Part 1 - CCA England

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

Part 1A – Onerview and Legislation - England

1.0 Background

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

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

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

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

There are separate rules for Wales that came into force from 1 April 2023 – see Part 3 Wales.

The legislation is very similar but there are some minor differences.

2010 Rating lists and earlier England

For Rating Lists in England Prior to 2017 ie the 2010 Rating List and previous lists the SI 2009/2268, prior to amendment by the 2017 and 2018 Regulations, apply.

• The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009’ (SI 2009/ 2268) (‘Appeal’ Regulations)

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

• The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists) and Business Rate Supplements (Transfers to Revenue Accounts) (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2018 (SI 2018/1193) (referred to in this section as the ‘PICO’ regulations)

2017 Rating list Wales

For Rating Lists in Wales, for 2017 Rating List and onwards, the original procedures as for the 2010 Rating List continue to apply.

Relevant Legislation

• The Non-domestic (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (Wales) Regulations 2005 [WSI 2005 No.758 (W.63)]

1.1 Changes post 2017 England - CCA

For consolidated regulations please use Lexis Nexis :- (how to register and use) : VOA - Ryde on rating

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

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

The main changes in the Regulations are summarised below:-

1) Introduction of VOA’s electronic portal to request and supply Check information (Reg 4B(5a)) or other manner as agreed with the VO. The portal is also used by the VOA for parties to register their identity and legal interest before a check can be submitted.

2) Grounds of proposal are set out in Reg 4 (largely as before but with the requirement for additional information that must be supplied)

3) Check process requirements (Reg 4A-F)

4) Challenge - Submission of proposals (Reg 6-7)

5) Incomplete proposals (Reg 8) replaces invalidity

6) Procedure for dealing with proposals (Reg 9)

7) Appeal process and changes to the grounds of Appeal (Reg13) via electronic Valuation Tribunal (England) (VTE) portal (Reg 13C)

8) Material day - changes (SI 1992/556)

9) Introduction of new Penalty processes for false information provided by the IP (Reg 9)

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

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

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

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

Summary of each stage of CCA (England 2017 only)

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

1.2 Check

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

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

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

1) the facts are agreed and the rating list is either confirmed as correct or altered when necessary to reflect the correct facts, or

2) the facts are not agreed but points in dispute are clearly established so they can be addressed at the Challenge stage, or

3) some of the facts are agreed and the rating list is altered to reflect the correct facts, where necessary, and the remaining points in dispute are clearly established so they can be addressed in Challenge.

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

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

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

1.3 Challenge (proposal stage)

If all the issues cannot be resolved in Check, if the IP is unhappy with the outcome of Check, or they wish to challenge the basis of the assessment or the valuation, they can make a Challenge once the check has been completed. The check and challenge must be made by the same IP.

Stages of making a challenge

a) IP makes a proposal

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

b) Provision of evidence with the proposal

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

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

c) VO reviews evidence

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

d) Issue of Decision Notice

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

When the Decision Notice is issued, or if 18 months has elapsed from the date of Proposal, this denotes the end of the Challenge stage and the 4 month window for appeal begins.

1.4 Appeal

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

Reg 13(A)

a) the VO has not altered the list

b) the VO has altered the list otherwise than in accordance with the proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appeal against the VTE decision is to the Upper Tribunal. (See RM section 7 for further details on this process).

1.5 End of list provisions

Legislation has been passed to introduce revised procedures in respect of the closing of the 2017 list and the new 2023 rating list being published.

2. Definitions

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

Interested Person - IP

a) This is defined in the Regulations as:-

for Crown Estate hereditaments - the Crown Estate Commissioners

b) for other hereditaments

• the occupier;
• any other person with a legal estate or equitable interest entitling possession to the hereditament or any part of it;
• any person having a qualifying connection with the occupier or person falling within (ii).

This may be where one company is a subsidiary of another, or subsidiaries of the same company, or is a holding company of the other.

This would not include a management company if they have no legal interest in the property.

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

If the hereditament has been demolished, then the person who was the occupier no longer qualifies as an IP.

Former Interested Person (former IP)

There are two types of former IP

(1) An individual or company who was an IP at the time a request for information at check was made (Reg 4B) but who has since left the property .

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

(2) An individual or a company that is no longer an IP, but had an interest in the property during the life of the list and left before submitting a request for information at check.

This type of former IP (2) can still make Checks, Proposals and Appeals at any time, but only in relation to the time they were an IP, and only on the following grounds:

(Reg 4(1))

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

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

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

IP in administration / receivership

Care must be taken when identifying the IP or former IP, particularly where a company has gone into administration or receivership or entered into a CVA agreement.

Under CVAs, a new company is formed and is a separate entity to the original company. If a check or challenge has been submitted by the original company, a new IP may exist in the form of the new company or new agents may be appointed, who will have to be included in the CCA process.

The administrators/receivers themselves stand in the shoes of the original company and can do anything the original company could do. They are the same IP as the original company and not a new IP.

If the business is sold on then depending on how the company is run then the Ratepayer may stay the same or a new IP (ratepayer) comes into existence.. e.g. if the assets and branding are sold on to a third party but not the company then the third party becomes a new ratepayer. If the original company as a whole is sold to the third party, then the third party continues as the original IP, there is no new ratepayer.

Party to an appeal

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

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

• every person whose agreement is required under Reg 12 and

• anyone who has been a ratepayer of the hereditament since the date of confirmation of check and has notified the VO before the hearing/determination that they wish to be party to the appeal.(Reg 2(3)(b)(ii))

• Proposer means the person making a proposal

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

• Relevant Authority means the authority in whose area the hereditament is situated

Smaller Proposer (see Reg 3A for further details)

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

a) they have a balance sheet total (assets) or turnover of less than or equal to £2 million or

b) where the IP or former IP has been in business for less than 12 months, the turnover requirement is adjusted according to the time they have been in business and the average number of employees is calculated based on the number of months the undertaking has been in business.

A small proposer means:

1. means a person who qualifies as a smaller proposer under Regulation 3A on the day the person provides a confirmation.

2. An individual who is not a business, community body or voluntary body, is always a smaller proposer.

Substitute Proposer

This may arise when the original proposer wishes to withdraw a proposal and an IP (who opted in within 8 weeks of the VO receiving the original proposal) objects in writing within prescribed time limits to it being withdrawn. In this circumstance the opted in IP becomes a substitute proposer. (See 7.2 below and regulation 11).

Valuation

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

‘VO Electronic Portal’

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

Working Days and time limits

A working day is any day except:

a) Saturday or Sunday

b) Christmas Day

c) Good Friday and

d) any Bank Holiday

A ‘month’ is taken to be a calendar month.

Schedule 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978 defines “month”  as a calendar month.

e.g: 1 Sept up to and including 30 September

Service of Documents

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

3.0 Legislation - England

Background

Separate regulations apply to Wales and these are show in a separate section below.

Check, Challenge, Appeal (CCA ) was introduced into in England from 2017 and in Wales from 2023.

Earlier lists are based on the original legislation prior to that date.

Relevant legislation Legislation – England

Acts
1988/41	Local Government Finance Act 1988	Main enabling Act
2023/53	Non-Domestic Rating Act 2023	implements major changes to CCA, Completion notices and MCCs
2021/8	Non Domestic Rating Lists Act 2021	authority for 2023 list
2018/26	Nursery Grounds Act 2018	Nursery grounds exempt
1996/13	Non-Domestic Rating (information Act) 1996	disclosure of information – BA and VO
	S115(1) General Rate Act 1967	Definition of hereditament
2018/25	Rating (properties in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (empty Dwellings) Act 2018	(PICO – now included in LGFA 1988)
Main CCA Regulations
2009/2268	The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009	‘Appeal Regulations’ NB amended by (SI 2017 /155) (main appeal regulations)
2017/155	The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2017	2017 regulations amending the original 2268
2009/2269	The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009	Procedure Regulations’ as amended by (SI 2017/156) & 2018 (SI 2018/911) (main procedural regulations for appeals and Tribunals etc)
2017/156	The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2017	(2017 amending the procedure regulations)
Other Regulations Affecting CCA
2018/911	The Non-Domestic (Alterations of Lists, Appeals and Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2018	amends 2017 regs – re any ratepayer of property being able to be party to appeals
2018/1193	Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists) and Business Rate Supplements (Transfer to Revenue Accounts) (Amendments etc.) (England) Regulations 2018	Reg 4AA added
2020/1403	The Non-Domestic Rating (Compilation and Alteration of Lists) (England) Regulations 2020	(BA to provide information to the VO)
2021/34	Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (dissolved Companies) Act 2021	MCC assumptions re Covid
2021/398	The Valuation for Rating (Coronavirus)(England) Regulations 2021	Covid
2021/579	Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2021	amends regs for virtual hearings
2022/217	The Non-Domestic Rating (Definition of Domestic Property)(England) Order 2022	amends domestic definition under 2B re self-catering letting periods
2022/1198	The Non-Domestic Rating (Alterations of Lists and Appeals) (England)(Amendments) Regulations 2022	(ie the End of list 2017 provisions reg 5A)
2022/1403	The Non-domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts)(England) Regulations 2022	Reval 2023 TR
2023/240	The Valuation for Rating (Coronavirus) (England) Regulations 2023	Assumptions re MCCs at 1/4/2021 re covid
Material Day and AVD
1992/556	The Non-Domestic Rating (Material Day for List Alterations) 1992	Material Day regs nb amended by SI 2017/155
2005/658	Non-Domestic Rating (Material Day for List Alterations) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2005
2014/2841	The Rating Lists (Valuation Date)(England) Order 2014	AVD for 2017 list
2020/832	The Rating Lists (Valuation Date) (England) Order 2020	AVD for 2023 list
Central List
2005/551	Central Rating List Regulations (England) Regulations 2005	Central List
2019/395	Central Rating List Regulations (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019	Central list
2022/1083	The Central Rating List and Telecommunications Apparatus (England)(Amendment) Regulations 2022	Central list
2019/700	The Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings)(Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019	Amends the definition of railway hereditaments in central list
Other
vte-guidance	Consolidated Practice Statement	directions
decisions VTE	VT decisions	VT decisions
UT procedure-rules	Upper Tribunal Chamber Procedure Rules	UT Rules
UT electronic-filing-	Practice Direction for Lands Chamber of the UT: electronic filing	Electronic filing UT
UT decisions/	UT Decisions	UT Decisions
expert witnesses	RICS – Surveyors Acting as Expert Witness 4th Edition
advocates	RICS – Surveyors Acting as Advocates 2nd Edition

---

3. Background

Before a proposal (Challenge) can be submitted a check must be made and completed by the same IP.

(Reg 4A(1)). The purpose of this is for the IP to confirm or correct the facts about the property on which the valuation is based.

3.1 2017 procedures

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

The provisions for the closing of the 2017 list and effects on CCA are explained in Appendix 6.

3.2 Check Procedure and VO Portal

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

The VOA has a digital portal to display and collect the relevant information about a property for the majority of check cases and must be used by the IP, however there is an alternative system for those who cannot access that portal may be used provided it has been prior agreed with the VO (Reg 4B(5)).

3.3 Check Stages

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

1) Request from the IP for information held by the VO

2) Provision of information and request for missing information from the VO to the IP

3) Confirmation of the accuracy of the information by the IP

4) Acknowledgement of the receipt of confirmation

5) Amending the rating list if necessary, completion and notification of check from VO to IP (Reg 4A(3) and Regs 4E &F)

3.4 Number of checks & proposals

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

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

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

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

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

A check is not list specific as it relates to information about the hereditament but will be registered against the list which is live at the time the check is submitted. (see 5A end of list regulations’). At the closure of the 2017 list depending on when the check was submitted the grounds of challenge may be restricted. See Appendix 6 for details.

3.5 Material Day for list alterations arising from Check

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

e.g.

• for a compiled list change the material day will be compilation date

• for a deletion the material day will be the date the circumstances first arose

• for MCCs given effect to by VON, this will be:

(i) The date the circumstances first arose or

(ii) The day the list is altered (‘Date of Schedule’) if that date is not known (Material Day Regs 3(7)(ii)(bb))

Regarding to proposals for an MCC, the Material Day is the date of check confirmation.

3.6 Facts

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

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

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

If the hereditament includes parts which have been exempted or comprise domestic property these areas should be also be confirmed by the IP to ensure any changes are picked up.

3.7 Time Period

A check is not list specific. Up to 31 March 2023 submitted checks will automatically be registered against the 2017 rating list. On or after 1 April 2023 all checks will be registered against the 2023 list. However, care should be taken when dealing with challenges and appeals as to which list they relate, ie 2017 or 2023 as the linked check may be registered against a different list.

If the VO has not completed a Check within twelve months of the date of confirmation, the Check is taken to have been completed and the IP can make a Proposal (Challenge) (Reg 4F(3)). The VO may agree with the IP in writing to extend this time limit.

The date a check is completed starts the 4 month period within which proposals must be submitted apart from external MCCs which is 16 months from the date of check confirmation. The 4 month period itself cannot be extended only the start date of that period.

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

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

In the situation where the IP requests that a new property is inserted into the rating list they still have to make a check request regarding any information we may hold and the IP will be required to provide the VO will all the relevant details relating to the hereditament in question in order that a check may be initiated. Separate CCA procedures are in place for this scenario as it is not supported by the VO portal.

3.9 Historic Assessments

A proposal may be made against an historic assessment by an IP. However, the valuation and survey data attached to check on the VOA website shows the current list entry. The IP will need to advise the VO if he is querying an historic assessment so that the correct valuation may be linked to the case for amendment if necessary. If further changes to the list are also required then these will be by way of additional Valuation Officer Notices.

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

3.10 Confirmation of accuracy of information (Reg 4C)

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

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

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

For more information see penalties below. (Reg 9A)

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

3.11 Request for Information, Confirmation of Check & Material Day

The date of request for information held in respect of the hereditament at check is important as it affects the rights of former occupiers to make proposals and the grounds available to them. See below.

However, there is no specified ‘material day’ for check.

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

Material Day for MCC proposals

The Material Day for a proposal (reg 4(1)(b)) made on the grounds of an MCC is always the date the check was confirmed (ie date of submission).

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

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

• Reg 4(1)(b) - as an MCC proposal - in which case the Material Day will be the date of confirmation of the check (ie the submission of the check document)

or

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

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

3.12 Acknowledgment (Reg 4D)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) date on which the notice is served

(b) the name of the person who made the request

(c) identity of the hereditament

(d) details of any alteration made to the list as a result of the check

(e) a summary of any changes to information held as a result of the check

(f) a statement regarding the person’s right to make a proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

SI 2018/1193 The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists) and Business Rate Supplements) (Transfers to Revenue Accounts) (Amendments etc.) (England) Regulations 2018 introduced Regulation 4AA.

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

(2) Where this regulation applies—

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

(b)  for the purpose of these Regulations a check is completed in relation to a new hereditament on—

(i)    the date on which the VO serves a notice under regulation 4F(1) in respect of the final historic hereditament; or

(ii)    the date on which the check in respect of the final historic hereditament is taken to be completed under regulation 4F(3).

A new hereditament may come into existence because:-

(i) it was previously rated as a single hereditament but is now split,

(ii) it was previously rated in parts and is now merged as a single hereditament, or

(iii) the hereditament or any part becomes a different hereditament.

Where this happens before the subject check has been completed,

(a) for one of the three reasons above,

and

(b) the new hereditaments first existed on the ground prior to the completion of the check, then this triggers the right for the IP to be able to make a proposal against the new hereditaments without the need to submit further checks on the new entries first.

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

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

This is because by virtue of Reg 4AA (2)(a) ‘a check in relation to a new hereditament shall be deemed to have been completed where a check has been completed on or after the creation day in relation to each historic hereditament.’

Note: Reg 4AA does not apply where the new hereditament(s) had a creation day before 1/4/17. In that case, the proposer has to submit a fresh check and challenge against the new properties.

Application of Reg 4AA

If the hereditament has been altered before the 2017 list came into force then Reg 4AA does not apply.

If during check the VO becomes aware that the property assessed actually should form different hereditaments eg merged or split then the VO has a duty to amend the list and give effect to that change.

The outstanding check will then be linked to the historic assessment.

Depending on what the IP wishes to challenge, the old or new hereditaments and the timing in respect of the original check will determine whether a deemed check arises in respect of the new hereditament(s) under Reg 4AA, in which case the IP can go straight to challenge or whether a fresh check and challenge will be needed in respect of the new hereditaments.

Existing checks submitted by IP
Event	Creation day	4AA application	Reg	Action by VO	Action by agent
Properties should be merged/ split but event prior to 1/4/17	Pre 1/4/17	No – as before 4AA becomes applicable	4AA(1)	VO should raise VOR to merge/ split as appropriate	Agent will need to submit a fresh check to request reconstitution
Properties merged / split whilst checks are outstanding on the original Hs	After 1/4/17 but before completion of check	check on original Hereditament(s) must be outstanding on the Creation Day and not completed- then 4AA applies   The Creation Day is the date the new hereditament(s) first appeared on the ground.	Reg  4AA (2)(a)	Deemed check arises using the same completion date as the last outstanding check to be settled on the source hereditaments   NB regs are silent re  a confirmation date of check – so assume time limit is the same as the last historic check to be dealt with for the purposes of time limits to apply.	Challenges may be made direct against the historic assessments and/or against the new hereditaments without the need to submit further checks on the new properties.
Properties merged/split after the check has been completed	After 1/4/17 and after completion of check	If original check closed before creation day – 4AA not apply	Reg  4AA (2)(a)	No deemed checks arise	A new check will be needed on the new hereditaments before a challenge can be made.
1996/13	Non-Domestic Rating (information Act) 1996	disclosure of information – BA and VO
	S115(1) General Rate Act 1967	Definition of hereditament
2018/25	Rating (properties in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (empty Dwellings) Act 2018	(PICO – now included in LGFA 1988)
Main CCA Regulations
2009/2268	The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009	‘Appeal Regulations’  NB amended by (SI 2017 /155) (main appeal regulations)
2017/155	The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2017	2017 regulations amending the original 2268
2009/2269	The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009	Procedure Regulations’ as amended by (SI 2017/156) & 2018 (SI 2018/911) (main procedural regulations for appeals and Tribunals etc)
2017/156	The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2017	(2017 amending the procedure regulations)
Other Regulations Affecting CCA
2018/911	The Non-Domestic (Alterations of Lists, Appeals and Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2018	amends 2017 regs – re any ratepayer of property being able to be party to  appeals
2018/1193	Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists) and Business Rate Supplements (Transfer to Revenue Accounts) (Amendments etc.) (England) Regulations 2018	Reg 4AA added
2020/1403	The Non-Domestic Rating (Compilation and Alteration of Lists) (England) Regulations 2020	(BA to provide information to the VO)
2021/34	Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (dissolved Companies) Act 2021	MCC assumptions re Covid
2021/398	The Valuation for Rating (Coronavirus)(England) Regulations 2021	Covid
2021/579	Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2021	amends regs for virtual hearings
2022/217	The Non-Domestic Rating (Definition of Domestic Property)(England) Order 2022	amends domestic definition under 2B re self-catering letting periods
2022/1198	The Non-Domestic Rating (Alterations of Lists and Appeals) (England)(Amendments)   Regulations 2022	(ie the End of list 2017 provisions reg 5A)
2022/1403	The Non-domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts)(England) Regulations 2022	Reval 2023 TR
2023/240	The Valuation for Rating (Coronavirus) (England) Regulations 2023	Assumptions re MCCs at 1/4/2021 re covid
Material Day and AVD
1992/556	The Non-Domestic Rating (Material Day for List Alterations) 1992	Material Day regs  nb amended by SI 2017/155
2005/658	Non-Domestic Rating (Material Day for List Alterations) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2005
2014/2841	The Rating Lists (Valuation Date)(England) Order 2014	AVD for 2017 list
2020/832	The Rating Lists (Valuation Date) (England) Order 2020	AVD for 2023 list
Central List
2005/551	Central Rating List Regulations (England) Regulations 2005	Central List
2019/395	Central Rating List Regulations (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019	Central list
2022/1083	The Central Rating List and Telecommunications Apparatus (England)(Amendment) Regulations 2022	Central list
2019/700	The Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings)(Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019	Amends the definition of railway hereditaments in central list
Other
vte-guidance	Consolidated Practice Statement	directions
decisions VTE	VT decisions	VT decisions
UT procedure-rules	Upper Tribunal Chamber Procedure Rules	UT Rules
UT electronic-filing-	Practice Direction for Lands Chamber of the UT: electronic filing	Electronic filing UT
UT decisions/	UT Decisions	UT Decisions
expert witnesses	RICS – Surveyors Acting as Expert Witness 4th Edition
advocates	RICS – Surveyors Acting as Advocates 2nd Edition

Glossary 

‘VO’ in this document refers to Valuation Officer 

‘VOA’ refers to the Valuation Office Agency 

‘CVO’ refers to the Central Valuation Officer

For practical purposes for CCA

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

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

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

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

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

Illustrative examples

Example 1

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

e.g. Merger of units A and B to form unit C takes place on 1 April 2017

The rating list was updated on 1 January 2018.

Creation date of unit C (merged unit) is 1 April 2017 i.e. the date it physically appeared on the ground.

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

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

The date for completion of the deemed check on Unit C is 1 November 2017.

(i.e. the date on completion of the last check to be finished on the units to be merged, in this case unit B).

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

Example 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On no account can copy of the for/RALD be provided to the ratepayer or agent.

Neither should Ratepayers or agents be shown a copy of the FOR via video link due to the potential to take screen shots, i.e. photographic images of the forms which is prohibited by the regulations.

