Decision Nº RA 46 2011. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 30-10-2013
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Andrew J Trott FRICS Sir Keith Lindblom, President |
| Date | 30 October 2013 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) |
| Judgement Number | RA 46 2011 |
|
UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER)
|
UT Neutral citation number: [2013] UKUT 0539 (LC)
UTLC Case Number: RA/46/2011
TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
RATING – alteration of rating list – proposal for alteration of the list – jurisdiction of the VTE – parties’ agreement on rateable value of single hereditament – jurisdiction of the Tribunal on appeal
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL FOR ENGLAND
BETWEEN
NICOLA JANE JOHNSON (VALUATION OFFICER) Appellant
and
H & B FOODS LIMITED Respondent
Re: 32 Stewarts Road,
London SW8 4DQ
and
44-54 (including 60-62) Stewarts Road,
London SW8 4DF
Before: Sir Keith Lindblom, President and Mr A.J. Trott F.R.I.C.S.
Sitting at: 43-45 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3AS
on 16 May 2013
Sarabjit Singh, instructed by the Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, for the appellant
The respondent did not appear and was not represented
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013
The following cases are referred to in this decision:
Leda Properties v Howells (V.O.) [2009] RA 165
Cheale Meats Limited v Ray (V.O.) [2012] RA 145
Re London & Winchester Properties Ltd.’s Appeal [1983] 2 E.G.L.R. 201
Verkan & Co. Ltd. v Byland Close (Winchmore Hill) Ltd. [1998] 2 E.G.L.R. 139
Galgate Cricket Club v Doyle (V.O.) [2001] RA21
Sole v Henning (V.O.) [1959] 3 All. E.R. 398
Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd. v Franks (1998) 76 P. & C.R. 230
Wellcome Trust Ltd. v Romines and another [1999] 3 E.G.L.R. 229
Ellerby v March [1954] 2 QB 357
British Petroleum Pension Trust Ltd. v Blake [1982] 2 E.G.L.R. 224
Cunningham v Morrison-Bell [1986] 1 E.G.L.R. 211
Arbib v Earl Cadogan [2005] 3 E.G.L.R. 139
DECISION
Introduction
-
This case has come before us at an interlocutory hearing. The appellant is the valuation officer. The respondent is the ratepayer, H & B Foods Limited. The appeal is against the decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England (“the VTE”), dated 15 August 2011, that the respondent’s factory at 44-54 and 60-62 Stewarts Road, London SW8 4DF and the respondent’s warehouse at 32 Stewarts Road were no longer to be regarded for rating purposes as two hereditaments but as a single hereditament, with a rateable value of £290,000, effective from 1 April 2005.
-
Two questions arise at this stage. The first question is whether the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in the appeal extends to hearing the matter “de novo”, as opposed to a review of the VTE’s decision. The second question is what the scope of a “de novo” hearing in the particular circumstances of this case would be, given that the rateable value of the single hereditament agreed by the parties before the VTE was incorporated in its decision, but that the appellant contends now for a higher rateable value than was then agreed. At the interlocutory hearing we raised a further question: whether the VTE itself had jurisdiction to determine the rateable value of the hereditament or hereditaments. On that further question we gave the parties the opportunity to make further submissions in writing, which they have now done.
-
The appellant was represented at the hearing by Mr Sarabjit Singh. The respondent did not appear and was not represented.
The respondent’s proposal
-
Proposals to alter the 2005 non-domestic rating list could be made on an electronic form, Form VO 7012 (2005). Guidance notes published by the Valuation Office Agency explained how the form should be completed. The form was in four parts, Parts A, B, C and D. Part B was for “Details of the Proposed List Alteration”. The guidance notes said this part of the form should be used to record “the nature of the change [proposed]”. Section 13 was for proposals relating to an existing rating list entry. There were six tick boxes for this section, tick boxes A to F. Tick boxes A to E were said to “identify many of the most commonly made alterations”. Tick box F was for “Other changes”. Part C of the form was to include the grounds for the proposed alteration. It contained two sections, section 15 and section 16. Section 15 asked for the reasons for the proposed alteration to be identified. For this section there were 12 tick-box options, tick boxes A to L. These, said the guidance notes, originated from the 15 reasons “given in law” as grounds for proposing an alteration to the rating list. The guidance notes said that only the one statement best describing the basis for the proposed alteration should be used, but that two or more might be selected “under certain circumstances”. Tick box A was to be used if it was contended that there is an inaccuracy in the rateable value or rateable values in the rating list on 1 April 2005. Tick box I was to be used if it was contended that two or more existing assessments should be combined in a single assessment – for example, when all the property was in the same occupation. Section 16 of the form was to be used to explain the “detailed reasons” for believing that the rating list was inaccurate.
