessary before effect can be given to the alteration to the list already agreed with the other parties. If such agreement is not forthcoming the proposal will have to be settled by a VT decision.

If no person has become a party to the proceedings by the end of the two months’ period, the VO should alter the list to reflect the agreement within 2 weeks in accordance with Reg 12(1)(a) and 12(4).

5.8 Notification to Tribunal (after transmission to VT as an appeal)

Although there is a statutory requirement, under Regulation 24, for the Clerk of the VT to be notified that an appeal has been settled, there is no requirement for the VO to supply actual copies of agreement forms. If, however, the Clerk of a particular VT requests that such copies be supplied, VOs may comply accordingly.

Where an appeal has been constituted by means of electronic media transmission to the VT, notification of settlement will be automatically transmitted on the next weekly download.

Where an appeal has been constituted by means of manual transmission to the VT, the settlement of such cases will always be reported manually. Form VO 7308 (RM Appendix 2:6:5) should be used for this purpose.

6.0 Completed casework

Caseworkers must complete all the necessary procedures in accordance with NDR Procedure Manual and ensure matters including the issue of appropriate Transitional certificates and valuation scale amendments or creation have been carried out as necessary.

7.0 Quality Assurance checks

Quality Assurance checks must be carried out in accordance with NDR Procedures Manual.

Part 4 Appendix 1 Notice of invalid proposal to alter the Valuation list - 2005 and later lists

Notice of invalid proposal to alter the Valuation list

Dear *

THIS NOTICE IS IMPORTANT AND REQUIRES YOUR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION

NOTICE OF INVALID PROPOSAL TO ALTER THE 2010 RATING LIST

**Billing Authority : * * *

**Reference Number : * * *

**Date Proposal received : * * *

**Address : * * *

Thank you for your proposal referred to above. In my opinion however the proposal is not valid because the proposal does not fulfil the statutory requirements.

Accordingly the document is returned to you as I do not intend to take any further action.

Should you disagree with my decision, the legislative provisions allow you, if you wish;

(1) Providing your proposal was made within the statutory time period, to make a fresh proposal in relation to the same property:

If you decide to make a fresh proposal, please complete the enclosed proposal form. The completed form must reach me within four weeks of the date of service of this notice.

Or

(2) Appeal against this notice:

If you maintain that the proposal is valid, you should appeal against this notice by completing the enclosed appeal form. It should be returned to me, together with the original proposal and a copy of this notice, within four weeks of the date of the service of this notice. A copy of any document or other evidence which supports your case that the proposal is valid should also be sent.

If your response convinces me that the original proposal is valid I will write and let you know. If I am not convinced, I will send the papers to the local Valuation Tribunal as an appeal by you against my refusal to accept your proposal. The Tribunal is an independent body and one of its tasks is to determine the validity of proposals.

Should you have any queries about this notice, please contact this office quoting the reference shown above.

Yours faithfully

Valuation Officer

Enc

VO 7048

Part 4 Appendix 2 Application for VT consent order

JOINT APPLICATION FOR A CONSENT ORDER UNDER REGULATION 35

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

VTE Consolidated Practice Statement - PS16

Choose List Year RATING LIST – CURRENT ASSESSMENT

With reference to a proposal to alter the Rating List received xxx made by xxx, the persons whose signatures appear below agree that there should be a temporary alteration to the Choose List Year Rating List entry to reflect the duration of those circumstances:

In the event that that entry may also be considered inaccurate, further separate action may be taken as appropriate within the statutory scheme and legislation.

The parties jointly apply to the Tribunal for a consent order under Regulation 35 of The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009 to give effect to this agreement.

Signed by: ……………………… Signed by:

Print Name: ……………………… Print Name: ………………………

Capacity: Valuation Officer Capacity: Occupier/Representative

Date: ……………………… Date: ………………………