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

---

Part 1C Appendix 1  CCA process - England summary

[InlineAttachment:S6 Pt 1C Appendix 1 CCA Process - Summary England.docx]

---

Part 1C - Appendix 2 – CCA Advice re-relinking assessments: Used internally

---

Part 1C  Appendix 3 - The Sheep Street decision and historic proposals: Used internally

---

Part 1C (i) Proposals - General and interpretation of grounds

4. Proposals (Reg 4 & 6)

The grounds for making proposals have not changed between rating lists. However, more detailed information is mandated (by Regulation 8) when submitting a proposal under Challenge in order for it to be accepted as complete. This is a significant difference to pre 2017 requirements regarding invalid proposals.

There are a number of requirements that must be met in order that a proposal can be submitted. If the IP fails any of these then the proposal is unlawful and should be rejected. 

An unlawful proposal is one that is made by a person who is not entitled to make it, it has not been served correctly, is out of time, is a duplicate or breaches one of the statutory requirements. ( ie Who, how and when). The check and challenge must be made by the same person (reg 4B(2)).

An incomplete proposal is one where the contents is defective when considering the requirements under Regulation 6 (4-6) Appeal Regulations (ie what has been submitted).

4.1   Completion of check first

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

The check must be made by the same interested person submitting the proposal. (Reg 4B(2)).

(2) Before making a proposal in relation to a hereditament, the person must request from the VO information which the VO holds about the hereditament.

Care should be taken when viewing a proposal that the correct grounds for challenge have been made especially where changes have been made to the rating list at check.

For example,  where a check was made  in relation to the compiled list figure and the VO has consequently amended the list - the proposer should then be clear in his proposal if he is challenging the original list figure or the VO notice, and must select the correct grounds, submitting relevant evidence to that ground. If there is any confusion or ambiguity then see 5.2 below.

4.2   Proposals - time limits

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

However, there is an exception, under Reg 6A(2), regarding external MCCs relating to proposals for changes on the grounds o LGFA 88 Schedule 6 para 7(d), changes in the locality

or

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

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

Subsequently, if a decision notice has not been issued by 18 months from the date of receipt of proposal the proposer can then go on to make an appeal to the VTE as the 4 month appeal window is triggered.

4.2a Regulation 4AA, deemed checks on reconstitutions giving rise to proposals

See also Part 1B 3.16 Deemed Checks giving rise to rights to make a proposal on reconstitutions.

For more details

If the hereditament has been altered before the 2017 list came into force then Reg 4AA does not apply.

If during check the VO becomes aware that the property assessed actually should form different hereditaments eg merged or split then the VO has a duty to amend the list and give effect to that change.

The outstanding check will then be linked to the historic assessment.

Depending on what the IP wishes to challenge, the old or new hereditaments and the timing in respect of the original check will determine whether a deemed check arises in respect of the new hereditament(s) under Reg 4AA,  in which case the IP can go straight to challenge or whether a fresh check and challenge will be needed in respect of the new hereditaments.

However, the 4 month time limit for submission from completion of the deemed check will apply.

E.g in the case of a merger 2 into 1

Checks submitted against properties A&B but property C in existence pre completion of check.

The correct date of completion to use for the deemed check is the one in the last check on A or B to be completed.

4.3   Evidence

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

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

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

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

4.4   Use of rental evidence

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

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

On no account can a copy of the FOR/RALD beprovided to the ratepayer or agent.

4.5 Standard of Proof

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

4.6 Incomplete Proposal

For 2017 invalidity procedures do not apply. However, if a proposal does not contain all the requisite information then it must be made incomplete and returned to the proposer.

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

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

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

Checks for completeness should also include:

• ensuring that the Proposer is entitled to make the proposal

• explanation of how the grounds are applicable

• reasoning as to how the evidence supports the grounds raised  

• that the proposal is lawful

• the correct time limits have been complied with

• rental details have been supplied with as required by the Reg 6(6)  
• if the grounds cite a Tribunal or court decision Reg 6(5) has been fully complied with.

See Appendix 2 for further details on incomplete proposals.

4.7 Penalties to be used internally

4.8 Making Proposals

There are a number of requirements that a proposal must meet in order that it may be considered lawful.

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

1)   Under Reg 4 (2) (a) (as amended)

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

2)   Under Reg 4(2) (aa)

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

3) Under Reg 4(2)(c)

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

These grounds are:-

Reg4(1)

 (c) an amendment to the Plant & Machinery Order,

 (d) the RV is inaccurate due to a VO alteration,

 (f)  the effective date of the VO alteration is wrong.

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

This means that essentially there are 3 types proposer depending on whether they are an IP or former IP (and when they became a former IP).

1) An IP (ie has a current interest in the property) can make a proposal on all 10 grounds (a - o)    (reg 4(2)(a) 

2) A former IP who was there at the date of check request but has since left the property (for the period in which they were an IP)  – all 10 grounds (a-o) (reg 4(2)(aa)

3) A former IP who was not there at the date of check request – is restricted to the 3 grounds and only for the period in which he was an IP.(reg 4(2)(c))

For properties where the valuation is held off system the check request for information (DVR) is the critical date for determining if they fall under 2 or 3 – and this will be before the confirmation of check (which can now be via the portal).

If it is a bulk class property and the valuation is on the internet – the check request and confirmation are deemed to happen simultaneously.

If at the date of check request they were not an IP in the property as they had already left - they they can only make a proposal under 4(1)((c) P&M – (d) VON – (f) ED  .  They cannot make a compiled list, MCC or proposals for splits mergers etc these would be unlawful.

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

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

 Maker of proposal (IP) has to be the same as the maker of the check 

The person making the proposal must be the same person who submitted the check on the property.

Reg 6(1) requires a proposal to be made within 4 months of the completion of a check on the hereditament.

This, regulation however, has to be read in conjunction with the requirements of Regulation 4A & B.

Reg 4A(1)  requires that a person may not make a proposal unless a check is completed. Completion is either by the service of a Notice of completion / decision, or by 12 months elapsing from the date of submission of the proposal and no such notice being served.

Reg 4A

[(1) A person may not make a proposal in relation to a hereditament unless a check of information about the hereditament has been completed (“a check”).

Reg 4B goes on to require that ‘the person’ (i.e. IP or former IP) before making a proposal must make a request to the VO for information and then confirm the information exchanged, i.e. enter into the check process.

Reg 4B

[(1)     This regulation applies to a person mentioned in [regulation 4(2)(a) or (c)].

(2)     Before making a proposal in relation to a hereditament, the person must request from the VO information which the VO holds about the hereditament.

Therefore, the maker of the proposal has to be the same person who submitted and confirmed the check in order to be lawful.

4.9 Billing Authority rights

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

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

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

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

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

Reg 11(2) SI 2009/2269 allows the VTE to give a direction to add a person as a party,. However, As the BA is not a party whose signature is required under Reg 12, they cannot be made party to an appeal unless they are the actual occupier or owner.

4.10 Timing submission & MCCs

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

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

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

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

Changes made at check for an MCC

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

4.11 Historic Assessments

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

See also RM S6 Pt 1C Appendix 3 -Sheep Street decision.

Where proposals may need re-linking following later amendments to the rating list which take effect before the Material Day of the subject proposal.

4.12   Multiple Grounds of proposal

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

4.13   Multiple properties on a proposal

Proposals can only relate to more than one property where:

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

or

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

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

The grounds on which an Interested Person may make a proposal are set out in Regulation 4(1), These grounds have not changed between the rating lists and these are:

Regulation 4(1) grounds

a)   compiled list inaccuracies

b)   the RV is inaccurate due to an MCC on or after compilation day

c)   the RV is inaccurate by reason of amendment to the Plant & Machinery (P&M) Regs (Valuation for Rating (P&M) (England) Regulations 2000),

d)   an alteration of the list by the VO is inaccurate

e)   the RV is inaccurate by reason of a VTE, VT, Lands or Upper Tribunal or court   decision

f)    the Effective Date is incorrect

g)   the hereditament should be shown in the list

h)   the hereditament should not be shown in the list

i)    the list should show that some part of the hereditament is domestic or exempt and does not do so

j)    the list should not show that some part of the hereditament is domestic or exempt and does so

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

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

m)  the address is wrong

n)   the description is wrong

o)   any statement about the hereditament under s42 of the Act has been omitted.

Former IPs

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

4.15 Grounds of proposal - Interpretation

See also RM Section 7: Proposals, part 2 - Interpretation of the Grounds of Proposal

The main grounds of proposal commonly used are commented on below.

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

A “compiled list proposal” [RSA code of grounds “01”] is one made on ground 4(1)(a)

“the rateable value shown in the list for a hereditament was inaccurate on the day the list was compiled;”

The important thing to note from this is that the Rateable Value being appealed is that which appeared in the list ON 1 April 2017 (or 1 April 2010 for the previous list). It does NOT refer to any rateable value subsequently entered into the list, regardless of the effective date appearing in the list.

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

This ground should only be used where the rateable value of the hereditament in a new list is incorrect. If the unit of assessment is inaccurate then grounds 4(1)(k) or (l) should be used as appropriate to reconstitute the assessment. It would be outside the scope of this ground to agree to split etc.

(b) Material Change of Circumstances (MCC) proposals  Reg 4(1)(b)

In order to make an MCC proposal, there must be a material change that falls under at least one of the matters set out in LGFA 1988 Schedule 6 para 2(7) and as a result of that change the rateable value in the list is inaccurate and the change actually occurred on or after the compilation date.

If the change, constitutes a matter under para 2(7), but the event occurred before the start of the Rating List coming into force, e.g. 1 April 2017, then the proposal should be made under the grounds of Reg 4(1)(a), a compiled list error and not for an MCC under Reg 4(1)(b).  If such an MCC proposal is submitted it would be unlawful.

For example:

A check is submitted/confirmed in February 2023 and a new list comes into force from 1 April 2023,. The Material Day for challenge on MCC grounds is the date of confirmation of check. As this date is prior to the compiled list date no MCC proposal may be made, it would be unlawful. However, if the MCC continued past the start of the list then a compiled list proposal could be made. An MCC proposal on the 2023 list can only be made in respect of a check submitted on or after 1 April 2023.

(d) Inaccurate VO alteration

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

If the VO alteration did not alter the rateable value previously shown in the list then the proposer may not make an appeal under this ground.  This ground is only applicable if the RV has been changed.

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

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

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

(e)   Tribunal Decisions

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

Tribunal or Court decisions must be final before a proposal can be served

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

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

Tribunal Decisions - causal link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuplin (VO) v Focus (2009) RA 226

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

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

(f)  Deletions

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

(g)  Insertion of new hereditament in the list

If a property is required to be shown in the list and there is no current list entry the proposer may request insertion into the list. As there is no entry in the list the IP will not be able to enter into the property linking process and should contact the VO customer service centre for assistance.

(h)  Description in the list

The purpose of the description in the list is to be able to identify the hereditament vacant and to let it is not necessarily to describe the particular type of business within the hereditament.

(i) Statements about the hereditament

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

Regulation 6(8) Requesting other changes to the Rating list

Reg 6(8)

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

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.

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

 4.16   Particulars of the grounds

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

4.17 Restrictions on making proposals **- Unlawful proposals

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

‘One bite of the cherry rule’

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

Proposals are considered to be the same if:

• the IP or former IP makes both challenges on the basis of having the same link to the property;

• they are against the same list;

• they concern the same property;

• the grounds for both Proposals are the same; and

• the Proposals are made for the same event.

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

A proposal cannot be submitted, where a proposal on the same facts has been made by another IP or former IP and considered and determined by a VT, VTE or Upper Tribunal (Reg 4(3)(b)(ii)).  (This would include the scenario where a challenge is withdrawn and then the VO alters the list in response to the proposal, provided that there is an email trail to show the connection between the withdrawal of the proposal and the VO serving a notice based on the facts in that proposal).

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

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

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

In essence this means that a proposal that is a duplicate of the first proposal ie made on the same grounds will only be lawful if it is made by a different proposer and the first proposal was withdrawn at challenge or there was no change made to the list in the Decision Notice. In all other cases it will be barred by one of the provisions in Reg 4(3).

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

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

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

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

(Reg 4(1))

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

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

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

(Reg 4(1)(f)).

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

4.19   Unlawful Proposal

An unlawful proposal is one that has not been served correctly in accordance with the regulations.

This may be as a result of having no right to make the proposal, timeliness, duplication or some other restriction on making the proposal or the incorrect ground chosen.

If a proposal is unlawful, no Decision Notice should be issued and the proposal should be refused and the case cancelled. There is no right to appeal the decision to make the proposal unlawful.

Examples of unlawful proposals are:-

- not having an interest in the property by being an IP or former IP, so not legally entitled to make a proposal

• a former IP making a proposal on grounds he is not entitled to make e.g. compiled list, MCCs.

-  no check has been submitted by the same propose

-  duplication of proposals, second bite of the cherry

-  being made out of time

-  not made on one of the specified grounds in Reg 4

-  against a previous VO list alteration resulting from a proposal

-  against a previous VT / Tribunal decision on the subject property

If the proposal is defective as to its content, ie missing information required under Regulation 6, then it is treated as an incomplete proposal and not an unlawful one.

In the event a proposal is unlawful, the case should be cancelled on RSA.

4.20 MCC proposals

See also : Section 6: Part 1(i)(7)- Scope of Proposals.

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

a)    last day of 4 months from date of check being completed and

b)    last day of a 16 month period from the date on which the VO received a confirmation (Reg 6A(2)).

or

c)    If 12 months has elapsed from the date of submission (confirmation) of the check and the check has not been completed, then the 4 month window starts running from the 12 month point within which to submit a challenge.

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

If an incomplete proposal relates to an external MCC refer to para 5.5 below for additional rules that apply.

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

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

For details on material day amended by the 2023 legislation relating to MCCs see RM s2 Part C.

For MCC proposals the Material Day is the date of confirmation of check.

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

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

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

the date of confirmation of check.  (Material Day SI 1992 / 556 as amended, Reg 3(7)(b)(i).

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

Failure to correctly identify an MCC in a proposal will lead to the proposal being treated as incomplete, e.g. vacancy of the subject property, which relates to the actual use of the property, and is not a matter under Sched 6 para 2(7).

Covid

On 25 March 2021, The Valuation for Rating (coronavirus)(England) Regulations 2021 SI 2021 / 398, new regulations were passed that effectively mean that any proposals made on or after that date on the grounds of an MCC citing the Covid19 regulations will now be unlawful.

Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (dissolved Companies) Act 2021 was introduced in Autumn 2021 and further restricts the proposals than may be made in relation to the effects of covid.

This retrospective Act affects the occupation of property that covid will not be considered an MCC for the purposes of rating and the purposes of making a relevant determination.

A relevant determination is either:

a)  the compilation or maintenance of the list as to whether a hereditament ought to be shown in the list or not or

b)  a determination for maintaining a compiled list compiled on 1 April 2017 as to its rateable value

It is not a relevant determination where it concerns

a)  whether the property or part of the property is domestic or not

b)  whether the property or part of the property is exempt under Schedule 5 LGFA 1988

In making a determination, no account is to be taken of any matter that is directly or indirectly attributable to covid subject to limited exceptions. This does not apply when:

a)  considering changes to the physical state of the property including changes to mode or category of occupation

b)  quantity of minerals or other substances in or extracted from the hereditament on which the determination is made

c)  the quantity of refuse or waste material which is brought on to and permanently deposited on the hereditament on which the determination is made

For example

(i)  During the period of covid a building was knocked down or extended – this physical change could be taken into account         

(ii)   Quantity of gypsum not mined as building industry closed down during covid. This is covered by the exception and the fact that the amount of gypsum produced has fallen may be reflected.

(iii)   Mothballing of mines – ignored if due to covid

Section 6 of the Act identifies matters that are considered to relate to covid, the list is not exhaustive. These include:

a)   compliance with any legislation for reasons relating to the incidence or spread of covid

b)    compliance with any other legislation for reasons relating to the incidence or spread of covid

c)     in response or consequence of any advice or guidance given by a public authority relating to the incidence or spread of covid

For example

Compliance with legislation or guidance re covid that affects trade in a particular way.

e.g.  Health & Safety changes regarding the operation and covid such as spacing requirements

Section 7 of the Act, provides that the act applies retrospective and prospectively in England and Wales.

It affects all proposals from 1 April 2017

It applies to all the local lists and the central list.  

The act does not apply to the new list in 2023 where covid is reflected at AVD.

4.21   Submission of Proposal

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

4.22   Content of Proposal

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

a)   the name, address and contact details of the proposer

b)   the grounds of the proposal including the particulars on which each of the grounds is based - known as ‘the particulars of the grounds of the proposal’

c)   details of the proposed alteration of the list

d)   the date from which the proposed alteration should have effect

e)   the date on which the proposal is served on the VO

f)    evidence to support the grounds of the proposal, and

g)   a statement as to how the evidence supports the grounds of the proposal

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

a)    the date of the decision made in relation to another hereditament

b)    the name of the Tribunal or court which made the decision

c)    information to identify the other hereditament

d)    the reasons why the decision is relevant to the hereditament, and

e)    the reasons why the proposer believes that the decision shows the RV is inaccurate for the hereditament

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

For more details on incomplete proposals see RM s6 Pt 1C (iii)

4.23 Lease details (Rent and rent frees)

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

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

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

4.24 Multiple properties

A proposal may refer to more than one hereditament only if it is made on the following grounds:-

Reg 4(1)   

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

or

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

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

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

4.25   Requesting Outcomes

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

4.26 Acknowledgement

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

4.27 Requesting copies of Proposals

Proposals are public documents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                               a)   name and address of proposer

                               b)   grounds of proposal

                               c)   details of list alteration proposed and effective date

                               d)   evidence to support the grounds

                               e)   statement as to how the evidence supports the grounds

                                f)   where appropriate, details of the tribunal decision referred to

                                g)  where appropriate, details of the rent passing and any rent free periods

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

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

If a proposal has been received that is incomplete or unlawful, then it is not a complete substantive proposal and in this circumstance a copy of the document should not be sent to the ratepayer under Reg 9(1) or to a third party who has made a request to view proposals on a property as public documents.

4.28  Proposals where the hereditament has been deleted

A check and challenge can only be made where the proposer has the right to make a lawful proposal.

If a property has been deleted from the list, then the occupier (tenant) no longer has any rights in the property. Therefore, when the request for check information, (reg 4B(2)) is made the grounds on which they can submit a proposal is restricted to 4(1)(c) P&M, (d) VO alterations and (f) Eds and only in respect of the period in which they were in occupation. As a former IP they have no right to make proposals against the compiled list, splits etc. Such a proposal would be unlawful.  They should have challenged the list entries whilst they were still an IP, however the VO should still consider if the list entries were correct and serve a VON to amend if not which would then enable the former IP to submit a proposal.

If the buildings have been demolished then the land is still standing and therefore only the owner would have a legal interest in the property (all other leases etc being extinguished) and therefore as an IP can select any ground under Reg 4(1).

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

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

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

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

(2)   Alternatively a MCC proposal under Reg 4(1)(b) may be submitted.

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

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

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

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

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

5A  end of 2017 list provisions and interactions with 2023 Rating List.

The regulations for governing the procedures at the end of the 2017 rating list are governed by

REG 5A Non-Domestic (Alterations of Lists and Appeals) (England) (amendment) Regulations 2022

Into force 1/4/2023

Inserts into 2009 regs

5A Proposals: limits

(1)     Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), a person may only make a proposal to alter a list if they have provided a confirmation to the VO before the day on which the next list is compiled.

(2)     A person may only make a proposal to alter a list on the ground set out in regulation 4(1)(d) or (f) if they have provided a confirmation to the VO before—

(a)     the day on which the next list is compiled; or

(b)     the end of the period of six months beginning with the date of alteration,

whichever is the later.

(3)     A person may only make a proposal to alter a list on the ground set out in regulation 4(1)(e) if they have provided a confirmation to the VO before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which the next list is compiled.”.

And for list alterations after the close of the list regulation 14(8) Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009 SI 2009/2268

 which states

“14 (8)     Where an alteration needs to be made after the first anniversary of the day on which the next list is compiled, it shall have retrospective effect only if it is made to give effect to a proposal.** ”

Application of the legislation - what it means in practice

Alteration of the 2017 list by the VO

Up to 31 March 2024 the VO can alter the 2017 list for any reason subject to:

• compiled list – reductions in RV  the Effective Date is  ED 1/4/17

• compiled list increases in RV which are due to error where ED is after 1/4/23, have no effect  i.e. DoS increase but consider if TR certificate needed

• MCCs, splits, mergers, insertions of new hereditaments and deletions The Effective Date is the date of event if it was  before 1/4/23

• alterations due to error of ratepayer, the ED is backdated to actual date of event But if the ED is after 1 April 2023 – the alteration will have no effect

After 31 March 2024 no further amendments can be made to the 2017 list unless it is the result of a proposal or appeal. No alteration of the 2017 list may be made on a check. Consider if dual list maintenance will be needed on 2023 list and if transitional certificates are needed regarding 2017 or 2010 list.

CCA Implications:

The End of List regulations only restrict the ability to submit challenges against the 2017 lists.

Checks are not list specific as they relate solely to information about the hereditament whereas challenges relate to specific events and specific lists.

However, it does mean that potentially checks may be registered against a different list to the one.