-
The respondent’s proposal in this case, proposal number 347628, was made on the electronic form, on 15 April 2008, by its agent, Mr Gareth Jones B.Sc., F.R.I.C.S., M.C.I.Arb., I.R.R.V. of Jones Granville. In Part A of the form the address of the property was given as “44-54 (INCL 60-62), STEWARTS ROAD, LONDON, SW8 4DF”. In Part B, section 13, “Details of the Proposed List Alteration”, was completed with tick box F, in this way:
“F. Other changes PLEASE MERGE THE ASSESSMENT WITH 32 STEWARTS ROAD with effect from: 01-APR-05”.
In Part C of the form “Grounds for your proposed alteration” section 15 was completed by using two tick boxes, tick boxes A and I, thus:
“A – The Rateable Value(s) shown in the Rating List on 1 April 2005 was/were inaccurate
I – The properties should be shown as one or more different assessments”.
In section 16 the reasons why the respondent believed the rating list to be inaccurate were said to be:
“WE [BELIEVE] THAT THIS ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE MERGED WITH 32 STEWARTS ROAD LONDON SW8 4DQ”.
-
The appellant did not consider that the proposal was well founded. The disagreement between the parties was therefore referred to the VTE as an appeal by the respondent against the appellant’s refusal to alter the list. The appeal was heard by the VTE on 2 June 2011.
The VTE’s decision
-
The parties’ “Statement of Agreed Facts” for the hearing before the VTE recorded the rateable values of the two separate hereditaments, in this way:
“Rateable Values:
For the 2005 Rating List, the properties are currently assessed as follows:
32 [Stewarts] Road London SW8 4DQ Warehouse and Premises Rateable Value £132,000 with effect from 1 April 2005
44-54 (Incl. 60-62) Stewarts Road London SW8 4DF Factory and Premises Rateable Value £248,000 with effect from 1 April 2005
(the rateable value for this property was agreed with Mr. G. Jones on behalf of H & B Food Provisions Limited in respect of a proposal to alter the 2005 Rating List made on 20th July 2005).”
-
The “Statement of Agreed Facts” said nothing about the rateable value of a single, merged hereditament.
-
Evidence was given before the VTE by Mr Jones for the respondent, and by Mr Ivor Prevett B.Sc., M.R.I.C.S. of the Valuation Office Agency for the appellant.
-
In section 6 of his report prepared for the hearing before the VTE Mr Jones said it had been “agreed with the Valuation Officer” that if the hereditaments were not merged the rateable value for 32-42 Stewarts Road, with effect from April 2005, should be £128,000 [sic], and for 44-54 Stewarts Road, including 62 Stewarts Road, £248,000. Mr Jones also said that it had been “agreed with the Valuation Officer” that if the two hereditaments were merged a rateable value of £290,000 should apply, again with effect from April 2005.
-
In the “Introduction” to its decision the VTE said, in paragraph 1:
“The appeal arose from a proposal made by Jones Granville, representing H&B Foods Ltd, the occupier of the properties, and received by the valuation office (VO) on 15 April 2008. The properties were described in the 2005 rating list as a factory & premises with a rateable value of £248,000 and a warehouse & premises with a rateable value of £132,000, effective from 1 April 2005. The reason for making the proposal was that the two hereditaments presently shown in the rating list should properly be shown as a single hereditament.”
-
In paragraph 3 of its decision, when summarizing the respondent’s case, the VTE described the two properties in this way:
“Mr Jones referred to a statement of agreed facts. He advised the two properties were situated on the north and south sides of Corunna Terrace, which was a public highway linking Stewarts Road with Linford Street, the buildings were approximately 10.70m apart at their closest point. 32, Stewarts Road comprised a three storey building, constructed in 1995. The building had a total net internal area of 1527 sm, with an open, concrete surfaced yard adjoining the west side of the building. The building was used for production and ancillary purposes. 44-54 Stewarts Road comprised a two-storey...
To continue reading
Request your trial