Menu
The two appeals in Avison Young v Jackson (VO) and Moore (VO) v Great Bear Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 969 were heard together, and concerned the powers of the Valuation Tribunal for England (VTE), and the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (UTLC), to make orders for more than one rateable value alteration, arising out of a single appeal. Both cases concerned properties that had undergone major works of alteration or refurbishment during the life of the 2010 rating lists. Avison Young concerned offices in Gresham Street in the City of London, and Great Bear concerned a warehouse in Nottingham.
In each case, the occupier had undertaken works to the property and had made a proposal seeking a nil or nominal rateable value, or deletion of the assessment, during those works. By the time these proposals had come before the VTE as appeals, the 2010 rating lists had closed and the Valuation Officer’s powers to make alterations to those rating lists had also ended. The Valuation Officer (VO) had, in each case, requested the VTE to order the reduction or deletion of the assessment only for the period of the works, and to reinstate the original rateable value into the rating list from the date of the completion of the works, under powers given to the Valuation Tribunal under Regulation 38(7) of the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/2269).
In the Avison Young case, both the VTE and the UTLC made orders reducing the assessment from RV £1,830,000 to RV £0 during the works from 1 September 2014 to 22 January 2015, and reinstating the figure of RV £1,830,000 with effect from 23 January 2015. The ratepayer contended that the VTE had no power to restrict the period of the reduction.
In the Great Bear case both the VTE and the UTLC made orders deleting the assessment of RV £825,000 from the commencement of the works on 23 June 2014, but had declined to order reinstatement of that figure of with effect from completion of the works on 4 October 2014, on the basis that effect of the works had been to render that assessment materially incorrect – it should have been RV £745,000. The Valuation Officer contended that the VTE was wrong to decline to exercise its power to limit the period of the reduction in assessment.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by the ratepayer in the Avison Young case, and allowed the Valuation Officer’s Appeal in the Great Bear case. The reasons given were that the works, in each case, were temporary matters which fell within the ambit of Regulation 38 (7) and the VTE (and, by implication, also the UTLC) was therefore entitled in each case to limit the period of any reduction. The ratepayers could, in each case, separately have protected their position against any reinstatement of rateable value by making a separate proposal, and the relative financial significance of the VTE choosing to exercise (or not exercise) its discretion was a relevant matter to consider.
The consequence of this judgment is that ratepayers seeking a temporary reduction in assessment will also need to consider whether to take further action to protect their position at the end of any temporary alteration to their assessment. The Court of Appeal decision may encourage both the VTE and the UTLC to exercise the discretion allowed to them to order alterations in assessment for a limited period only, rather more widely than has hitherto been the case. Exercising this discretion in cases where the original rateable value is clearly no longer correct at the end of any temporary adjustment, as was the case in Great Bear, will involve a difficult balancing of the need to protect individual ratepayers against the effects of reinstating values that are no longer correct, with the need also to protect the generality of ratepayers against leaving in place reduced, or deleted, values that are also clearly no longer correct. The Court of Appeal judgement suggests that ratepayers may need to be involved in this process and cannot simply rely upon the Valuation Officer’s duty to maintain an accurate rating list.