List Alterations on BARs or VORs
List	Date		Effective Date	Comments
2017	Up to 31/3/2024	Compiled list reductions	1/4/17	Consider DLM 2023 and TR 2010
		Compiled list increases not ratepayer fault	DoS As ED after list closes has no effect	Consider DLM 2023 and TR 2010
		Compiled list increases due to ratepayer error	1/4/17	Consider DLM 2023 and TR 2010
		All other alterations - splits, mergers, new, deletions, MCCs	Day of event	Consider DLM 2023 and TR 2010
	On after 1/4/2024	No alteration to the 2017 list	Except as a result of a proposal or appeal (NOT check, BAR or VON)	Consider DLM 2023 and TR 2010
2023	Up to 31/3/2023	Made against the draft list		Consider DLM on 2017 list and TR 2010
	From 1/4/23	Actioned on live list		Consider DLM on 2017 list up to 31/3/2024 If after this date consider TRs which the proposal has been made against.

Therefore when checking lawfulness and completeness of a proposal both the 2017 and 2023 lists may need to be considered regarding timeliness.

Checks

	Check	List alteration
Up to 31/3/2023	Registered against the 2017 list	See above
From 1/4/2023	Registered against the 2023 list	See above
After 1/4/2024	No 2017 list alteration may be made unless it is the result of a challenge or appeal

Challenges

The only challenges that can be made against the 2017 lists on or after 1/4/2023 are where:

a)  The check was submitted prior to 1 April 2023, in which case a challenge may be on any of the Reg4 (1) grounds,

b)  there is a VO list alteration and the check is submitted within 6 months of the alteration (Reg 4(1)(d) or (f) grounds), or     

c) in relation to a tribunal or court decision and the check was submitted by 30/9/2023.

Challenges against a 2023 assessment can only be made on or after 1/4/2023.

They can be the result of a 2017 or 2023 check as long as the timeliness requirements are met.

A 2023 MCC challenge can only be made on the back of a 2023 check due to the Material Day.

On clearing the case the caseworker will need to consider if DLM can be carried out, and also if a TR certificate is needed.  (This could be a 2023, 2017 and/or 2010 list TRC).

List challenged	Date of check submission	Grounds of challenge	Comments
2017	Pre 1/4/23	All Reg 4(1) grounds available	Consider 2023 DLM and 2010 TR (31/3/2017)
	1/4/2023 onwards	Only: 4(1)(d) – RV in VON 4(1)(f) – ED in VON	Must be submitted within 6 months of list alteration Consider 2023 DLM and 2010 TR (31/3/2017)
	Up to 30/9/2023	4(1)(e) – Tribunal/Court decisions	Must meet normal timeliness requirements Consider 2023 DLM and 2010 TR (31/3/2017)
2023	Pre 1/4/2023	All grounds (except Reg 4(1)(b) MCCs) provided 2023 challenge submitted on or after 1/4/2023	Must meet normal timeliness requirements Consider 2017 DLM/ TR 2010 (31/3/2017)
	1/4/2023 onwards	All grounds including Reg 4(1)(b) MCCs	Must meet normal timeliness requirements Up to 31/3/2024 Consider 2017 DLM and 2010 TR (31/3/2017) After 1/4/2024 consider 2017 TR and 2010 TR (31/3/2017)

---

Part 1c(ii)  Scope of proposal

4.30 Considering the grounds

Following on from the requirements to make a proposal, any changes at challenge stage must consider the scope of that proposal and the grounds on which it has been made.

The grounds stated in the proposal should be carefully considered because they may limit the alteration which can be made to a list consequent on that proposal.

You cannot agree to delete an entry on a proposal that has sought a reduction, although you may following discussion of that proposal decide it is appropriate to delete the entry by VO notice. Similarly you cannot agree to reduce a rateable value on a proposal that has only sought a deletion of the Rating list entry.

There is a common although misplaced belief, that you can agree anything on a proposal; you can’t, any agreement must be within the scope of the proposal, just as any VT or Upper Tribunal decision must also be within the scope of the proposal.

Case law confirms this.

The specific wording on the proposal is critical to how it is treated (eg invalid - Wales (all lists) and England 2010 and earlier,       or incomplete/ unsubstantiated for England 2017 (CCA) and to the extent of any action that may follow to the Rating List as a consequent. It should be clear and stand on its own merits as to its grounds and requirements. The VO/ Tribunal cannot infer any additional knowledge that may be in their possession as to the intentions of the Proposer.

4.31 Approach

It  is well-established that when considering a proposal is limited to its scope on which it has been made. See Courtney Plc v Murphy (VO), Davey (VO) v O’Kelly and Leda Properties v Howells (VO).

The grounds for making a proposal are set out in Reg 4(1) of the Alterations Regulations (SI 2009/2268) for England and the corresponding legislation for Wales.

Reg 6(4) requires the proposal to include the grounds on which it is based and details of the proposed alteration of the list. (For CCA there are further requirements following amendments to the regulations in 2017 and 2018 - see Part 8 of this Section of the Rating Manual).

For example, there is a clear distinction Reg 4(1)(h)between proposals asking for deletion and those asking for reduction under Reg4(1)(d).

Therefore if a proposal was submitted under Reg 4(1)(d) - alteration the grounds should be confined to this and the option to delete a property cannot form part of the scope of the proposal.

It is therefore important that the exact wording on the form is carefully examined in detail when considering its scope and what can be construed from the proposal when strictly interpreting the language used.

In Leda Properties, the words ‘incorrect, excessive and bad in law’ were held to be ‘patiently insufficient’ to permit the ratepayer to seek a change in description or reduction when it was not ‘reasonably possible to construe the completed form as encompassing’ either alteration.

Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Newbiggin v Monk (2018),a proposal to reduce an assessment to RV£0 because it was incapable of beneficial occupation was considered to be akin to deleting an assessment following VO practice of keeping entries in the rating list.

A proposal requesting a reduction to £1 or £0 however, following the ruling in Monk at the Supreme Court, is to be treated as being one for a deletion. But if a reduction to a substantive figure has been submitted then it cannot be interpreted in that manner, and a deletion would be out of scope.

However, it is important that the scope of proposal is strictly followed,  if a proposal has requested a reduction and the property on the facts should actually be deleted, then the correct course of action is that the proposal should be withdrawn and a VON issued to delete the assessment from the list. Likewise, if a proposal is asking for a deletion and should be reduced, then the proposal should be withdrawn and a VON issued for the amendment.

4.32 Case Law

4.33 Patel v Jackson (VO) [2018] UKUT 420 RA/37/2018

The proposal, completed by a rating professional, stated clearly that there had been a material change of circumstances (MCC) at the subject property (a hotel), “comprising the loss of one bedroom to provide staff accommodation”.

However, the alteration sought by the appellant in his statement of case was on the grounds of an MCC in that the physical change was due to a kitchen breakfast room being extended resulting in the loss of a bed-room and additional floor space being lost from a second bedroom. This had involved the relocation of a partition wall.

Both the VTE and the Upper Tribunal were limited in their jurisdiction to considering the scope of the proposal. Here, the reason stated in the proposal was quite different was that put forward at the hearing, so the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider the correct rateable value. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

4.34 Merlin Group Entertainments v Cox (VO) [2018] UKUT 0406 RA/24/2018 - Alton Towers

This recent case considered proposals made on the grounds of an MCC and to what extent various factors could be considered when looking at the scope of the proposal

The assessment of Alton Towers theme park was the subject of a proposal for a reduction on the grounds that a crash on the Smiler ride in 2015 resulted in a material change of circumstances (MCC). It was contended that the attitude of members of the public to thrill rides after the crash, particularly at Alton Towers, was a matter that was physically manifest in the hereditament’s locality at the material day.

Alton Towers was said to be the major generator of traffic movement in the locality and there had been an average drop in traffic volume be-tween 2014 and 2016 of 27.5%. There had been an impact on local businesses and queue times for rides had also reduced by 26%. While weather and pricing strategies could also affect visitor numbers, the appellant’s representative could not show that either of these was unusual during the period. Merlin would have undertaken more marketing but for the crash.

By reference to case law, the Upper Tribunal (UT) noted that rateable value represents the annual market value of the hereditament to the hypothetical tenant and so specific circumstances which are personal to the actual occupier are to be disregarded. From Dawkins v Ash [1969], the valuer must have regard to the “essential” or “intrinsic” qualities or characteristics of the hereditament and to disregard factors which are non-essential or “accidental” to that property. For a given property, the rateable value is the same whether the actual occupier runs a flourishing business or trades at a loss.

The UT noted that para. 2(7) of Sch. 6 to the Local Government Finance act 1988 fell into two parts: sub-paragraphs (a) to (cc) dealing with the hereditament; sub-paragraphs (d) to (e) dealing with the locality. Sub-paragraph (a) is to do with the physical state of the hereditament itself or its use. Sub-paragraph (d) has two strands: “matters affecting the physical state of the locality” and “matters which (i) do not affect the physical state of the locality but which (ii) are nonetheless physically manifest there”.

The appellant accepted that the crash itself did not in fact fall within para. 2(7) and at the UT relied on the alleged “result” of the crash as a matter falling within para. 2(7)(d).

The Tribunal decided that the proposal was not concerned with any intrinsic or essential characteristic of the hereditament or locality. This alone would be sufficient to dismiss the appeal. However, the UT went on to decide other matters.

The Tribunal determined that paras. 2(7)(a) and 2(7)(d) in Sch. 6 are mutually exclusive.

As the appellant’s proposal was to do with the hereditament rather than the locality, the UT decided that the appeal failed because the appellant could not demonstrate a material change of circum-stances in a matter falling within 2(7)(a).

The UT rejected the appellant’s assumption that the proper construction of para. 2(7)(d) includes any economic or intangible matter, if it has an effect which is physically manifest in the locality. The matter itself must be physically manifest there.

In any event, the change which was argued to have been physically manifest was the fall in visitor numbers. However, the data showed that there had been decreases in other years due, for example, to competing attractions. The UT concluded that there was not sufficient evidence presented to show that the reduction in numbers was attributable to the crash.

Having dismissed the appeal, the UT offered the following guidance to surveyors and tribunals where the issue of applicability of 2(7) is not straightforward:

1 – “Does the matter concern an intrinsic characteristic of the hereditament or of the locality, or is it an extraneous matter, for example, some-thing to do with the personal attributes of the actual occu-pier or the way in which a party conducts its business? If the latter, then generally it will not fall within para. 2(7)”.

2 –“Does the matter concern a characteristic of the hereditament? If so the issue is whether it falls within para

2(7)(a) or (b) (or either (c) or (cc) in the case of minerals or waste deposit hereditaments)”.

3 – “If the matter does not concern a characteristic of the hereditament, does it concern a characteristic of the locality in which the hereditament is situated? If so, does it fall within para. 2(7)(d) or (e)?”

Finally – “If the matter concerns a characteristic of the locality, but does not affect the physical state of the locality or concern the use or occupation of other premises there, does it nonetheless fall within the second limb of para. 2(7)(d)? Under that limb the question is whether the matter is itself physically manifest in the locality”.

4.35 Courtney plc v Murphy (VO) [1998] RA 77

This case confirms the scope of proposal and the jurisdiction of Tribunals when making decisions.   

This case involved consideration of two proposals made seeking deletion/reduction of an assessment because of extensive building works. Both proposals gave 30 January 1995 as the date works began.

The valuation tribunal reduced the assessment with effect from 30 January 1995. The ratepayer appealed, seeking an earlier effective date of 1 April 1990. They claimed that the air conditioning system which was being replaced/refurbished at the dates in February and March 1995 on which the proposals were made, had been defective throughout the ratepayer’s tenancy.

The Lands Tribunal agreed with the valuation officer that the proposals limited the scope of the appeals. The grounds were quite clearly citing a material change of circumstances and there was no mention in either of the proposals of a date prior to 30 January 1995 and in fact the question of an earlier effective date had not been raised prior to the appeal to Lands Tribunal.

 The Lands Tribunal accepted the valuation officer’s contention that it was not possible to order an earlier effective date than 30 January 1995 because this was outside the scope of the disagreement that led the valuation officer to transmit the proposal to the clerk to the valuation tribunal as an appeal.

The Lands Tribunal member, Mr Clarke, stated (page 86)

“the jurisdiction of a local valuation tribunal is limited to determining the appeal or “disagreement” under Reg 12(1) … which arises out of the originating proposal.”

And further (page 87)

“is settled law under the 1988 Act and the 1993 regulations that the jurisdiction of a local valuation tribunal and this tribunal on appeal is limited to the issues raised by the proposal giving rise to the appeal.”

4.36 Davey (VO) v O’Kelly [1999] RA 245

This case clarifies the extent of authority of the Tribunal when considering the grounds of proposal.

In this case a proposal was made on the grounds that the hereditament should be exempt from non-domestic rating under the provisions of paragraph 16(1)(c) of Schedule 5 Local Government Finance Act 1988.

Mr O’Kelly was registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts 1944 and 1958 and had been provided with a motorised wheelchair by the Employment Service under the Access to Work scheme for use in the appeal hereditament.

There were two issues for the Lands Tribunal to decide; the scope of the appeal and whether the ratepayer was entitled to exemption. In connection with the first issue the Lands Tribunal members Mr Clarke and Mr Francis said (page 253)

“In our view the scope of the “disagreement” and the VO’s “refusal to alter the list” are limited by the wording of the proposal …..

“The jurisdiction of a local valuation tribunal is limited to determining the appeal or “disagreement” under Reg 12(1), which arises out of the originating proposal (see 2(1) definition of appeal)

“The Lands Tribunal may make any order which the valuation tribunal could have made but has no power to make an order which the lower tribunal could not have made. It is not open to this tribunal to go further than the valuation tribunal and extend the scope of the appeal or disagreement referred to that tribunal, which in turn is limited by the originating proposal.”

and later at page 255

“In our judgment this proposal must be construed as a claim for exemption solely under para 16(1)(c) of schedule 5 to the 1988 Act. It specifically refers to this sub-para but not to the other grounds for exemption under para 16(1). ….. We do not think that the reasons for the proposal can be interpreted to extend to the other grounds of exemption under para 16(1) of schedule 5 to the 1988 Act. Accordingly, we hold that this appeal is limited by the originating proposal to the issue of exemption under para 16(1)(c) of schedule 5 to the 1988 Act.”

4.37 Galgate Cricket Club v Doyle (VO) [2000] RA 21

This case considers poorly worded proposals.

In this case the originating proposal sought a reduction in assessment to RV £1 and included as one of the grounds for seeking the alteration.

 ”that the assessment(s) of the hereditament(s) is/are bad in law.”

An issue raised by the valuation officer at Lands Tribunal was whether the scope of proposal was sufficiently wide to encompass the issue of exemption under paragraph 15 of schedule 5 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 which gives exemption to parks.

The proposal sought a reduction in assessment but made no mention of seeking exemption. This had not previously been raised as an issue by the valuation officer.

The President of the Lands Tribunal held that the wording was wide enough to encompass the question of exemption.

It is considered that the Galgate decision does not change the position as indicated by the earlier cases. It does however, illustrate that inclusion of the general wording “bad in law” in a proposal will not limit consideration of the legality of a list entry. For example, if a hereditament should be exempt or deleted from the list.

As for factual matters, it is considered that this decision will not enable these matters to be expanded upon from those identified in the proposal. For example, a material change of circumstance proposal cannot be converted into a compiled list proposal as a result of inclusion of catch-all wording.

Such an interpretation would negate the different grounds for making proposals contained in Reg 4 and the effective date provisions contained in Reg 14.

4.38 O’Brien v Clark (VO) [2006] RA 403

This case confirms that for any proposal it can only have 1 material and effective date when considering its grounds.

A 2000 List appeal, the ratepayer argued for two alternative grounds for his appeal, firstly that the list ought to be deleted, and secondly, in the alternative, that the assessment should be reduced.

In the proposal form, the ratepayer asked for the existing entry to be deleted and in the grounds for the proposed alteration, he stated that circumstances affecting the rateable value of the property changed with the reasons for believing that the rating list is inaccurate being.

” This site was described as land used for advertising but fell into disrepair and effectively ceased to be so used as per it is 2000”.

In the first hearing for preliminary issue, the Lands Tribunal decided it was tolerably clear that the ratepayer, in completing the proposal form as he did, was seeking to advance two matters and the proposal completed by the ratepayer has sufficiently identified both matters and hence determined that the ratepayer’s proposal was made on two grounds.

In a further hearing on the substantive issue of this appeal O’Brien (t/a Poster Sites Southern) v Harding (VO) [2008] RA 73, the Tribunal affirmed the importance of the proper interpretation of a proposal in order to consider whether a proposal should be read as amounting to one made on more than one ground, so far as [the alternative ground] could be understood.

For the 2005 Lists, the scope of a proposal should be considered in connection with the provision in Regulation 4(3) (a) which specifies that no proposal may be made by reference to more than one ground unless for each of the grounds relied upon, the material day and the effective date are the same. Even if it is accepted that a proposal should be interpreted as being made on more than one ground, it should still be treated as invalid if the material day and effective date for the different grounds involved are not the same to one another.

4.39 Leda Properties v Howells (2009) RA 165

This case considers the concept of the scope of proposal and the duties of the VO.

The ratepayer sought a deletion or alternatively a reduction in the RV. However the proposal only made reference to a single ground being deletion. The detailed reasons provided in support of the proposal simply made reference to the property being incapable of beneficial occupation and beyond economic repair.

Galgate distinguished:

“The ratepayer’s alternative contention – that the hereditament should be entered in the list as a store at a rateable value of £90,000 – would require two alterations to be made to the list. The description would require to be changed from “Computer Centre and Premises” to “Store and Premises” and the rateable value would have to be reduced. It is not in my view reasonably possible to construe the completed form as encompassing a proposal for a change in the description of the hereditament or the reduction in its rateable value. The option to specify these (alterations B and G in Part B) was not exercised, and the ground specified in Part C was deletion. In these circumstances the inclusion of the standard formulaic words

“The present assessment is incorrect excessive & bad in law”

was in my judgment patently insufficient to permit the proposal. This is not one of those cases (cf Galgate Cricket Club v Doyle (VO) [2001] RA 21) where a proposal can properly be treated as encompassing two grounds. It was quite evidently one for deletion alone.

It is moreover to be noted that on the same day Wilks Head & Eve made two other alternative proposals, each seeking deletion but specifying different effective dates. I have no doubt at all that if the intention had been, as a further alternative, to seek an alteration in the hereditament’s description and a reduction in rateable value a proposal to this effect would have been made.”

The reason for scope:

“The purpose of requiring that the alterations proposed should be identified and that the reasons for the alterations should be specified is so that the VO is able to deal with the proposal in the way that he is required to deal with it under the Regulations. Reading the form as submitted he could not possibly have known that he was, or even might be, being asked to alter the description of the hereditament to “Store” or to reduce the rateable value to one that reflected its use for that purpose.”

“So that the VO is able to deal with the proposal in the way that he is required to deal with it under the Regulations”

In the preamble the president highlights relevant regulations and notes.

“The duty of the VO is to give effect to the proposal if he considers it to be well-founded or otherwise to refer the matter to the valuation tribunal as an appeal: regulations 9 and 12.”

From this it seems the test may be that the proposal must identify the alterations required so that VO may well found if he is in agreement with proposal. The matters are not sufficiently identified then it is beyond the scope of the proposal and cannot be dealt with in the proceedings under Reg 12 (now Reg 13).

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

4.40 British American Typewriters v Hill VO (1962) RA 298 9RRC 353 LT

Firkins v Dyer (Valuation Officer)(1972) 17 RRC 363, Lands Tribunal.

A hereditament comprising a shop at the front and a workshop at the rear had been split into two hereditaments by closing a passageway and a door. The valuation officer, following a suggestion that there should be revaluation separately, made a proposal to assess the part occupied by the appellants on the grounds ‘that structural alterations have been made and that the present assessment is incorrect and insufficient’. The ratepayers contended that the use of the word ‘insufficient’ in relation to the ‘present assessment’ made nonsense of the proposal, which was accordingly invalid.

The Lands Tribunal held that the proposal was reasonably clear for an aggrieved person to be able to act upon it without legal assistance and proceeded to hear an appeal. But in Firkins v Dyer (Valuation Officer)^2^, a proposal to increase the assessment of a hereditament which it described as ‘House (Ag) and workshop’ was held invalid where the valuation officer who had made it conceded in a subsequent letter to the ratepayer that the description was wrong and contended at the hearing that the house was not an agricultural dwelling.

4.41 S Thomas & Co (Nottingham) Ltd v Emett (Valuation Officer) (1955) 48 R & IT 761

  It was held by the Lands Tribunal that where a proposal was to increase and assessment on the ground of structural additions, the Tribunal could review the whole assessment and not limited to the value of the additions.

This means, if the grounds of proposal are met resulting in a change in the assessment, then a full and correct valuation should be carried out before any reduction is given.

5.0  Inaccuracies, ambiguities, errors and omissions

It is important to consider the intention of the proposer when considering the scope of proposal and any inaccuracies errors and omissions (with the exception of the regulations for incomplete proposals) may also be relevant.

Regard should be had to the principles established in the VT case Imperial Tobacco Group Ltd v Alexander (306019910109/5u NO5) and Mayday Optical Co Ltd v Kendrick  (RA/24/2012) as to how such errors should be viewed.

N.B. Any of the factors mentioned in 6(4)(5) or (6) are statutory requirements, so if they are missing then the approach under Imperial Tobacco is not appropriate and they would clearly be incomplete proposals.

If however, information provided in the proposal is unclear, incorrect or is ambiguous then consideration should be given to the following.

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

i)  First are errors of or omissions of a clerical nature which are trivial, insignificant and de minimis. These have no impact on the proposal’s validity and should be ignored.

ii)   Secondly, there are errors and omissions of substance but not the result of a deliberate attempt to mislead which do not impair the VO’s ability to consider the appellant’s case and which have no adverse impact on an assessment of the correct rateable value.  This encapsulates two questions: (a) Has there been substantial compliance? (b) Has it caused the VO any prejudice?  If the answer to (a) is yes and to (b) no, these failures do not render the proposal invalid.

iii) Thirdly, there are errors or omissions of a kind that misrepresent the appellant’s case or mislead the VO in considering the matter on its merits.  Such error or omission will render the proposal invalid if the VO decides so to treat it.  But if in the exercise of his discretion he chooses to disregard it and proceeds on the basis that the proposal is valid, that is entirely proper and the VO may either adjust the rateable value or allow the case to proceed to appeal before the Tribunal, but he may not thereafter raise or rely on the invalidity.

iv) Finally, there will be errors or omissions so fundamental that the proposal cannot in any circumstances be treated as valid (as in R v Northamptonshire Local Valuation Court, ex p Anglian Water Authority [1991] RA 93 CA, where a sewage works that no longer existed was named in the proposal instead of one half a mile away; and in Mainstream Ventures Ltd v Woolway (VO) [2000] RA 395, where the proposer was not qualified to make the proposal as he was not the occupier).  In this category, the VO has no alternative but to pronounce the proposal (in his opinion) invalid; and should such a proposal come before the Tribunal, whether on appeal against an invalidity notice or otherwise, the Tribunal, whatever stance taken by the VO, would have to declare the proposal invalid and either uphold the invalidity notice or strike out the appeal on the basis that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain it.  This is clear from the Mainstream case (supra) where the invalidity was raised for the first time by the VO on appeal to the Lands Tribunal although the defect should have been noticed at a much earlier stage.

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

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

para 25

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

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

para 26

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

para 27

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

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

(a) Is the statutory requirement fulfilled if there has been substantial compliance with the requirement and, if so, has there been substantial **compliance in the case in issue even though there has not been strict compliance? (The substantial compliance question.)

(b) Is the non-compliance capable of being waived, and if so, has it, or can it and should it be waived in this particular case? (The discretionary question.) I treat the grant of an extension of time for compliance as a waiver.

(c) If it is not capable of being waived or is not waived then what is the consequence of the non-compliance? (The consequences question.)”

para 52

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

para 58

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

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

N.B The above cases do not apply to information under regulation 6 which must be provided as prescribed by Regulation 8. If the information is not provided the proposal will be incomplete. There is no discretion. See section on incomplete proposals**

---

Part 1C(iii)  Unlawful and incomplete proposals (Reg 8) England

1.0  Introduction

If a proposal is defective in some way, then it will be either, unlawful or incomplete.

A proposal is unlawful if it is defective regarding;

• who submitted it

eg the proposer has no interest in the property but merely managing it

• how it was submitted  eg not via the VOA portal
• when it was submitted  eg out of time
• there is a specific restriction regarding its submission

eg MCC proposal submitted out of time due to an earlier check

If it is defective regarding its content, in that it is missing statutorily required information as specified in Regulation 6, the proposal will be incomplete.

eg missing rent, evidence, grounds reasoning

This is examined in more detail below

Part 1: Unlawful Proposal

An unlawful proposal is one that either the proposer is not entitled to make or has not been served correctly in accordance with the regulations. This may be as a result of having no right to make the proposal, timeliness, duplication or some other restriction on making the proposal.

If a proposal is unlawful, no Decision Notice should be issued and the proposal should be refused and the case cancelled. There is no right to appeal the decision to make the proposal unlawful.

Examples of unlawful proposals are:-

- not having an interest in the property by being an IP or former IP, so not legally entitled to make a proposal

• a former IP making a proposal on grounds he is not entitled to make e.g. compiled list, MCCs.

- no check has been submitted by the same proposer

- duplication of proposals, second bite of the cherry

- being made out of time

- not made on one of the specified grounds in Reg 4

- against a previous VO list alteration resulting from a proposal

- against a previous VT / Tribunal decision on the subject property

If the proposal is defective as to its content, ie missing information required under Regulation 6, then it is treated as an incomplete proposal and not an unlawful one.

In the event a proposal is unlawful, the case should be cancelled on RSA.

1.1  Proposer Status

In order to make a proposal, the proposer must be an Interested Person (‘IP’) and have a lawful interest in the property, or be a former IP.

1.2   Interested Person

The definition of a lawful interest is found in Reg 2(1) Appeals Regs SI 2009/2268

(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, means the Crown Estate Commissioners;

(b) in relation to any other hereditament, means—

(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 the 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)

This means that the IP must be a Crown Estate Commissioner, occupier or owner (the latter includes higher interests in the property such as a head lease)

A company with a ‘qualifying connection’ is either a direct subsidiary or holding company of another

(2)     A person shall be treated as having a qualifying connection with another—

(a)     where both persons are companies, and—

(i)     one is a subsidiary of the other, or

(ii)     both are subsidiaries of the same company; or

(b)     where only one person is a company, the other person (the “second person”) has such an interest in that company as would, if the second person were a company, result in its being the holding company of the other.

If the Proposer does not have one of these qualifying interests, e.g. a managing company, subsidiary etc  then they cannot make a proposal and it is unlawful.

If a property has been deleted from the list, then the occupier (tenant) no longer has any rights in the property. Therefore, when the request for check information, (reg 4B(2)) is made the grounds on which they can submit a proposal is restricted to 4(1)(c) P&M, (d) VO alterations and (f) Eds and only in respect of the period in which they were in occupation. As a former IP they have no right to make proposals against the compiled list, splits etc. Such a proposal would be unlawful.  They should have challenged the list entries whilst they were still an IP, however the VO should still consider if the list entries were correct and serve a VON to amend if not which would then enable the former IP to submit a proposal..

If the buildings have been demolished then the land is still standing and therefore only the owner would have a legal interest in the property (all other leases etc being extinguished) and therefore as an IP can select any ground under Reg 4(1).

1.3  Former IPs

If the Proposer was an IP, but has since left the property, then depending on when he left it can affect his rights which may be restricted under Reg 4(1) as to which grounds of challenge he may use.

Under Reg 4B(2), the proposer is required to make a request for information from the VO to commence the check process.

If at the date of that request, the proposer no longer has a legal interest in the property then he may only make a proposal on grounds relating to P&M ((4(1)(C)), RV arising from a list alteration ((4(1)(d) or against the effective date arising from a list alteration ((4(1)(f).

If at the date of that request, the proposer had a legal interest and then later left the property he is entitled to make a proposal on any ground under Reg 4(1)

Where a former IP makes a proposal he is not entitled to make because of a lack of legal interest in the property, the proposal will be unlawful.

1.4  Submission of a proposal

The proposal is required to be served on the VO using the VOA Portal, unless otherwise prior agreed as stated in Reg 6(2).  If the proposal is not served correctly it will be unlawful.

1.5  Time limits and completed checks

A check must be completed by the same person before a proposal can be made.

Regulation 4B (2) requires that before making a proposal, the person, must request information from the VO regarding the hereditament. This means that the check must be made by the same person making the proposal.

Additionally, Reg 6(1) requires that a proposal must be made within 4 months of the date the  check was completed.

A check is completed when; a notice of decision has been issued at check, or 12 months  has elapsed from the date of submission of check (or a period as agreed in writing) and no such notice has been issued. (Reg 4F(3)).

Note the exception to this are external material change of circumstances (MCC) proposals, which have an extended time limit of 16 months from the date of check submission, if that is a later date than the 4 month period. (Reg 6A(2))

Therefore, if the check process is still on going and 12 months has not elapsed any proposal would be premature and unlawful.

Equally, if more than 4 months has elapsed since the notice of check decision, then the proposal will also be unlawful, with the exception of external MCC proposals to which different time limits apply.

With the exception of MCC proposals, if the IP was entitled to make a proposal, they would have to submit a new check, and then make the proposal within 4 months of the new check.

1.6  Grounds of proposal

The correct grounds specified under Reg 4(1) must be chosen in order for a lawful proposal to be made.

This is subject to the restriction on former Ips – see 1.1 above.

If a proposal is made on a ground that is not permitted the proposal will be unlawful.

(for interpretation of each ground of proposal see interpretation – s6 Pt 1C (i) 4.14)

Circumstances in which proposals may be made

Regulation (4(1)

(1)     The grounds for making a proposal are—

(a)     the rateable value shown in the list for a hereditament was inaccurate on the day the list was compiled;

(b)     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 on which the list was compiled;

(c)     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) (England) Regulations 2000 which comes into force on or after the day on which the list was compiled;

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

(e)     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—

(i)     the VTE,

(ii)     a valuation tribunal, or

(iii)     the Lands Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal or a court determining an appeal or application for review from the VTE, a valuation tribunal, the Lands Tribunal or the Upper Tribunal,

to be or to have been inaccurate;

(f)     the day from which an alteration is shown in the list as having effect is wrong;

(g)     a hereditament not shown in the list ought to be shown in that list;

(h)     a hereditament shown in the list ought not to be shown in that list;

(i)     the list should show that some part of a hereditament which is shown in the list is domestic property or is exempt from non-domestic rating but does not do so;

(j)     the list should not show that some part of a hereditament which is shown in the list is domestic property or is exempt from non-domestic rating but does so;

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

(l)     property which is shown in the list as one hereditament ought to be shown as more than one hereditament;

(m)     the address shown in the list for a hereditament is wrong;

(n)     the description shown in the list for a hereditament is wrong; and

(o)     any statement required to be made about the hereditament under section 42 of the Act has been omitted from the list.

Note – if an MCC occurred prior to the list coming into force then a compiled list proposal must be submitted as an MCC proposal can only be made for changes occurring on or after the start of the list and not before. If such an attempt is made the proposal will be unlawful.

1.7  Proposals made with multiple grounds

A proposal may only contain more than one ground if the Material Day (MD) and Effective Dates (ED) are the same for both events.

If any ground has a different MD or ED then the proposal is unlawful

1.8 Proposals which include multiple buildings

A proposal can only include more than one property if:

a) it is for a split / reconstitution of the assessment or

b) the IP is connected to all the properties, in the same capacity and all the buildings are within the same building or curtilage.

e.g a landlord submitting a proposal in respect of an office block shown in the List as 3 assessments provided he is acting in the same capacity for all of them eg owner.

If any of these requirements are not met the proposal will be unlawful.

1.9  Duplicate proposals

A proposal will be unlawful if one has already been made by the same person (or person with a qualifying connection) on the same grounds arising from the same event in respect of the same hereditament. Reg 4(3)((b)(i) and (ia)

An event is a compiled list, list alteration or MCC

Duplicate Proposal Reg 4(3)

(3)     No proposal may be made—

(a)     by reference to more than one ground unless, for each ground relied on, the material day and the effective date are the same;

(b)     by . . .—

(i)     an IP, where that person (or a person having a qualifying connection with that person), acting in the same capacity, has made a proposal to alter the same list in relation to the same hereditament on the same ground and arising from the same event;

[(ia)     a person mentioned in paragraph (2)(aa) or (c), where that person (or a person having a qualifying connection with that person), acting in that capacity or acting as an IP, has made a proposal to alter the same list in relation to the same hereditament on the same ground and arising from the same event;

(ii)     an IP or a person mentioned in paragraph (2)(aa) or (c), where a proposal to alter the list in relation to the same hereditament and arising from the same facts has been made by another person (excluding a person having a qualifying connection with the IP) and has been considered and determined by a valuation tribunal, the VTE, the Lands Tribunal or the Upper Tribunal;

(c)        on the ground set out in paragraph (1)(d), to the extent that the alteration was made as a result of a previous proposal relating to that hereditament or gives effect to the decision of a valuation tribunal, the VTE, the Lands Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal or a court determining an appeal or an application for a review in relation to the hereditament concerned.

1.10 Second bite of the cherry

A proposal will be unlawful if one has been made on the same facts by another IP (or former IP) and it has been considered and determined by a Tribunal (regardless of whether the earlier proposal was successful or not) Reg 4(3)(b)(ii).

1.11   List alterations and Tribunal decisions

A proposal will be unlawful where the challenged is being made on the grounds of a List alteration being inaccurate (Reg 4(1)(d)), and that alteration was giving effect to a previous proposal on the hereditament or the result of a Tribunal decision. There is no time limit as to when the Tribunal decision was made.

1.12  Inaccuracies, Errors, Omissions and late discoveries

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

N.B. Any of the factors mentioned in 6(4)(5) or (6) are statutory requirements, so if they are missing then the approach under Imperial Tobacco is not appropriate and they would clearly be incomplete proposals.

If however, information provided in the proposal is unclear, incorrect or  is ambiguous then consideration should be given to the following.

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

i)  First are errors of or omissions of a clerical nature which are trivial, insignificant and de minimis. These have no impact on the proposal’s validity and should be ignored.

ii)   Secondly, there are errors and omissions of substance but not the result of a deliberate attempt to mislead which do not impair the VO’s ability to consider the appellant’s case and which have no adverse impact on an assessment of the correct rateable value.  This encapsulates two questions: (a) Has there been substantial compliance? (b) Has it caused the VO any prejudice?  If the answer to (a) is yes and to (b) no, these failures do not render the proposal invalid.

iii) Thirdly, there are errors or omissions of a kind that misrepresent the appellant’s case or mislead the VO in considering the matter on its merits.  Such error or omission will render the proposal invalid if the VO decides so to treat it.  But if in the exercise of his discretion he chooses to disregard it and proceeds on the basis that the proposal is valid, that is entirely proper and the VO may either adjust the rateable value or allow the case to proceed to appeal before the Tribunal, but he may not thereafter raise or rely on the invalidity.

iv) Finally, there will be errors or omissions so fundamental that the proposal cannot in any circumstances be treated as valid (as in R v Northamptonshire Local Valuation Court, ex p Anglian Water Authority [1991] RA 93 CA, where a sewage works that no longer existed was named in the proposal instead of one half a mile away; and in Mainstream Ventures Ltd v Woolway (VO) [2000] RA 395, where the proposer was not qualified to make the proposal as he was not the occupier).  In this category, the VO has no alternative but to pronounce the proposal (in his opinion) invalid; and should such a proposal come before the Tribunal, whether on appeal against an invalidity notice or otherwise, the Tribunal, whatever stance taken by the VO, would have to declare the proposal invalid and either uphold the invalidity notice or strike out the appeal on the basis that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain it.  This is clear from the Mainstream case (supra) where the invalidity was raised for the first time by the VO on appeal to the Lands Tribunal although the defect should have been noticed at a much earlier stage.

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

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

para 25

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

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

para 26

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

para 27

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

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

(a) Is the statutory requirement fulfilled if there has been substantial compliance with the requirement and, if so, has there been substantial compliance in the case in issue even though there has not been strict compliance? (The substantial compliance question.)

(b) Is the non-compliance capable of being waived, and if so, has it, or can it and should it be waived in this particular case? (The discretionary question.) I treat the grant of an extension of time for compliance as a waiver.

(c) If it is not capable of being waived or is not waived then what is the consequence of the non-compliance? (The consequences question.)”

para 52

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

para 58

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

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

NB The above does not apply to information under regulation 6 which must be provided as prescribed by Regulation 8. If the information is not provided the proposal will be incomplete. There is no discretion. See incomplete proposals below.

1.14  Conditional proposals

If conditional phrases have been used in the proposal, for example due to Covid the agent is unable to obtain or clarify some information, or that should the case proceed to appeal then they will make further submissions, or referral to a third party report such as a GPCR outcome, then such phrases have no legal standing per se.

The proposer should include all his evidence, and there is sufficient time between the preparation and submission of a check, and submission of the proposal, to be able to provide full and accurate information at challenge.

The proposal together with the evidence submitted at challenge is the only evidence that may be considered later at appeal stage. If the proposer is intending to add more information later then they risk being prevented from doing so due to the restrictions on further evidence at the Appeal stage under Reg 17A (Procedure Regulations 2009/2269) and being refused by the VT.

The Challenge documentation should stand alone in its own right and the principle of CCA is that all the relevant evidence should be provided at the outset then thoroughly examined during challenge stage. This is subject to the introduction of ‘new evidence’ that was not available at the time of making the proposal being permitted under Reg 9(10).

CCA Ops have a specific form of words to use where conditional proposals have been made - see operational guidance.

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

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

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

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

(2)   Alternatively a MCC proposal under Reg 4(1)(b) may be submitted.

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

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

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

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

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

2.0  MCC proposals

There are additional situations where an MCC proposal will be unlawful:

1)  An internal  MCC proposal  is submitted later than 4 months from the completion of check

2) An external MCC proposal is submitted later than 16 months from the date of submission of check

3) An external MCC  proposal has been made after the 4 months from the date of completion of check and is incomplete the proposer is barred from submitting another attempt on the original check. (Reg 8 and 6A(5)). Reg 8 only permits a re-submission of a proposal within the 4 months of the date of check completion and such a proposal is outside that time limit). A fresh check and challenge may be submitted but the challenge must be within the original 16 month period of the first check. For further information see Part  8C para 5.5.

4)  The MCC must have occurred on or after the compiled list date. If before then it is not a lawful ground and a compiled list proposal should have been made. (Reg 4(1)(b))

5)  If an earlier check has mentioned an MCC and no lawful and complete proposal was submitted within the prescribed time limits, then the proposer is barred from submitting an MCC proposal for the same MCC. He has missed his opportunity and the only recourse is to ask the VO to consider the facts and serve a notice to alter the list if appropriate. (Reg 6A(5))

6)  If a proposal has been made for an MCC, eg road works, then the Proposer cannot make a second proposal at a later date in respect of the same MCC (reg 6A(3))

7) MCC proposals relating to Covid either directly or indirectly, , although not unlawful cannot have any effect due to changes in the regulations see  Valuation for Rating (coronavirus) (England) Regulations 2021 SI 2021/398

3.0 Refusal and Appeal

There is no right of appeal against a decision that a proposal is unlawful. The proposal should be refused and the case cancelled. A notification should be sent to the proposer explaining the reasons for refusal.

If a proposal is unlawful it does not make any difference when this is discovered, if not until appeal stage then the Tribunal should be informed and a dismissal of the appeal requested.

Substantive proposal

If a proposal has been declared unlawful, eg it has been made prematurely – it is not a substantive proposal and therefore the IP will not be barred from re -entering the CCA process and having another go. ie not count as a go re second bite of the cherry

4.0  Withdrawn

Part 2 Incomplete Proposal (Regulation 8)

5.1 Background

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

An incomplete proposal is one that is defective in its content as specified and mandated in Regulation 6.

ie A proposal (Challenge) will be incomplete if matters listed under Regulation 6(4-6) Appeals Regulations (SI 2009/2268) are not included ie omitted from the challenge submission documentation.

This is different to a proposal which is unlawful, (see para 4.19 above) which is one that does not meet the requirements regarding its actual submission e.g. due to missed time limits, duplication or some other restriction.

It is also different to the rules on invalidity that applied in the 2010 list for England and 2017 for Wales that permitted an element of discretion by the VO. Under Regulation 8, a strict interpretation is applied and the specified information is mandated and must be provided.

A proposal (Challenge) will be incomplete if matters listed under Regulation 6(4-6) Appeals Regulations (SI 2009/2268) are not included ie omitted from the challenge submission documentation.

5.2 Regulations 6 (4)–(6) – Required Information

Sets out what MUST be included in the content of a proposal in order for it to be considered complete.

6(4)  (a) the name, address and contact details of the proposer;

(b)     the grounds of the proposal including the particulars on which each of the grounds is based (“particulars of the grounds of the proposal”);

(c)     details of the proposed alteration of the list;

(d)     the date from which the proposer asserts the proposed alteration should have effect;

(e)     the date on which the proposal is served on the VO;

(f)     evidence to support the grounds of the proposal; and

(g)     a statement as to how the evidence supports the grounds of the proposal

6(5)  If the proposal is made against a VT / Tribunal decision

(a)     the date of the decision made in relation to another hereditament (“the decision”);

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

(c)     information to identify the other hereditament;

(d)     the reasons the proposer believes that the decision is relevant to the rateable value or other information shown in the list for the hereditament; and

(e)     the reasons the proposer believes that, by reason of the decision, the rateable value or other information shown in the list for the hereditament is inaccurate

6(6)  the amount payable each year by the proposer, as at the date the proposal is made, in respect of the lease, easement or licence to occupy, the date at which that amount first became payable and details of any rent-free periods

5.3  Interpretation of the statutory requirements

5.4   Particulars of a proposal

This relates to the finer details of the grounds specified under Reg 4(1) Appeals Regulations SI 2009/2268.

For example,

a proposal challenging an RV arising from a list alteration  (Reg 4(1)(d)  should state:

                        - the date of the list alteration

                        - the date the notice was issued

                        - the alteration that was made to the list which is considered to be in error

A proposal relating to an MCC (Reg 4(1)(b) should state

                        - the details and nature of the MCC

                        - the date the MCC started

It would also useful to state the date the MCC ceased (if applicable)

5.5  Evidence to support a proposal

This cannot be just opinion evidence or general statements claiming reductions. It requires factual documentary evidence to support the grounds that are being contested and these must be attached and not just referred to. The proposal should contain all the evidence on which the proposer intends to rely and include all reports etc referred to.

E.g copies of leases, rents, comparable evidence, photographs, plans, reports, accounts etc

Must be included for MCCs – how this has actually affected the property

5.6  Reasoned statement

There also needs to be a clear separate statement explaining how the evidence provided relates to the details of the grounds provided.

5.7  Proposals made on the grounds of Reg 4(1)(e) against Tribunal decisions

Are also required to supply the following information in addition to that above:

      a)      the Date of the Tribunal/Court decision

       b)      the name of the Tribunal/Court making the decision

       c)      identify the other hereditament   

       d)      the reason why that decision is relevant to the subject property

       e)      the reason why the RV or other information shown in the List is wrong by reason of the decision

The submission must explain how the Tribunal decision is relevant and how it supports their case in detail. It should also explain how the decision impacts on the subject property.

There is no time limit as to when the Tribunal decision was made under the regulations but the proposer has to demonstrate there is a causal link.

5.8  Rental Details

5.9  Proposal types requiring the rent to be declared

Reg 6((5) & (6) requires the rent passing at the date of proposal to be stated for all proposal types

Except:

                     - deletions under, Reg 4(1)(h)

                     - incorrect address, Reg 4(1)(m)

                     - incorrect description, Reg 4(1)(n)

                     - any other statement about the hereditament required under s42 of the Act has been omitted from the list, Reg 4(1)(o) eg partial exemption, composite etc

For any other grounds of proposal, if there is a rent passing and this has not been declared then the proposal will be incomplete.

The rent declared must be the rent passing at the date of proposal

If the rent is unusual eg stepped rent, rent frees, concessionary rents, turnover rent , then it is the full amount payable that must be declared.

E.g if a turnover rent exists then the base rent and the top up paid must be declared

It is helpful if the rent is an unusual one that the IP gives the full background and copy of the lease agreement to substantiate the correct amount paid within the body of the challenge submission to avoid any mis-understandings and the proposal being made incomplete incorrectly.

5.10  Legal requirement re details of rent to be declared

The regulations require details of both the rent in respect of the lease, licence or easement AND any rent-free details at the time the proposal is made, to be declared. See table at below for more details

5.11  Required Rental details

The exact nature of the rent to be declared on a proposal will vary depending on the status of the proposer, these are set out in the table below:

Rent Required

5.12  Service Offices

5.15  Proposals with more then one property quoted

They must have the same interest in all the units – ie the same capacity – e.g.as the landlord.

And they must also be within the same building or curtilage and then they have to declare the rent received or paid for each part.

The critical thing here is the capacity in which the proposal is made and the actual facts on the ground and if they match.

5.14 Proposals for spits and merger

5.15  Multiple properties on a single proposal

A proposal can refer to multiple properties in limited circumstances where:-

• The proposal is for a merger or reconstitution (grounds reg 4(1)(k)) or
• The proposal is for a number of hereditaments however the following requirements must be met:
• The Proposer is acting in the same capacity for every hereditament
• All the hereditaments are within the same building or curtilage.

For each hereditament referred to in such proposals, the rent and rent-free details should be declared.

If the owner/head lessee is the proposer, then they need to declare the rent they receive on each hereditaments sublet as per (2) in the table above.

If they are the occupier of multiple units in the same building/curtilage then they have to state the rent they pay for each of the units as per (1) in the table above.

If any of the units are held in a different capacity eg a head lessee retains one floor for his own use and sublets the rest, then they are not all held in the same capacity and they cannot be included on the same proposal.

The hereditament which they occupy must be on a separate proposal stating the rent that is paid to his landlord.

The proposal with the sublets on will state the rent the head lessee receives for each of the sublets stated.

6.0   Serviced Offices / markets etc

The difficulty with serviced offices and similar type operations, is the question of paramount control and  consequently rateable occupation, in that they can come in various configurations dependent on the type of agreements in places with the individual users of each of the rooms. Often the provider will be a head lessee paying a single rent to the owner whilst receiving individual payments for use various parts of the premises under licences or tenancies.

The agreements, eg licences, tenancies, may be such, that in fact each individual user meets the 4 tests of rateable occupation so as to constitute individual hereditaments which should be separately assessed. Alternatively, the way the individual parts are used together with the rate of turnover of users is such that the provider actually retains overall paramount control and there is correctly a single unit of assessment. There may also be circumstances whereby the provider maintains some rooms for very short-term use, with powers to move users around when required and some rooms where users may be there for many years and left undisturbed. In that latter scenario it may be appropriate to have one main assessment where the provider retains paramount control and various individual assessments for the long-term users who meet the rateable occupation requirements.  It will be a question of the facts on the ground as to whether there should be one or more assessments.

Where a service provider has made a proposal eg for a reduction on a single hereditament for which he is in paramount control, he would be considered to be the ‘occupier’ and in those circumstances for the purposes of Reg 6(6) he should provide details of the rent he pays to his landlord for the whole property.

If however, he has made a proposal to split or reconstitute the single assessment due to the licence agreements giving the users paramount control of their respective parts, then he will not be the occupier of those parts. The rent to be declared for the purposes of Reg 6(6) will be the rents received by him in respect of the individual parts. However, as there are difficulties in entering details of more than one rent on the portal, the proposer should ensure he includes the required details within the documentation attached to his proposal.

The difficulty with premises like serviced offices is the actual wording of the licence agreements, length of stay of the users and how the enterprise is run ie the facts on the ground, that will  determine who actually has paramount control and whether the provider is the occupier or not. These details may not necessarily be available on receipt of the proposal so the caseworker needs to be vigilant regarding whether the proposal is complete or not when dealing with it later in the challenge process.

There may be other reasons why a proposal may be INCOMPLETE even if the rent and rent free period are provided; for instance, if there is no evidence (Reg 6(4)(f)) or no statement as to how the evidence supports the grounds of the proposal (Reg6(4)(g)) but this paper focuses on issues of Incomplete regarding the rent. Please see guidance on incomplete proposals in RM section 7 part 4 CCA, 5 Incomplete proposals. The examples given below only relate to where the rent or rent free period has been omitted or is incorrect.

7.0 Examples

Example 1

The head lessee makes a proposal on a hereditament he pays a rent to his landlord of £10,000 pa and sublets the premises for £12,000.pa

The rent to be declared

The head lessee is not the occupier of the hereditament

The rent to be declared on the proposal is the rent he receives for the hereditament ie £12,000pa.

Example 2

The proposer is an occupier who rents a shop with living accommodation (LA) for £15,000pa.

The hereditament is the whole, ie shop and LA, it is a composite property.

The proposal refers to the shop.

The rent to be declared

is the rent paid to the landlord for the whole hereditament, £15,000pa as per Reg 6(6) (a)

The rent should not be apportioned between the domestic and non-domestic parts however it would be helpful if the occupier stated in his submission that the rent includes the LA.

Example 3

The proposer is an occupier who rents a shop with offices above for £12,000pa.

The occupier sublets the offices for £3,500pa. The offices have a separate hereditament in the rating list.

The proposal is in respect of the shop hereditament.

The rent to be declared

 is the rent paid by the occupier to his landlord ie £12,000 pa as per Reg 6(6)(b).

This rent should not be apportioned between the parts.

However, it would be helpful if the occupier stated in his submission document that the rent included other property.

Example 4

The proposer rents and occupies a factory that comprises 3 adjoining units that form one hereditament in one assessment.

He has 3 leases, one in respect of each unit.

The rent to be declared

He will have to declare all 3 rents that he pays for each unit on the proposal as per Reg 6(6)(a)

As the VOA portal does not allow more than one rent to be stated then ideally he could declare the total rent paid and give the breakdown in his submission or alternatively state one of the rents and then give full details of the other payments in his written submission. Either approach would be acceptable provided the full details are given somewhere in the documentation provided.

Example 5

A head lessee of a 3 storey office block makes a proposal including the 3 properties for an MCC. Each floor is sublet to a separate party and each floor is the subject of a separate assessment.

As he is acting in the same capacity for every hereditament they can be included on the same proposal.

The rent to be declared

The rental information to be declared is the rent he receives for each of the sublet units.

Again he may give the total in the portal and a breakdown in his submission or put one rent on the portal and full details in his submission to meet the requirements of the regulations.

Example 6

The proposer is the head lessee of a 3 Storey office block. 2 floors are sublet and one he retains for his own use.

Each floor is the subject of a separate assessment.

The proposal refers to an MCC affecting all 3 floors.

Issue

In this case the head lessee is not acting in the same capacity for the 3 hereditaments referred to although they are within the same building.

He is the occupier in respect of the vacant parts and the parts he occupies but the owner in respect of the parts sublet.

He therefore fails to meet the requirements of Reg 6)(7) and the proposal should be rejected as unlawful.

Correct approach

He should make a proposal to include the 2 sublet floors stating the rent he receives for each Unit (Reg 6(6)(b) and on a separate proposal the rent for the unit that he is in occupation of. On the latter proposal he would declare the whole rent he pays in his lease to his landlord. This rent should not be apportioned.  (Reg 6(6)(a).

However, it would be useful if within the documentation it is explained that the rent paid includes other property.

Example 7

A head lessee makes a proposal to split a hereditament that he has sublet in 2 parts.

Rent to be declared

The headless is not the occupier of the hereditament. There are now 2 new occupiers and therefore the head lessee in his proposal should give details of both of those lettings in his proposal as per Reg 6(6)(b).

Example 8

A proposal was made on 1/1/21 by a person who was the occupier of a shop hereditament from 1/1/17 to 31/12/20, the rent set at the start of his occupation was £12,000pa there was a review in 1/1/20 to £15,000pa.  The VO increased the assessment in the list with effect from 1/9/17 and the previous tenant wants to challenge this alteration. The current rent on the property paid by the new occupier is £25,000pa

Rent to be declared

The Person is a former IP who has restricted grounds on which to make a proposal, a RV resulting from a List alteration during his occupancy being one of them.

The rent he has to declare on the proposal is the rent that was being paid when he left the property ie £15,000pa (as per reg 6(6)(c) and the date that is became payable was 1/1/20.

Example 9

The agreement from the SOOP ( Serviced Office Operator ) is not a lease/easement or licence  within the meaning of 6(6), it is something else – club membership. Some of the occupations in London are subject to gold/silver/bronze levels of membership.

In this scenario, unless there is evidence to the contrary, then the service provider remains in paramount control with exclusive occupation etc and therefore there is only a single hereditament of which the provider is the rateable occupier. The rent to be quoted on the proposal will be the rent paid by him to the owner or superior interest.

Example 10

A user has asked for his unit in a multi-office complex to be separately assessed, it is currently part of a much larger single hereditament in the list. He currently pays a monthly fee on a rolling monthly basis.

The regulation asks for the amount payable each year   - there is no certainty that the agreement will continue for a year (normally month to month)

It will depend on the terms of the agreement and length of time in occupation by the user as to whether there should be a separate hereditament. However, for the purposes of Regulation 6(6) if such a proposer has declared the rent he pays for his unit on his proposal that will meet the requirements of legislation.

The caseworker in this scenario will have to satisfy themselves that there should be a separate unit and amend the list accordingly having investigated fully the terms of the agreement, exclusivity and length of occupation,

8.0 Refusal Process

8.1  Refusal of proposals

If a proposal does not fulfil all the requirements of Reg 8, i.e. it does not identify the grounds, contains all requisite information, evidence and reasoning etc. required under Reg 6, it will be  incomplete and MUST NOT be accepted and MUST be made incomplete. This principle should be applied strictly.

This is an absolute duty, which must be applied strictly, regardless of whether the VO or IP consider the information relevant or not or whether either party is disadvantaged by its omission.

Once a proposal has been rejected as incomplete there is no right of appeal to the VT against that decision.

A proposal can be made incomplete anytime after submission but before it is resolved by settlement or Decision Notice. In this case the notice of refusal is issued and the case closed on RSA and the Challenge process ceases.

A second attempt at submitting a fresh proposal may be made within the remaining time balance of the original 4-month challenge window. The extended time period for re submission runs from when the notice of refusal is served on the proposer. ~(regulation 8(3).

The IP can have as many attempts as they wish to make a lawful and complete proposal. However, third and subsequent attempts are restricted by Regulation 8(5) and different time limits apply. These subsequent attempts must be submitted within the original 4 month window which runs from the date of check completion.

Examples of the time limits are set out below at 8.7

The time limits for third and subsequent attempts are different see 8.7 below.

However, if the proposal was in respect of an external MCC and was not received until after that 4-month period from date of completion of check, then there is no right to re-submit. (See 8.8 below).

In the case of MCCs proposals no fresh check and challenge can be submitted for the same MCC, where that MCC was referred to in a Check confirmation more than 16 months ago as the IP is barred by the provisions of Reg 6A(5). In that circumstance the caseworker should consider if there is merit in the grounds raised and amend the list where appropriate

8.2 Quality of proposal

If the proposal omits any of the regulation 6  items, then it must be made incomplete.

If all the required items shown above are present in the proposal, then regardless as to the quality or strength of the information submitted, provided it is accurate, then the proposal may be treated as being complete.

If the challenge document is complete, but weak as to its content, the proposer runs the risk of not fully covering his case at the outset and being later restricted on providing further evidence and prohibition on introducing new grounds.

If a proposal has been made under Reg 4(1)(b) for an MCC and fails to identify an MCC under the requirements of LGFA Sched 6 para 2(7) (a-e), then that proposal should be treated as incomplete.

8.3 Inaccuracies and late discoveries

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

See 1.13 above re consideration of errors under Imperial Tobacco and Mayday.

N.B. Any of the factors mentioned in Reg 6(4)(5) or (6) are statutory requirements, so if they are missing then the approach under Imperial Tobacco is not appropriate and they would clearly be incomplete proposals.

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

Within four weeks of receiving a Proposal, the VO must acknowledge to the proposer that the Proposal has been received, this does not apply to incomplete proposals (Reg 8(1) & (2)).

Whilst the proposal should be read and understood as a single document as to its scope and meaning, it still has to meet the requirements of Regulation 6 and if any of the specified details are not provided  the proposal MUST be made incomplete by virtue of Regulation 8.

8.4  Acknowledging proposals and Substantive proposals

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

Whilst the proposal should be read and understood as a single document as to its scope and meaning, it still has to meet the requirements of Regulation 6 and if any of the specified details are not provided  the proposal MUST be made incomplete by virtue of Regulation 8.

If a proposal is incomplete (or unlawful) it is not a substantive proposal.

8.5  Notice of Refusal

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

(Reg 8(2)):-

                         (a)  the missing information

                         (b)  the date the notice is served.

8.6  Re-Submissions

Second Submissions due to the original proposal being incomplete.

If a proposal is incomplete then the proposer may submit a second attempt within the balance of the time left from the original 4 month challenge window starting from the date on which the challenge was made incomplete (Reg 8(3)).

The time period from when the initial incomplete proposal was submitted, to the date of the notice of refusal, is ignored when calculating the balance of the 4 month period for re-submission (Reg 8(4)). This extension is only applied to the first re-submission.

The re-submission must be by a complete proposal. It is not acceptable just to provide the missing information by email.

Third and subsequent attempts at submissions due to a proposal being incomplete.

 If the third or subsequent attempts at submitting a proposal are also incomplete then regulation 8(4) does not apply.

The time limit for re-submission of third and subsequent attempts reverts back to the original 4 month window which runs from the date of check completion. No time extension applies. Regulation 8(5).

8.7  Calculating the additional time period under Regulation 8 for re-submission attempts

Additional Time

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

For third and subsequent attempts which are also incomplete then the time extension under Regulation 8(4) does not apply. The time limit for re-submission of third and subsequent attempts reverts back to the original 4 month window from the date of check completion.

For example:

Check notice of decision issued         DN 1/4/23

Challenge must be submitted before        1/8/23 ( ie 4 months from 1/4/23)

Challenge 1 submitted 1/5/23

made incomplete as rent omitted

 ie submitted after 2 months of 4 month window – 2 months remain

Incomplete notices issued 1/7/23

Residual time calculation

2 months in which to have a second submission

ie must be before  1/9/23   ( 1/7/23 + 2 months residual time)

If attempt 2 in incorrect then original time limits apply

ie  the 2nd attempt must be made by the end of the original 4 month window

ie 1/8/23 – the IP is out of time to have a second go

The time extension does not apply to subsequent attempts

There is no discretionary period – the time limits are prescribed in regulation 8 -the VO has no choice but to apply.

Regulation 8(3-5) states

(3) If an incomplete proposal in relation to a hereditament is refused, the proposer may make a further proposal within the period of 4 months beginning with the date on which a check was completed in relation to the hereditament.

(4) In calculating the period in paragraph (3), the days beginning with the date on which the incomplete proposal was made and ending with the date on which the notice of refusal was served are to be ignored.

8(5) applies to attempt 3+

(5) Paragraph (4) does not apply where a second or subsequent notice of refusal is served in relation to the further proposal.]

8.8  Restriction applying to incomplete proposals relating to external MCCs only

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

Therefore, if the Proposer submits an external MCC challenge after 4 months (and before the 16 months from completion of check) and that attempt is incomplete he will be out of time to re-submit his proposal under Regulation 8.

He could submit a fresh check(2)  and proposal (2) for the MCC provided he meets all the following:

                           a)  The MCC proposal is either within

• 4 months of completion of check 2 or
• 16 months of check 2 submission  (whichever is later) and

                           b)   The Proposal is still within the original 16 month period of check 1

submission   AND

                           c)   No earlier checks mentioned that MCC for which the time limits have now elapsed 

                           d)   No earlier proposal has been submitted for the same MCC.   

If the proposal does not meet all the requirements above no further attempts may be made to submit that MCC proposal following the initial proposal being made incomplete. NB the process is different in Wales.

8.9    Rights of appeal re ‘incomplete’

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is nothing to stop an IP submitting a fresh Check and subsequent proposal if the original proposal was incomplete.   

The only exception to this is MCC proposals, whereby if a check has been submitted and a full and complete proposal under Reg 4(1)(b) (MCC) has not been submitted within the required time limits, then the IP cannot submit a further proposal in respect of that particular MCC (Reg 6A(5)).

Due to the fact that there is no reference in Regulation 8(3) to re-submissions after the 4-month window has closed.

---

Part 1C (iv)    Challenge Procedure (Reg 9)

6.1 Background

There are a number of stages to the challenge process after the proposal has been submitted:-

1)  Notification to the Ratepayer and Relevant Authority of the proposal

2)  Review of the proposal by the VO & of its completeness and if it is a landlord or IP proposal that the ratepayer has been notified and included.

3)  Review of the evidence provided and written initial response by the VO. This may be by discussion to reach an agreed outcome (well found, agreement or withdrawal), or an exchange of evidence and argument i.e. initial response and reply if appropriate.

4)   Amendment of the rating list (if appropriate) - this should be before the decision notice is issued.

5)   Determination of the proposal and issue of Decision Notice

6.2 Notifying the Ratepayer

Where the proposer is not the ratepayer, the VO has to serve a copy of the complete proposal on the ratepayer within 2 months of receipt (Reg 9(1)). Please see the disclosure guidance regarding any redaction.

The requirement is to serve a copy on the ratepayer only. If an agent has been appointed, then he could obtain a copy from his client or if appointed on Property Linking, view the documents through the VO portal.

If the proposal submitted was incomplete or unlawful then a copy does not have to be served as it is not a substantive proposal.

The ratepayer is defined (Reg 1) as the occupier or if the premises are vacant, the owner.(The owner is defined in s65(1) LGFA 1988).

The VO has to include a statement of the effect of the Regulations 10-13E, i.e. the process of settlement and rights of appeal to the VT.

This would apply for example where the landlord has made a proposal or the proposal is for a split of an assessment, in which case the other party involved in the split should become a party to the proposal.

There are no requirements in the regulations to notify any other interested party, (including the landlord or owner), of the existence of the proposal.

However, the Ratepayer and other IP’s have to opt in within the 2 month period from the date the VO receives the proposal in order to have any rights regarding withdrawals, agreements or receipt of a copy of the Decision Notice during challenge. See 6.4 below.

6.3 Notifying the Relevant Authority (RA)

The VO should notify the Relevant Authority of the Proposal within 6 weeks beginning from the date of receipt of the Proposal (Reg 9(5)).

and

when the proposal is determined the VO needs to notify the RA with the following information (Reg 9(5)):-

a)   identity of the hereditament

b)   the date the proposal was made

c)   the RV of the hereditament on the date the information is given to the RA

d)   the proposed RV

e)   the effective date of the change proposed

f)    whether or not the proposal has been determined

The VO usually does this via regular schedules.

6.4 Notifying other IPs, opting in to a proposal and rights following opting in

Under Reg 9, apart from notifying the ratepayer and the relevant authority that there has been a proposal submitted, the regulations do not require the VO to notify any other interested parties that a proposal has been received.

However, in order for an IP, (including the ratepayer), to be able to opt in to the CCA process must:-

(1) be competent to have been able to make a proposal at the date of confirmation of check

(2) within 2 months of service of the proposal on the VO, informs the VO in writing that they wish to become a party to the challenge (ie ‘opting in’)

The opting in requirements are set out in regulations Regs 11(2) (withdrawals) and 12(1)(e)&(f) (agreements).

Rights following a party opting in

The opted in IP has very restricted rights and limited involvement in the actual challenge process.

Anyone may provide information relating to the grounds of proposal for consideration and the VO is required under Reg 9(9) if it is reasonable to do so to provide that information to the Proposer.

Anyone may request a copy to view a proposal as a public document, but there is no requirement for the VO to send a copy of the proposal to an opted in IP. The proposal in this context is defined in Reg 9 (12) and comprises only the challenge documents submitted by the Proposer and any other evidence provided only by the Proposer during the challenge process. Information supplied at Check, the initial response by the VO, information supplied by the VO or other parties during challenge or the Decision Notice do not form part of the proposal. Please also see the disclosure advice on sharing information.

The regulations do not require the VO to send to or involve the ‘opted in’ IP any information or discussions in respect of the exchange of information or initial response allowed for under Reg 9.

If a proposal is well founded by the VO then the Proposer, Ratepayer or opted in IPs have no rights to disagree or challenge this decision.

In the case of a withdrawal, the VO has to notify the opted in IP (ie the IP who has opted in to the original proposal within 2 months of its receipt by the VO) that the proposal is withdrawn. (Reg 11(3)). The opted in IP is not required to agree to the withdrawal.

Only opted in IP’s have 6 weeks, from the date of receipt of the notice of withdrawal, to serve written notice on the VO stating that he disagrees with the proposal being withdrawn. In that event he may take over the proposal as a substitute proposer and be entitled to receive the Decision Notice (Reg 11(4)). As substitute proposer, he would then be entitled to appeal to the VTE if he so wished.

In respect of an agreement, the signature of the opted in IP is required.

If in the event he disagrees, the proposal cannot be settled and the VO should issue the decision notice. The opted in IP is entitled to receive a copy of the decision notice, however as the opted in IP is not the proposer he has no right of appeal to the VTE.

The opted in IP’s automatically become a party to an appeal if one is subsequently made. (Reg 11(2) SI 2009/2269 Appeal Regs).  If the original proposer does not appeal the decision notice there is nothing the opted in IP can do beyond challenge.

For advice on the CCA process re Opted In IPs please refer to the CCA Technical Process team.

6.5 Changes to the status of IPs during challenge process

During the challenge process the status of any of the parties may change e.g. company goes into receivership, administration, CVAs, buy outs and mergers of a company, changes of agent/representative, representative ceases trading etc.

A change in the status of a party or their representative could affect how the parties are treated in the challenge process altering their rights and entitlement to notices etc.

For example a company makes a proposal as occupier. The company then enters into a CVA arrangement. This creates a new company, who will constitute a new occupier and no longer the maker of the proposal. This will affect the rights of that company and the actions that the VO has to take in respect of the new company as the ‘current occupier’ and the disappearance of the maker of the proposer in the CCA process.

Guidance on changes of status may be found on the intranet at the existing VOA - Proposals to alter the Rating List.

Before settling any cases the caseworker should check if the status of any of the parties changed and follow the CCA processes for amending the information in the VO portal and notifications, if any, to required parties. Care should be taken regarding disclosure of information to parties in this situation, as only that information to which the party is entitled to received should be sent.

For example, if an agent representative has ceased trading or has changed, the IP should be contacted and advised to remove the agent from the portal and appoint a new agent or progress the case themselves.

Once the new agent has been formally appointed on Property Linking then they will be able to access the documents attached to the CCA case on the VO portal.

For example, if the proposer has changed e.g. it is a company that no longer exists, because it has been liquidated, undertaken a CVA, insolvency etc., then unless a proposal is well founded, a decision notice should be issued as the signature of the proposer will no longer be obtainable.

NB. In the second scenario, if the proposal is well founded, then this may cause issues with any new occupiers or IPs as their rights to challenge the list entry in future will be compromised. The best option, in this circumstance, would be ensure that the new current occupier has been added to the portal and to issue the Decision Notice to the parties as appearing in the VO portal and close the case.

6.6 Considering the evidence and initial response

Initial response checks

On receipt of the proposal the caseworker should be reviewing the proposal and the evidence submitted in detail (see below) to establish if the proposal is complete and legally made by the person who has authority to do so. If the case should be prioritised due to hardship or requires technical advice and then the appropriate action should be taken.

Additional care should be taken where the proposal is submitted by anyone other than the current ratepayer. In that case, checks should be made that a copy of the proposal has been served on the ratepayer (in accordance with Reg 9(1)) and that the maker of the proposal is legally entitled to do so, e.g. that the capacity of the proposer is correctly stated on the proposal.

If the proposal is missing information then it should be made incomplete and that process followed. If the proposer was not entitled to make the proposal, e.g. claiming to be the owner when he was not, then the proposal is unlawful and should be returned.

If the proposal contains information that is inaccurate, then consideration should be given to the implementation of penalty procedures and the penalty process invoked if appropriate.

Before issuing an initial response or decision notice the following checks should be made:-

a)   The proposal linked to the case is complete and if not then the ‘incomplete procedure process’ should be followed. (This includes the submission of reasoning as to how the evidence supports the grounds of proposal)

b)   the proposal is lawful and with the grounds quoted clearly and unambiguously

c)   the grounds of proposal are correct for the change being asked for

d)    the proposal is linked to correct assessment status (i.e. is it a proposal against an historic assessment) and the correct facts are established at the material date.

e)    The status of the IP is correct and still valid.

(e.g. if the maker of a proposal was a company than subsequently entered a CVA agreement, it constitutes a new company and therefore will no longer be the proposer but possible IP or new ratepayer).

e.g. A management company has completed the proposal as owner, but they are not the owner and have no authorisation to act as the agent of the owner

f)   any matters outstanding from check (see below)

g)    the relevant material day and effective dates are correctly identified

h)    if any other persons are party to the proposal who need to be included in the process or have been wrongly included as IPs.

Matters outstanding from check, for example, would be where the VO has disagreed with the factual changes made by the IP.

The evidence should be reviewed and consideration given to the most efficient way of dealing with the Challenge. In some circumstances it may be more efficient to discuss the case with the proposer to seek agreement to clarify outstanding facts or to the correct level of value to apply.

However, where evidence submitted is not sufficient to suggest that the Rating List may be inaccurate, an initial response should be prepared.

The initial response should address all the issues raised in the Challenge and provide comprehensive evidence to counter that provided by the proposer. Evidence should not be ‘cherry picked’. Any rental evidence provided by the VO should be compliant with Regulation 17 (Reg 17, SI 2009/2269 Appeal Regulations).  The response should also give a reasoned explanation as to how the evidence supports the assessment and how any quoted case law is relevant to the case.  Evidence held on FORs and SDLTs will carry the greater weight at any hearing and so that source should be the preferred source of rental information. The use of Costar or other sources of information are less reliable and of limited use in the context of hierarchy of evidence.

Caseworkers should be aware that all the evidence likely to be relied on at Appeal stage should be included in the initial response, as there are extremely limited circumstances under which the VTE will admit new evidence at the appeal stage, (Reg 17A, SI 2009/ 2269).

For further details on evidence used in Reg 17 Notices please see Rating Manual, S6 part 9

6.7 Incomplete proposal

If during the challenge stage it is discovered that the proposal is actually incomplete in a material particular, i.e. missing information required under Reg 6. then the proposal should be made incomplete and the IP notified using the Notice of Refusal with reasons for its failure. The CCA process for incomplete proposals should be followed in accordance with Reg 8.

A proposal will be incomplete if it is missing any of the items mentioned in Reg 6(4), (5) or (6):

6(4) (a)     the name, address and contact details of the proposer;

(b)     the grounds of the proposal including the particulars on which each of the grounds is based (“particulars of the grounds of the proposal”);

(c)     details of the proposed alteration of the list;

(d)     the date from which the proposer asserts the proposed alteration should have effect;

(e)     the date on which the proposal is served on the VO;

(f)     evidence to support the grounds of the proposal; and

(g)     a statement as to how the evidence supports the grounds of the proposal

      6(5)     If the proposal is made against a VT / Tribunal decision

(a)     the date of the decision made in relation to another hereditament (“the decision”);

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

(c)     information to identify the other hereditament;

(d)     the reasons the proposer believes that the decision is relevant to the rateable value or other information shown in the list for the hereditament; and

(e)     the reasons the proposer believes that, by reason of the decision, the rateable value or other information shown in the list for the hereditament is inaccurate

6(6)     the amount payable each year by the proposer, as at the date the proposal is made, in respect of the lease, easement or licence to occupy, the date at which that amount first became payable and details of any rent-free periods;

The IP can re-submit the proposal provided it is done so within the required time limits (ignoring the period of time it took the VO to decide it was incomplete Reg 8(4). There is no right of appeal to the VT from the decision to treat the proposal as incomplete.

Please note that the extension of time under Reg 8 is not applicable to the 16 month time limit for external MCC proposals if submitted after the original 4 month period.

Once a complete substantive proposal has been made for a specific MCC then no further proposals in respect of that particular MCC may be made (Reg 6A (5)).

6.8     Factual information not agreed at check

Factual information relates to the property characteristics and its survey and is not a matter of opinion e.g. areas, beacon characteristics, actual trade, etc. Proposals should be resolved using the information supplied. If no plans or surveys have been included in the submission (or check), then it may be reasonable to address this in the initial response by stating that no evidence has been provided to show the areas are incorrect. The preferred approach would be to request a copy of the plans and survey before issuing the initial response.

The facts declared at Check are the up-to date facts at the time the check is made. It is therefore possible that the facts on non-MCC Challenges are not the same as those confirmed at Check. For non-MCC challenges the facts at the relevant Material Date of the proposal will need to be considered e.g. compiled list date or date of event (depending on the type of proposal) and these new facts will need to be established and agreed by the Ratepayer and included in the initial response.

If facts are different from those declared at check, then the VO will need to consider carefully if that information was by error or default of the ratepayer when considering the correct effective date to apply, if the change to the assessment results in an increase in the assessment (Reg 14(7)). Reference to the supply of incorrect information by the proposer should be referred to in the initial response.

In considering the valuation on the subject property, it has to be valued as it physically stood at the relevant Material Day. e.g. if there was an extension at the Material Date, that the VO was unware of, this must be taken into account as the starting point before considering any reduction in the assessment for other matters. 

6.9 Survey data, plans and inspection

If there are any disputes on areas or survey data then these should have been resolved at check.

However, for example if following inspection, there is a dispute, the proposer should be asked for a copy of his plan and survey.

The VO will only share surveys and plans where it is proportionate to do so and only after all other avenues have been exhausted. If necessary a joint inspection may be arranged before a decision notice is issued. Please also refer to the rules on disclosure.

If areas are found to be different then this should be raised with the IP prior to the issue of the initial response and the correct facts agreed.

Reference to data which has been confirmed at check and later found to be incorrect should be made in the initial response or at the earliest opportunity upon discovery.

If the discrepancies are not raised early in the challenge process this may cause difficulties at the appeal stage, as the VT may treat this as ‘new evidence’ for which restrictions on admittance may apply.  

6.10   New facts after original completion of check

A proposal may not be made unless a check has been completed (Reg 6(1) and Regs 4B-F).

There is nothing within the legislation to prevent new or different facts being provided as part of the proposal when the document is submitted.

e.g. This could be in the form of different areas being agreed due to different circumstances being applicable at the material date of the proposal

However, no new grounds may be introduced during the progress of challenge once the proposal has been submitted.

6.11   Material Day - establishing facts

For MCC proposals (made under Reg 4(1)(d) SI 2009/2268)), the facts (under Schedule 6, LGFA88) have to be established as at the date of confirmation of check, the material day for this type of proposal.

For non-MCC proposals, the Material Day is either the compilation date or day of event depending on the type of proposal. The facts therefore to be agreed may be different from those agreed at check. Any new facts, e.g. survey data, areas etc., should be covered in the initial response and agreed with the Proposer.

See also 3.11 and 4.2 above regarding Material Days for MCC proposals and the differences between Check and Challenge

6.12   No relevant evidence provided

If in the opinion of the caseworker no or totally irrelevant evidence has been submitted then the proposal is incomplete. If inadequate evidence has been submitted then a Decision Notice should be issued explaining the reasons why the grounds of proposal are not substantiated or ‘made out’.

6.13   Comparable evidence only submitted or limited rental evidence

Consideration needs to be given to the weight of evidence and type of rental evidence. The VO’s response should address the all issues raised in the Proposal.

The evidence used in the response should be comprehensive and in depth to show that the rateable value is not unreasonable. It should be remembered that the evidence included in the initial response will be relied on by the VO at any Tribunal hearing so should be sufficient to support the valuation contentions and true comparable properties used e.g. with regard to size and location.

As checks and proposals may be submitted up to the closure of the rating list, the tone is unlikely to be established beyond doubt. It is therefore expected that rental evidence to support assessment evidence should be included in the initial response. Similarly, in respect of MCC proposals, rental evidence should be included to support the basis of assessment of the full value of the property at the Material Day as this has to be ascertained prior to consideration of any allowances for disabilities.

If having considered the evidence the Proposal cannot be well founded but the VO considers an alteration of the list is warranted then the caseworker can discuss this with the proposer with a view to settlement and amendment of the Rating List.

If the Proposal is well founded, no Decision Notice will be needed.

If the VO opinion is that the RV or list entry should be a different figure to shown in the proposal but agreement cannot be reached, the list will need to be altered and a Decision Notice issued explaining why a different figure has been adopted.

6.14 RVs of Comparable evidence appears incorrect

If having reviewed the evidence it appears that key comparable assessments are incorrect, and this evidence is likely to be relied on at VTE, then errors to the Rating List should ideally be amended before a Decision Notice is issued and before any VTE hearing, but this may not be possible due to resourcing and the VO policy on this should be followed.  The VOR gateways for raising VORs should be used to review assessments. It is acceptable to refer to a review of this evidence in an initial response.

If there is sufficient rental evidence to counter the incorrect assessments these should be included in the decision notice and it should be stated that reliance is placed on the rental evidence in preference to comparable evidence.

If the incorrect assessments are essential to the case then this should be discussed with the Team leader so they may be corrected before the decision notice is issued especially if the case is likely to lead to appeal.

6.15   Rental evidence and Reg 17(SI 2009/2269), rights to view (including after decision notice issued)

See RM Section 6 Part 9 Rental evidence and Reg 17s for further guidance.

Disclosure of RALD/FOR information is made under the provisions of s.18(2)(a)(i): Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (CRCA)

‘18 Confidentiality

(1)  Revenue and Customs officials may not disclose information which is held by the Revenue and Customs in connection with a function of the Revenue and Customs.

(2)  But subsection (1) does not apply to a disclosure—

    (a)  which—

(i)  is made for the purposes of a function of the Revenue and Customs, and

(ii)  does not contravene any restriction imposed by the Commissioners,

Reg 17 does not provide authority to disclose information covered by CRCA.  Reg 17 operates to prevent the use of such information in VT proceedings unless the required notice period has been given and the recipient has had the opportunity to exercise his rights of inspection and counter-notice.

It is important to note that rental information contained in any initial response or decision notice should fully comply with the Reg 17(SI 2009/2269) requirements regarding the use of FOR evidence and rights to view.

If an FOR contains sensitive information such as receipts, then reference should be made to the Disclosure guidance on the intranet. It would be lawful to include information from a FOR, SDLT etc., at Challenge if it is relevant to the case and would need to be relied on should the case proceed to VT. However, as with all disclosures involving potentially sensitive third party information, we should be satisfied that the information is necessary, relevant and proportionate to help resolve the case.

As well as a summary schedule the response should also include the name of the document being referred to, the property to which the information relates and the information to be relied on, together with rights of inspection of the documents. This is included in the initial response notice in order to give the proposer a chance to consider the evidence during the challenge stage. No photographic images may be made of FOR evidence by the Proposer or given to him. The request to view by the proposer must be in writing.

The number of hereditaments and FORs that can be requested in the counter notice is limited to the number of hereditaments specified in the Reg 17 notice. This must not exceed 4 or if greater the number of hereditaments specified in the Valuation Officer’s Reg 17 notice (issued under SI 2009/2269).  However, the person is entitled to inspect all relevant documents held in relation to those hereditaments. Under no circumstances should copies of the actual FORs be given or sent to the Proposer or included in the Decision Notice.

It is essential to include details of FORs on the subject property, if relevant, within the Reg 17 Notice requirements as there could be issues later at Appeal stage regarding admissibility if not included at the Reg 17 stage (especially if the tenant of the subject property has changed, as the IP may not be aware of the details of earlier rents, although rents within the IP’s knowledge possibly may be raised via cross examination).

If the VO wishes to refer to rental evidence this should all be included at the Initial Response stage so that the Proposer has time to request and view FORs. This will enable any issues, disputes or discussions on the rental evidence to be concluded prior to the issue of the Decision Notice.

Under no circumstances should copies of the actual FORs be sent to the Proposer or included in the Decision notice. The caseworker should also consider if it is appropriate to redact personal information on any FOR to be viewed.

See RM Section 7 Proposals - FORs - for further information.

The proposer may request to view the FOR but must give 24 hours’ notice minimum.

The 24 hour notice period is statutory, but is ‘…not less than 24 hours’ notice…’ and the inspection has to be permitted ‘at any reasonable time’.  What is ‘reasonable’ will depend on the circumstances – a request made at 6pm on a Thursday may not be in time to inspect on Friday as the 24 hours would expire after close of business for the Friday and may have to wait until the following Monday.  A request to inspect a large number of hardcopy FORs held in different locations may need a longer period to assemble the documents etc.

Redaction may be appropriate if the FOR contains extraneous material wholly unrelated to the information to be relied on or sensitive personal information.

Once a Decision Notice has been issued, the right to view FOR information, under Reg 17, will continue until the time limit for making an appeal to the VTE, usually 4 months after the Decision notice, has lapsed.

If an appeal is made, the Proposer still has the right to request to inspect the FOR information. However there may be difficulties with adding any further evidence to the appeal following the provisions of Reg 17A (SI 2009/2269) due to the restrictions on admittance of new evidence. Once the time for making an appeal has elapsed, then the ‘relevant proceedings’ have ceased and the Proposer will not have the right to view the FOR documentation.

Evidence obtained from FORs and SDLTs is covered by the provisions of Reg 17 and the hereditaments to which this evidence relate count for the purposes of the number of hereditaments the proposer is entitled to ask for.

Care should be taken when using-other forms of rental information (ORIs), includes rents from other sources, this may be Costar, hearsay, proposals, discussions with agents etc.  This should be distinguished from FOR information, preferably shown on a separate schedule. This evidence, whilst still relevant, will carry less weight.  The hereditaments that ORI information relates to are not to be included in the count of hereditaments for Reg 17 purposes.

6.16   ‘Without prejudice’ correspondence

‘Without prejudice’ is a rule of law and part of the law on privilege allowing parties to a dispute to communicate freely for the purposes of reaching a settlement without risk of those communications being used against them at a hearing. (Cutts v Head (1994) Ch 290).

Once privilege is established, the right to withhold the document is an absolute right. Therefore genuine without prejudice communications where the IP is making an offer to settle should be excluded from the decision notice. If a communication contains an offer to settle then that part of the communication should be redacted as it falls under privilege.

Essentially, if an email contains evidence or factual information pertinent to the proposal then it forms part of the proposal under Reg 9(12) but any information relating to an offer to settle the challenge must be treated as being ‘without prejudice’ and therefore redacted from the document.

6.17 No case to answer

There may be occasions where the evidence provided means that whilst the proposal is complete, the grounds of the particulars mean that no alteration can be made to the list.

For example, where the Material Day of the proposal is after the end of the MCC that it is quoted in the proposal e.g. road works or redevelopment works have finished before the check was submitted.

In these cases there would be no case to answer, a withdrawal should be sought and if not forthcoming then a Decision notice may be issued without the need for an initial response. However, if additional evidence or points have been raised then these should be addressed.  Reg 9(7) only requires the VO to share information if it considers it reasonable to do so. However, if evidence has been provided we should not move to a Decision Notice without sharing our evidence.

If a proposal has been made by a party not entitled to make it, e.g. they do not have the interest in the property they state they have, then the proposal will be unlawful.

The VO should consider the grounds of the proposal however to see if it is appropriate to issue a VON to amend the rating list to ensure its accuracy even if the proposal is unlawful.

6.18   Scope and errors in the valuation

As the ground of proposal have not changed between lists, then case law and basic principles established regarding the scope of proposal still apply as they did in 2010.

The Proposal should only be considered on the grounds on which it has been made. The Proposer is not allowed to introduce new grounds during the challenge period.

If during the course of the challenge process evidence emerges that suggests the valuation is incorrect due to other reasons not mentioned;

e.g. FF offices assessed with car parking and the Proposer is only challenging the level of values but the proposal should have asked for it to be split off, then this matter is outside the scope of the proposal. 

Ideally, in this example, the proposal should be withdrawn at this stage and a VON issued to correct the list.

If the proposal is not withdrawn then the Decision Notice should be issued

Where an alteration to the list is required which is outside the scope of the originating proposal, the Decision Notice should state clearly:

‘the alteration required cannot be given effect because it is not within the scope of the permitted proposal, and that the VO will be amending the list separately outside of the CCA process by a separate notice of alteration’.

This wording is important as the separate alteration will not form part of the current live CCA process but the IP will be entitled to submit a check and challenge against that subsequent alteration. This is also important as that change will be outside the scope of consideration should the matter proceed to appeal at VT.

In the cases where the unit of assessment is incorrect and outside scope the VO should state that the list will not be altered in accordance with the proposal because the proposal fails to identify the correct unit of assessment, in that the hereditament needed to be split. Separate action should be taken on a VON to split the assessment which then gives rise.

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.

Scope of proposal and Monk RV £0 cases

All proposals must be considered in relation to the scope of the grounds on which it was made.  Case law on scope of proposal is the same as it was for 2010. If the Proposer during challenge is relying on matters outside the scope of the proposal to secure a list change and the VO believes the list should be altered, then the correct course of action is for the proposal to be withdrawn and then the VO issues a notice of list alteration to give effect to the change.

This would apply to Monk redevelopment type cases, where the proposal is seeking a reduction to £0 and there is evidence to satisfy the VO that a scheme exists and the hereditament is incapable of beneficial occupation and should be deleted from the list. In this scenario the proposal should be withdrawn and a VON issued to delete.

Alternatively the Proposer can submit a correct proposal asking for deletion under Reg 4(1) (h) as a request for deletion which is a separate and distinct grounds for making a proposal from a request for a reduction or MCC (Reg 4(1) (a), (d) or (b)) provided he does so within the prescribed time limits.

6.19 MCC proposals

Material Day see paras Check 3.11 and Challenge 4.2 above

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

(a)  Reg 4(1)(b) - as an MCC proposal - in which case the Material Day will be the date of confirmation of check.  (Material Day SI 1992 / 556 as amended, Reg 3(7)(b)(i)).

or 

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

For the purposes of a Proposal, if at the Material Day the facts are different to those agreed at the date of confirmation of check then it will be necessary for the caseworker to agree the facts as at the Material Day as well (e.g. A Reg 4(1)(d) proposal, day of event).

If a proposal has been made on the grounds of an MCC, then the MCC must be in existence at the Material Date (MCC proposals MD is the date of confirmation of check) and also be value significant before it is considered to be ‘made out’. ie a relevant MCC. If there is a relevant MCC before any reduction may be given for the MCC, the full value of the property must be determined at the Material Date before any allowance is given.

Where no MCC exists at the Material Day

Where a proposal has been made on the grounds of an MCC for which, either it is not in existence at the Material Day, or the change of circumstances mentioned is not a material change because it does not constitute matters mentioned in Schedule 6 para 2(7), LGFA 1988 e.g. because it is an economic factor, then the grounds of the proposal are unfounded.

In this event a response (Decision Notice) should be issued rejecting the grounds of proposal explaining that the event referred to was not in existence at the Material Day and consequently the grounds are ‘not made out’.

However, in order to ensure that the VO position is protected at any subsequent appeal hearing, depending on other evidence submitted, it will be necessary for the caseworker to have previously addressed all other issues raised during Challenge, valuation and any replies to evidence supplied by the Proposer.

6.20 Issuing Initial Response (Reg 9)

Prior to issuing the initial response the caseworker should check to ensure that the Proposer has not changed status (eg gone in to liquidation) and is entitled to have made the proposal. If the proposer no longer exists then an appropriate decision notice can be issued and list altered if necessary. If the proposer still exists then proceed with an initial response.

Having considered all the grounds raised and the supporting evidence, if the initial issue cannot be resolved by well founding, a comprehensive initial response stating the VO’s case should be issued to the IP.

The response should fully address new evidence relating to the grounds of proposal, even if they were submitted after submission of the original proposal. It should explain how the evidence supports the assessment and also, if quoted, how the case law is relevant. If there is a rent passing on the subject property, reference to the analysis of the rent should also be made with reasoning as to its relevance or otherwise of the assessment. Evidence held on FORs and SDLTs will carry the greater weight at any hearing and so that source should be the preferred source of rental information. The use of Costar or other sources of information are less reliable and of limited use in the context of hierarchy of evidence.

If further evidence relating to new grounds has been received after the submission of the proposal this evidence should be rejected, as new grounds may not be introduced. The appropriate correspondence for refusal of evidence should be used and it should be fully explained why the evidence has been rejected.

Operational guidance states that a time limit should be set out for a reply to be received in the initial response. This time limit should be reasonable according to the amount of evidence and information provided and allowing the IP sufficient time to consider the matters raised and supply a suitable reply before any further action is taken. 

If there is no reply from the IP to the initial response then a Decision Notice should be issued. As it may be possible that an IP reply has not reached the caseworker, it would be prudent for the caseworker to contact the proposer shortly before the expiration of the time period within which a reply was sought before issuing the Decision Notice. The VO will be open to criticism at VT if a reasonable time has not been given for the IP response.

If a response is received from the IP after the Decision Notice has been issued, e.g. the documents have crossed in the post, then the caseworker should consider the later evidence and re-issue the Decision Notice clearly explaining the situation re late receipt of information and fully addressing the later matters.

6.21 Further evidence after initial response (Reg 9(8)&(9))

Any evidence provided under Reg 9 forms part of the proposal and must be submitted using the VO electronic portal or as agreed with the VO (Reg 9(12)).

The IP may come back with further evidence under Reg 9(8) provided it is in support of the grounds of the proposal and does not include or refer to fresh grounds. In the case of fresh grounds, this evidence should be rejected and explained in the VO response (Reg 9(10)).

Rights to submit further information under Reg 9 (8) are subject to the pre-requisite of the VO having supplied information under Reg 9 (7). 

Before the proposal is determined, the proposer may provide further evidence relating to the grounds if it was not known at the time of making the proposal and could not have been reasonably acquired (Reg 9(10))

Provided both parties agree in writing, the proposer, may provide further evidence in circumstances not covered above (Reg 9(11)).

The Relevant Authority may provide evidence relating to the proposal to the VO, in which case, the VO must provide a copy of that evidence to the proposer, to which the proposer may respond (Reg 9 (6)(b)). This will be essential in cases relating to completion notices and deletions in particular as the BAs can no longer be a party to a proposal.

N.B. The VO could consider including the BA as a witness at VT, but all their evidence must have been included at challenge stage prior to the Decision Notice being issued.

If the VO holds information that relates to the particulars of the grounds of the proposal, then the VO, if it is considered reasonable to do so, may provide this information to the proposer, (Reg 9(7)). This information will be included in the initial response to which the proposer may provide further evidence to support his contentions (Reg 9(7)). Unless there is a compelling reason for us not to do so, ALL our relevant evidence should be shared.

Additionally, if the VO receives any further information relating to the particulars prior to the decision notice then the VO should provide it to the IP again if reasonable to do so (Reg 9(9)).

If evidence becomes known to the proposer that could not reasonably have been acquired before the proposal was made this may also be provided to the VO for consideration (Reg 9(10))

Further evidence may also be included in the challenge not covered by the above provided the proposer and VO agree in writing to its submission (Reg 9(11)).

All evidence submitted by the proposer during the challenge process becomes part of the proposal itself (Reg 9(12))

6.22 Issues pending outstanding Tribunal hearings

 If the grounds of proposal relate to a Tribunal or Court appeal which is waiting to be heard or outstanding for a decision, then the Decision Notice should still be issued in accordance with statutory requirements. Reference to and details of the relevant outstanding case should be made in the Decision Notice.

The VO has a period of 18 months from the date of receipt of the Proposal, or longer period as agreed in writing by the VO and Proposer, in which to issue a Decision Notice (Reg 13A (1)(c)(iii)). It may be appropriate in this circumstance to agree with the Proposer to extend the period of time in accordance with this regulation pending the outcome of the Tribunal/ Court decision where the decision is imminent and this would not cause undue delay. However, as any decision of the VTE may be appealed to the Upper Tribunal, the preferred option would be to issue the Decision Notice

The parties can then, once an appeal is submitted to the VTE, request a stay of proceedings pending the awaited decision. It may then be appropriate at that stage to request that new information be admitted into the proceedings (Reg 17A(SI 2009/2269)).

Part 1C (v) Determining the proposal

7.0 Determination of Challenge

Regulation 3(2) sets out the provisions for when a challenge is determined

‘For the purposes of this part, a proposal is ‘determined’ if-

a) It is withdrawn under Regulation 11

b) It is treated as withdrawn under regulation 12

c) A decision is given under regulation 10 or 13 in relation to the proposal

a) Relates to a WD by the Proposer  

b) Relates to an agreement of a proposal, whereby the VO alters the list following agreement and the proposal is treated as having been withdrawn in law

c) Relates to well founding the proposal or issuing a Decision Notice.

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

If a penalty (Reg 9) has been imposed then the VO must not determine the proposal

ie the VO cannot end the challenge process by wellfounding, agreement or DN until the end of the period for making a penalty appeal under Reg 9C has elapsed.

A proposal however may still be withdrawn by the proposer.

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

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

However, there is nothing in the regulations that stops the statutory time limit for appeals to the VTE after 18 months from submission of the challenge.

7.1 Well founded

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

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

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

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

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

7.2 Withdrawal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CCA Sub-Process 3.4.20.01 et seq Withdraw Challenge Case deals with this, however

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

7.3 Agreed alterations

To agree a proposal all the following persons must agree in writing to the list alteration      

(Reg 12):-

a)  VO,

b)  Proposer,

c)  Occupier of the hereditament at the date of proposal

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

d)  the ratepayer at the date of agreement,

e)  an IP or any person who was an IP on the date of confirmation of check who is party to the appeal because they have notified the VO within 2 months of date of receipt of the proposal that they wish to be a party, but excludes any IP who cannot be contacted at the address supplied to the VO,

f)  any person who was at the date of check, an IP and has notified within 2 months of the VO receiving the proposal that he wishes to be a party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.4      Other Alterations

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

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

8. Decision Notice

A decision notice is  a statutory document issued under Regulation 13 of the Appeals Regulations (SI 2009/2268).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.1 Issue of Decision Notice       

The VO can decide a case without agreement if:

a. it disagrees with a Challenge and

b. considers the current list to be accurate; or

c. considers that an alteration is justified but a negotiated agreement cannot be reached.

d. the Proposer no longer exists

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

Once a Decision Notice has been issued it cannot be rescinded or re-issued due to the window for appeal being triggered.

8.2 Time limit for issue of Decision Notices

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

8.3 Service on Parties

The notice must be served on:-

(Reg 13(2)

a)   the Proposer,

b)   the Ratepayer (if not the proposer),

c)   any IP (party to the appeal as per Reg 12(2)e) or an person who was an IP at the date of confirmation of check and is no longer there and have notified they wish to be party to the appeal,

d)   the Relevant Authority provided they have served notice that it wishes to receive a copy of the decision (see Reg 13 (2)(d)).

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

8.4  Content of Decision Notice

The decision notice must contain all of the following (Reg 13(3)):-

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

a)  the VO disagrees with the proposed alteration and that either the list will not be altered or will be altered differently,

b)  the reasons for that decision, including a statement of evidence and information used to make that decision,

c)  a statement in relation to each ground setting out why it is not made out, as well as a summary of any particulars with which the VO disagrees,

d)   the proposer’s right of appeal against the decision.

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

8.5 Decision Notices for temporary list alterations after closure of a Rating List

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(8) SI 2009/2268] prevent the VO from making a subsequent alteration end dating the proposed reduction.

In such circumstances, if a challenge proposal 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 VTE has the power to end date reductions but only after an appeal has been made.

Consequently, in this scenario, where a list is closed and the circumstances justifying a reduction/ deletion have ceased it will be necessary to conclude the challenge by issuing a Decision Notice.

The Decision Notice should set out that whilst the VO agrees in principle to an alteration of the list, due to the closure of the 2017 list it will not be possible to amend the 2017 list once the works are concluded without a decision of the VTE.

The end dating of a temporary allowance can only be achieved by an order of the VTE under regulation 38(7) of the Procedure Regulations (SI 2009/2269)

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

At this point if all the parties agree the amended list entry and its duration, the parties can jointly apply to the VTE for an order under Regulation 35 and 38(7) to initiate the reduction/deletion and to provide an end date at which the list entry would be restored.

If the parties do not agree the amended list entry, then the matter will have to proceed to appeal and determination by the VTE and the VO will submit the Regulation 38(7) request at the hearing.

In terms of wording for the Decision Notice , something along the following lines may be appropriate –

[Further to consideration of your Challenge the Valuation Officer agrees that a reduction in RV £** is appropriate from **//**.

However, since the circumstances justifying the reduction ceased to exist on //** it will be necessary to end date the reduction from this date.

After 31st March 2024 the Regulations [SI 2009/2268] prevent the Valuation Officer from making a subsequent alteration end dating the proposed reduction. So, if your challenge is settled by agreement this would lead to an inaccuracy in the rating list from the date the circumstances justifying the reduction ceased to exist.

The VTE has the power to end date reductions but only after an appeal has been made. So, I am issuing this Decision Notice disagreeing the outcome that you are seeking so that you may then submit an appeal  to the VTE.

Once an appeal has been made, if the proposed reduction can be agreed prior to the hearing, a joint application can be made to the VTE to issue a Regulation 35 and 38(7) order to effect the reduction and provide an end date to limit its duration.

If the proposed reduction cannot be agreed, the appeal will proceed to a hearing. At the hearing the VO will then ask for a Regulation 38(7) order to be issued for the temporary allowance to be end dated.]

8.6 Rental Evidence

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

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

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

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

8.7 Service of Decision Notice

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

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

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

Notification must include:-

(Reg 13(3)(a))

(a)  a statement that the VO is of the opinion that the proposal is not well founded, that the VO disagrees with the proposed alteration of the list and that the VO has decided

(i)    not to alter the list according to the proposal; or

(ii)    to alter the list otherwise than in accordance with the proposal; and

                               (b)  the reasons for that decision,

                               (c)    a statement regarding each ground of the proposal why the ground is not made out and a summary of particulars in disagreement, and

                               (d)   details of the Proposer’s right to appeal the decision.

This requirement includes the provision of  detailed explanations of the evidence and considerations behind the decision in the notice.

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

Notification must include:

(a)    a statement that the VO is of the opinion that the proposal is not well founded, that the VO disagrees with the proposed alteration of the list and that the VO has decided

(i)    not to alter the list according to the proposal; or

(ii)    to alter the list otherwise than in accordance with the proposal; and

(b)   reasons for that decision.

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

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

(a)   the proposal

(b)   any proposal relating to the hereditament to which the subject proposal relates or

(c)   a specified class of proposal or hereditament and the subject proposal relates to that class,

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

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

and where the VO considers it reasonable to do so

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

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

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

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

8.8 Decision Notice not issued

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

8.9 Re-Issue of Decision Notice - clerical errors and late evidence

Once issued, a Decision Notice concludes the challenge for the hereditament and the time limits for appeal are triggered.       

The Decision Notice should not be re-issued or the case re-instated once the notice has been served.

Only if Decision Notice was unlawful - ie did not meet the statutory requirements could it be re-issued but this must be discussed with your technical leads first and the circumstances explained to the proposer.

If there is a clerical error in the Decision Notice and addendum should be added to the notice clearly explaining the error and showing the correct information to apply.  This should be sent within 1-2 days of the original notice being sent. If the case proceeds to appeal a document should be prepared explaining the changes and a request made under Reg 17A for inclusion of this information at appeal.

If further evidence is received by the caseworker from the Proposer, eg  information crossed in the post, then the caseworker should consider the challenge in its entirety in the light of this new evidence and follow the appeal protocols on the CCA home page - seek approval from the Unit Head to amend the list if appropriate. 

Notification of the change or if no change is to be made to the list entry this should be explained to the Proposer and in the event of an appeal being made an application should be made by the caseworker under Reg 17A should be made to the VT to include both documents as evidence on appeal.  

In the event that the list has been altered after the decision notice has been sent, the CDB should be clearly documented that the alteration was as a result of the proposal and therefore this will affect the subsequent rights to submit a challenge against the alteration under Reg 4(3)(c).

---

Part 1C (vi) Rights of parties during challenge V1

8.9   Billing Authorities

Right to make proposals

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

Notifications to BAs - Proposal and Decision Notice

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

Additional information held by the BA eg Completion Notice information

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

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

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

Under The Non-Domestic Rating (Compilation and Alteration of Lists) (England) Regulations 2020 SI 2020/1403 the BA is required to supply the VO with a list of occupiers on a quarterly basis.

Party to proposals

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

Becoming a party at Appeal stage

Reg 11(2) SI 2009/2269 allows the VTE to give a direction to add a person as a party, to the proceedings. Unless the BA is an IP they cannot be added as a party at appeal stage. If the VO does not include the BA evidence at challenge stage  then the rules as to submission of new evidence under Reg 17A would apply (essentially, this new evidence is likely only to be admitted if all parties agree).

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

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

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

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

Decision Notices

The BA is entitled to receive a shortened decision notice if they have served a notice on the VO that they wish to receive a copy of that notice in relation to the proposal, hereditament or class of property.

8.10  Current Ratepayers who are not the Proposer

Vacant property

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

Service of copy of Proposal

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

Party to a proposal

The current ratepayer is always party to a proposal and his signature will always be required for an agreement. If the proposal is withdrawn or a decision notice is issued – see below.

Well-founded Proposals

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

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

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

Withdrawals

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

The ratepayer has to have ‘opted in’ within 2 months of the VO receiving the proposal in order to receive notification of a WD, if they are not the proposer

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

If the ratepayer has not opted in but refuses to sign the withdrawal the VO should issue a Decision Notice.  The current ratepayer is entitled to a full copy of the decision notice.

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

Agreements

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

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

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

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

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

Decision Notice

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

8.11   Landlords & former landlords / occupiers (who are not proposers but were present at date of request of information at check)  

Proposals

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

Copies of Proposals

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

‘Opting In’ as a party

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

Well Founded Proposals

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

Withdrawals

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

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

Agreements

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

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

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

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

Decision notices

If the parties have opted in then the VO musts serve a copy of the decision notice on them (Reg  13(2)(c)). If this party at the time of service of the decision notice no longer has an interest in the property then a shortened version of the notice should be sent.

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

Proposals

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

‘Opting in as a Party’

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

Well founded

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

Withdrawals

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

Agreements

Their agreement is not required unless they are the proposer.

They cannot opt in and have no rights of appeal.

Decision Notice

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

---

Part 1D Penalties (Reg 9A)  England

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

9.1 False Information

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

(a)   Knowingly - information which the IP knows to be false in a material particular,

(b)   Recklessly - information provided by the IP with little regard to the effect that information may have if it was inaccurate and relied upon by the VO, and

(c)   Carelessly - information provided by the IP or former IP which is inaccurate and which by taking reasonable care could have been identified and corrected by the person submitting it.

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

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

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

9.2 False in a material particular

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

          a) May alter the outcome of the Check or the Challenge or

          b) May lead to an inaccuracy in the rating list.

9.3 Penalty Notice

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

(a)   that a penalty has been imposed, 

(b)   the date on which the check to which the proposal relates was completed,

(c)   the date the proposal was made,

(d)   the date the proposal was determined, (i.e. the date that the decision notice was sent)

(e)   the false information,

(f)    the date the information was provided,

(g)    the date the penalty notice is served,

(h)   the amount of the penalty,

(i)    and the right to appeal to the VTE under Reg 9C.  

9.4 Recovery of penalty (Reg 9B)

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

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

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

9.5 Appeal against the penalty notice

Appeals are made to the VTE and the appeal must include (Reg (9C(5)):-

(a)   whether the appeal is against the imposition or the amount,

(b)   the date of service,

(c)   a copy of the penalty notice,

(d)   if the appeal is against the amount a statement that the person is a smaller, and

(e)   a copy of the confirmation of check to which the proposal relates.

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

See VTE practice statements, SI 2009/2267 and Rating Manual VOA - Part 3 for procedures on appeals.

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

If a penalty (Reg 9) has been imposed then the VO must not determine the proposal i.e the VO cannot end the challenge process by wellfounding, agreement or DN until the end of the period for making a penalty appeal under Reg 9C has elapsed.

A proposal however may still be withdrawn by the proposer.

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

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

However, there is nothing in the regulations that stops the statutory time limit for appeals to the VTE after 18 months from submission of the challenge.

Determination of Challenge

Regulation 3(2) sets out the provisions for when a challenge is determined’ For the purposes of this part, a proposal is ‘determined’ if:

a) **It is withdrawn under Regulation 11

b) **It is treated as withdrawn under regulation 12

c) **A decision is given under regulation 10 or 13 in relation to the proposal

a) Relates to a WD by the Proposer  

b) Relates to an agreement of a proposal, whereby the VO alters the list following agreement and the proposal is treated as having been withdrawn in law

c) Relates to well founding the proposal or issuing a Decision Notice.

---

Part 1E Appeals  (CCA) England

1.0   Legal Backgroud

1.1   Summary of Relevant Legislation & Practice Statements

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

Relevant Legislation

(a) The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations  2009’ (SI 2009/ 2268) (‘Appeal’ Regulations) as amended by (SI 2017 /155)

(b) The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2017’ (SI 2017 /155)

(c) The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009’ (SI 2009 / 2269) (‘Procedure Regulations’)  as amended by (SI 2017/156), 2018 (SI 2018/911)

(d). The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2017’ (SI 2017/156)

(f). Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists, Appeals and Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Regulations2018 (SI 2018/911)

(g). The Non-Domestic Rating (Material Day for List Alterations) 1992 (SI 1992/556) (as  amended by SI 2017/155)

(h) The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2017’ (SI 2017/156)

(i) NDR (Alteration of Lists) and Business Rate Supplements (Transfer to Revenue Accounts) (Amendments etc)(England) Regulations 2018 (SI 2018/1193)   Part 4

(j) Practice statement - Valuation Tribunal Service

 References

‘VO’ in this document refers to Valuation Officer

‘VOA’ refers to the Valuation Office Agency

‘CVO’ refers to the Central Valuation Officer

VTE Procedures

For VTE procedures at the hearing please refer to Rating Manual VOA - Part 3: Appeals to the Valuation Tribunal and the VTE 2020 consolidated practice and explanatory notes on the VTE website

2020 Consolidated Practice Statement - Valuation Tribunal Service

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

1.2 Summary of changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.3 Making an Appeal

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

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

(a) was not to alter the list (Reg 13A(1)(a))

(b) was to alter the list but not as proposed by the Challenge (Reg 13A(1)(b)) or

(c) the VO has failed to make a decision and issue a notice within 18 months from the date on which the proposal was made and there has been no agreement or withdrawal. (N.B. The VO may agree in writing to a longer period).  (Reg 13A(1)(c))

An appeal may be made on the following grounds only:-

(Reg 13A (2))

(a) the valuation is not reasonable

(b) the list is inaccurate in relation to the hereditament other than in relation to  valuation.

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

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

1.4 Who can make an appeal / Parties to an Appeal

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

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

(i) every person whose agreement is required under Reg 12

 i.e.

(a) VO,

(b) Proposer,

(c) Occupier (of any hereditament to which the proposal relates) at the date of proposal - subject to being able to be contacted (Reg 13(3A)),

(d) Ratepayer at date of agreement,

(e) Any IP (in occupation at date of check who has served notice to be a party to proceedings as per Reg 2(f)),

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

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

1.5 Time Limit for appeal

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

Within 4 months, if no Decision Notice is issued, after the elapse of 18 months from the date of proposal (total of 22 months) or any longer time period as agreed (Reg 13A(1)c(iii)).

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

1.6 Notice of Appeal

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

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

(a)    the grounds of appeal

(b)    which particulars of the grounds of the proposal have not been agreed with the VO

(c)    a copy of the decision notice if one was issued

(d)    a copy of the proposal and any further evidence provided by the proposer  under Reg 9 at challenge stage

(e)    any evidence or information provided by the VO under Reg 9 (Challenge stage)

(f)    and the fee (Reg 13D(1)), which is £150 for smaller proposers and £300 other proposers.

This means that the notice of appeal must clearly identify which parts of the proposal have not been agreed with the VO and these matters must be within the scope of the original proposal..

From 2022 appeals are submitted to the VTE via their portal. The portal requires the IP to submit 2 documents, an appeal form and attach the VO Decision Notice.

However, Regulation 13C prescribes the documents that the prospective appellant must submit in order to  make a lawful appeal. It is important therefore that it is ensured that a copy of the Decision Notice, proposal and all the evidence submitted by the appellant and the VO during challenge is included in the paperwork submitted by the Appellant, which the VT now requires as a single document.  Under PS2b, the VO is required to check all the relevant papers have been submitted within 4 weeks of notification of the appeal. (see below at 2.2).

The grounds of appeal are restricted to the scope of the originating proposal. If mention has been made of matters beyond the original proposal then this should be raised with the VT as a preliminary issue and a dismissal sought.

That is why it is important in the Decision Notice that if action is taken that is outside scope that it is clearly stated as that cannot form part of the appeal to the VTE from the decision notice. A separate check and challenge would need to be submitted regarding that additional change.

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

All appeals have to be served on the VT via their portal. The VT requires the submission of 2 documents:

                       a)   The VO challenge Decision Notice

                       b)    Supporting evidence statement

The supporting evidence statement is meant to highlight the matters in dispute and key points relied on.

It should reference the Decision Notice but not duplicate it, referring only to evidence exchanged at  challenge stage. It is also required to highlight any challenge evidence omitted from the Decision Notice. It must not include any new evidence.

The evidence required to be submitted on an appeal by Regulation  13C(3)(c) is not affected by the VT policy and all that evidence should have been included with the appeal papers.

1.7 Fees

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

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

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

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

1.8  Appeal served out of time

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

The request must be made, on the application form ‘ Extension of Time Limits for Appeals’, to the President of the Tribunal, who may permit a late appeal because of circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant.

Any request must include reasons as to why the notice of appeal was not provided in time.

The VT may notify the VO of any such request and invite the submission of any representations.

The VT may hold a hearing to consider the matter further and can seek further information from potential parties to the appeal.

Matters to be taken into account:

          - when was the notice actually received

          - has the applicant been informed of the right of appeal and of the time limits

          - has the applicant acted with all reasonable speed in the circumstances

          - are there any specific reasons to justify delay e.g. illness

      - is the delay such that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to permit the appeal to be heard.

After a decision is made copies will be sent by the VT to all parties.

There is no right of appeal against this decision. A further application may only be made if new information becomes known or was not known at the time of the earlier application.

1.9 Notification of Appeal

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

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

2.0 Appeal Process

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

2.1 Decisions without a hearing - written representations

If the appellant wants the appeal to be decided without a hearing, on the papers alone, they must request this at the time of submitting the appeal. The VO then has 2 weeks to object from the date of request to ask for a full hearing (VTE PS2(4&5)). The VO would only object where there was good reason to do so. Decisions without hearings may affect the refunds an appellant may receive.

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

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

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

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

If there is any omission or error then the VT should be notified within 4 weeks that the correct evidence was not submitted particularly if the VO intends to rely on it at VT (PS2 Practice Statement appeal information and evidence Directions). 

Notice of Incorrect Evidence to VT

This notice must:

a)  State the date on which the information or evidence was provided under Reg 9 together with evidence to support that the document was served (i.e. a copy of the email that was sent to the IP) and a copy of the missing material

b)  State which information or evidence submitted in the appeal was not included earlier under Reg 9 and why the VO objects to its inclusion

c)  In all cases advise the appellant that they can object.

The appellant then has 2 weeks to respond and serve a notice on the VO giving reasons as to why the material should or should not be included.

If the appellant does not object within two weeks the Tribunal and the respondent VO can assume the material is not in dispute and it will form part of the appeal documentation.

If there is a dispute the Tribunal will try and resolve the matter if necessary as a preliminary matter at the hearing.

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

The appellant then has 2 weeks to consider whether they wish to dispute the findings

Notice of Incorrect Evidence to VT

This notice must:

a)  State the date on which the information or evidence was provided under Reg 9 together with evidence to support that the document was served (i.e. a copy of the email that was sent to the IP) and a copy of the missing material

b)  State which information or evidence submitted in the appeal was not included earlier under Reg 9 and why the VO objects to its inclusion

c)  In all cases advise the appellant that they can object.

The appellant then has 2 weeks to respond and serve a notice on the VO giving reasons as to why the material should or should not be included.

If there is a dispute the VT will decide the matter on the papers or hold a case management hearing or as a preliminary point at a substantive hearing.

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

The VT Explanatory Notes in the Consolidated Practice Statement 2020 advise that

‘If the appellant does not object within two weeks the Tribunal and respondent can assume the material is not disputed and forms part of the appeal documentation.’

2.3   Evidence provided at challenge stage and discovery of errors in appeal documentation

Reg 9(12) states that the evidence provided by the proposer during challenge forms part of the  proposal.

Reg 9(12)

Any evidence provided by the proposer under this regulation forms part of the proposal and must be provided to the VO—

(a)     using the VO’s electronic portal; or

(b)     in another manner agreed with the VO.

Reg 9(7) enables the VO on receipt of the proposal, which would include any evidence from the Proposer, by virtue of Reg 12, to provide information in response.

If the proposal is not resolved, the VO has to issue a Decision Notice. This notice, under Reg 13(3) has to include the reasons for the decision including statements regarding the evidence and information used to make that decision.

Reg 13(3)

(a)   a statement that the VO is of the opinion that the proposal is not well-founded, that the VO disagrees with the proposed alteration of the list and that the VO has decided—

(i)     not to alter the list according to the proposal; or

(ii)     to alter the list otherwise than in accordance with the proposal;

(b)     the reasons for that decision, including a statement of the evidence and information used to make the decision;

(c)    a statement in relation to each of the grounds of the proposal setting out why in the opinion of the VO the ground is not made out, including a summary of any particulars of the grounds of the proposal with which the VO did not agree; and

(d)   details of the proposer’s right to appeal against the decision.

The argument, is therefore, as all evidence provided by the proposer constitutes the ‘proposal ‘ as defined in Reg 9(12), then if the ‘proposal’ is received by the VO in stages,  on receipt of that later evidence under Reg(7) the VO can provide a response to it and this evidence should be admissible as evidence at VT as it is required to be included by the regulations.                  

N.B.  All evidence referred to by both parties should be included and commented on in the Decision Notice (reg 13(3)). The Decision Notice and VO evidence should be included in the appeal papers (Reg 13C(3)(c)) and submitted by the Appellant at appeal stage. As the evidence is required to be included in the appeal papers it is reasonable that it should be admitted as evidence at a hearing.

Without prejudice documentation should not be included in the appeal papers by either party. Any offers to settle etc. are without prejudice and should not be put before the Tribunal. If the email contains any factual or evidential information then the settlement parts should be redacted.

This means, that if the proposer has provided evidence after the initial submission to which the VO has responded with further evidence it should be put to the VT that it is admissible at VT for the reasons stated above.

Reg 13C(3)(c) includes the requirement of the Appellant to include any evidence or information that has been sent to him as proposer during the challenge process. This includes the additional or later rental information provided by the VO, provided we have included these in a Reg 17 notice (N.B. an additional Reg 17 notice could be served if required during challenge).

Reg 13C

(2)     A notice of appeal must—

(a)     set out the grounds of the appeal; and

(b)     identify which particulars of the grounds of the proposal have not been agreed with the VO.

(3)     A notice of appeal must be accompanied by—

(a)     if a decision has been given under regulation 13, a copy of that decision;

(b)     a copy of the proposal including any further evidence provided by the proposer under regulation 9;

(c)     any evidence or information provided to the proposer by the VO under regulation 9 and

(d)     the fee (if any) payable under regulation 13D

Reg 13C(3)(c) includes the requirement of the Appellant to include any evidence or information that has been sent to him as proposer during the challenge process. If the Appellant has missed or failed to provide any of the required documentation from the challenge stage in his submission then the process outlined at 2.2 above should be followed.

The evidence presented in the Appeal should be that as submitted as at challenge in the Decision Notice. The rental analysis or valuations should not be ‘re-worked’ or amended for an appeal.

The only exception to this would be where new evidence has arisen (see process below) and the expert valuer determines that in his opinion there has been a change and he is then under a duty to inform the Tribunal accordingly. A separate addendum should then be submitted to the Tribunal for consideration clearly identifying what has changed and why.

Under the new VT procedures introduced in 2022, the appellant is required to submit only 2 documents, basically their appeal notice and the decision notice. It is therefore important that the appeal papers are checked carefully so that all evidence submitted by the appellant and VO during challenge has been included and all evidence in any appendices and attachments have been added consideration by the Tribunal. If any documentation is missing or added it should be brought to the Tribunal’s attention.

Errors in the challenge stage

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

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

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

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

2.4 Additional evidence added

If additional evidence has been included the VO must notify the VT within 4 weeks that new evidence has been included. Again the VT will determine if there is a dispute, whether this evidence can be admitted.

If it is admitted, the Tribunal should give the VO an opportunity to submit a rebuttal to comment on that new evidence (VTE- PS2b(7)(3)).

Evidence

2.5 Admission of New Evidence

In accordance with Regulation 17A (Procedure Regulations, SI 2009/2269)

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

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

(1)  the evidence relates to a ground stated in the proposal and  was not known to the party and could not have been reasonably acquired before the Decision Notice and it is provided by a party to the appeal or

(2)  all the  parties to the appeal agree in writing to its inclusion  (Reg 17A (1)(a) SI 2009 / 2269).

A party must within 4 weeks of the hearing date make a written application to the Tribunal if he intends to include any new evidence at the hearing. A copy of the notice must be sent to all parties.

The notification must include reasons for the late application of evidence stating:

                 a)  Why the evidence was not available earlier, and

                  b)  When it came into the possession of the party.

The application for inclusion of new evidence must be served on all the other parties including the VO

From the date the notice is served on the other parties, that party has 2 weeks to write to the Tribunal objecting in writing and issue copies to all the other parties. 

The parties can request a variance of the timeframe on the Directions but would need to explain why they failed to make the application earlier.

To object to the inclusion of new evidence the arguments that the VO should put forward should be that one or more of the requirements under Reg 17A(1) have not been met, with reasoning to substantiate the claim.

[17A  Admission of new evidence on NDR appeal]

[(1)     On a NDR appeal, the VTE may only admit evidence that was not included in the notice of appeal or any document accompanying the notice of appeal (“new evidence”) if—

(a)     that evidence—

(i)     is provided by a party to the appeal;

(ii)     relates to the ground on which the proposal was made; and

(iii)     was not known to the party and could not reasonably have been acquired by the party before the proposal was determined under Part 2 of the NDR Regulations; or

(b)     all the parties to the appeal agree in writing to the party providing the new evidence.

The weight that would be attributed to the new evidence submitted is not grounds for objection for admittance of it, but an argument to be made during the presentation of the case itself.

The Tribunal will then make a decision whether or not to include the new evidence.

If the Tribunal admits the evidence

The Tribunal will notify the other parties and they have 1 week to submit further new evidence in response.

 If the other party wishes to supply additional evidence then it must include:-

(i)    Why this new evidence is required

(ii)   How it relates to the evidence that the Tribunal has already agreed to include

(iii)   How it relates to the grounds on which the proposal was made

(iv)   A copy of the evidence the party wishes to include

This evidence must be copied to all the parties.

The parties will then have 1 week to object in writing to the Tribunal and must copy in all the parties of the objection.

All the documents must be served electronically to a party who has given an email address for service in the proceedings.

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

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

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

2.6     Presenting the evidence

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

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

Expert witness evidence should include a ‘Statement of Truth’ within the document.

At the hearing, the VO should be clear during the proceedings when they are acting as Advocate or Expert Witness.         

Where parties are relying on well-known case law (ie those cases on the VTE Website) they do not have to be included in the bundle but must provide the relevant extract on which they are relying and explain how it assists their case.

http://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk/existing-appeal/preparing-for-the-hearing/case-law-list/)

Any photos and plans not already in the case bundles that may assist the Tribunal provided they are agreed between the parties as a true representation of the situation at the material day and submitted on the day.

2.7 New evidence, New Grounds, Scope of appeal/proposal and rebuttal

New evidence or grounds

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

The VO will need to consider the new evidence introduced and whether the evidence submitted by the VO is sufficient to deal with it. If it is prior to the hearing then the VT practice statement allows 1 week to request to submit further evidence by way of rebuttal, see 2.5 above

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

Scope

The appeal is still restricted by the grounds of the originating proposal at challenge. Therefore if the Appellant has tried to introduce new grounds or information that did not relate to the original challenge this also should be raised as a preliminary issue with the Tribunal for consideration.

2.8    Adding parties to the appeal or appearing as witnesses

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

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

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

As an alternative, if the VO has obtained information from the BA or another party which has been included at challenge, then consideration should be given as to whether to include that party as a witness in the VO case. This could be significant in respect of cases involving completion notices or deletions for example in respect of the BA as the VT will not add them as a party at appeal stage.

New Ratepayers

Regulation 2(1) of the Appeal Regulations (SI 2009/2268 as amended ) defines who may be a party under the regulations for a Reg 13A appeal.

This includes:-

        a) everyone who’s signature is required under Reg 12 that is :-

        i)) The VO

        ii) the proposer

        iii) the occupier at the date of proposal of the hereditament  referred to

        iv) the ratepayer at the date of agreement of the actual hereditament referred to

        v) any opted in party (ie someone who is an IP or former IP who would have been able to make that proposal who has opted in within 2 months of the VO receiving the proposal)

and

b) anyone who has been a ratepayer in respect of the subject hereditament since the date of confirmation of the check made by the proposer relating to this case.

Therefore, if there is a person, who was not the maker of the proposal and at any time has been a ratepayer of the hereditament since the check was submitted,  can make a request to the VT to be added as a party to an appeal. If their evidence has not been included at challenge stage then it will be necessary to make a request under Reg 17A Procedure Regulations (2009/2269) for their evidence to be admitted at the hearing.

2.9 Varying the VT directions

Applications may be made to the Tribunal for any of the directions regarding the appeal process to be varied, including extension of time limits.

2.10 FORs at VT

In order for the VO to rely on rental evidence and for it to be admitted at VT a Regulation 17 (Procedure Regulations) must have been issued. As no photocopies of the FORs may be included in the bundles, the caseworker may have to provide the hardcopy documents at the hearing. However, in accordance with Regulation 17(10) which states

 ’if any document required to be made available for inspection in accordance with Paragraph (5) or (6) is not maintained in documentary form, the duty to make it so available is satisfied if a print-out , photographic image or other reproduction of the document which has been obtained from the storage medium adopted in relation to the document is made available for inspection’

i.e for the purposes of the VT hearing, a printout of our record will be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the regulations.

3.0 Settlement of appeals

3.1  Withdrawal of appeal before a hearing

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

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

3.2 Altering the list in line with the proposal request

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

3.3 Consent Orders (Agreeing the Appeal)

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

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

If a consent order is being sought for an agreement, if the hereditament has been vacated at the time of the appeal, then the agreement of the landlord (as ratepayer) will be needed in addition to the maker of the proposal.

Regulation 2(3) (Appeal Regs) states that a party to an appeal includes the proposer and everyone whose signature is required under Regulation 12 and this includes the ratepayer at the date of the agreement in relation to the hereditament.

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 addres.

(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

The form to use is available here [ consent ordersThis meets the required criteria and should be used when applying for a consent order (Joint Application to the VTE for a Consent Order under Reg.35).

3.4     Other Orders (including End dating MCCs)

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

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

For application of Reg 38(7) SI 2009/2269 See Avison Young Ltd v Jackson (VO) (2021) EWCA Civ 969 (1 July 2021) and  Arnold v Dearing UT 2019 - ‘Crooked Spaniard’ case. See also Court of Appeal cases on Avison Young and David Jackson (VO) and between Jo Moore (VO) and Great Bear Distribution Ltd  2021 EWCA Civ 969)

4.0 Complex Cases

 See RM Section 7  VT England

5.0 VT Hearing

See Section 7 of the rating manual for VTE procedures at the actual hearing.

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

---

Part 1F  Central List  - England

1.0 Introduction

Part 3 of the Alteration of Lists and Appeals (England) Regulations 2009 as amended sets out the provisions that apply to hereditaments that are entered in the Central List for the 2017 and beyond.

All references are to the above regulation unless otherwise specified.

Essentially references to the ‘VO’ are substituted with ‘CVO’ (Central Valuation Officer) and ‘local list’ is substituted with the ‘central list’

The central list deals with ‘relevant’ hereditaments as defined in s53 of the Local Government and Finance Act 1988. The amended regulations substitute s53 for s42 where mentioned in the Appeal regulations.

Various other parts of the Appeal Regulations do not apply or have been amended for the Central List as discussed where appropriate below.

This guidance should be read in conjunction with the main guidance in Part 4 for dealing with cases under CCA.

2.0 Definitions

Interested person (IP)

The requirements of an IP are the same for the Central List as they are for the local lists. In order to be able to make a proposal, the Proposer (Designated Person) must have an interest in the property or have had an interest in it.

If the Proposer has left the property by the time the request for information at check is made then the grounds on which he may make a proposal are restricted to changes in P and M Regs, alterations of the list and changes in Effective Date only. He may not make a proposal against the compiled list, MCC or any other grounds.

Ratepayer (RP)

The ‘ratepayer’ is either the occupier or if vacant, the owner of the hereditament.

Anyone who has been a ratepayer since the Confirmation of Check, is entitled to be a party to an appeal.

Relevant Authority

For the purpose of the Central List, the Secretary of State is substituted for the ‘Relevant Authority’ where stated.

‘Alteration of the list’

For the purposes of the Central List, ‘alteration’ means the alteration of the Central List in relation to a description of hereditaments.

3.0 Grounds of Proposal

The grounds of proposal are identical for those applying to the Local List under Reg 4(1) with the exception that (k) and (l) are removed for the purposes of the Central List.

Reg 4(1)

(a) Compiled list inaccuracy

(b) RV is inaccurate due to an MCC (excludes ones citing Covid 19 on or after 24/3/2021).

(c) Amendment of P and M regs

(d) CVO alteration of the list is inaccurate

(e) inaccurate due to Tribunal / Court decision

(f) Effective Date is wrong

(g) New

(h) Deletion

(i) List should show part of the hereditament is domestic or exempt

(j) List should not show part of the hereditament is domestic or exempt

(m) address is wrong

(n) description is wrong

(o) statement under s53 about the hereditament is wrong

3.1 Who can make proposals

IP

An IP can make a proposal on any of the above grounds.

Former IP on or after date of check request

A former IP, who was an IP at the date of check request but subsequently left, can make a proposal on any grounds for the period in which they were an IP ie had an interest in the property.

Former IP prior to date of check request

A former IP who was not an IP at the date of check request is limited to 3 grounds of proposal only, (c), (d) and (f) for the period in which they were an IP ie had an interest in the property.

If the proposer does not constitute one of the above, or in the case of a former IP pre date of check request selects grounds that they are not permitted to, then the proposal is unlawful and should be rejected.

4.0 Checks

Checks should be made via the VO portal, prior to a proposal being submitted, (Reg 4A) unless another method is agreed.

A check request for information (Reg 4B(2)) has to be made first before the IP can confirm the check.(Reg 4C)

As the valuations for the Central List are not published on the intranet, then in all cases for the Central List the IP will have to make a request for a copy of the information held on the subject property prior to providing confirmation of the facts.

The CVO is required to serve an acknowledgement of the check confirmation stating the date on which it was received.

Having determined if the Central List needs amendment, the CVO is required to serve a notice of completion on the IP. This notice needs to state details of any changes to the list and to the information held on the property (ie the valuation).(see Reg 4F for matters to include)

Once the Check has been completed then the period for submitting a proposal is triggered.

A check is completed by the notice being issued or 12 months from the date of check confirmation

5.0 Proposals

5.1 Service

Proposal are required to be served via the VO/CVO portal unless otherwise agreed.

5.2 Time limit

The IP has 4 months from completion of check to submit a proposal, unless it is for an external MCC (ie re Sched 6 para 2(7)(d) or (e) ) in which case it is 16 months from the confirmation of check, whichever is later.

5.3 Unlawful proposals

A proposal will be unlawful if:

1) It was not served via the portal or as agreed

2) It was not made by an IP or former IP (3.1)

3) It was not submitted within the appropriate time limits. (5.2)

4) A notice of completion of check has not been served and 12 months has not elapsed (premature)

5) Includes more that one ground and the MD / ED are different (Reg 4(6))

6) Includes more than one hereditament and the IP does not have the same capacity for all the hereditaments and they are not within the same building or curtilage (reg 4(7))

7) If the proposal is for a split or merger it is unlawful

8) MCC proposal– a proposal has already been submitted previously for the same MCC (Reg 6A(3))

9) A check was submitted that gave details of the same MCC but no proposal was submitted within the time limits. (Reg 6A(3))

Unlike the Local List – the provisions regarding duplicates, proposals against list alterations arising from proposals or VT decisions do not apply for the Central List.

5.4 Incomplete Proposals

The requirements regarding the content of the proposal are set out in Reg 6(4) – (7).

If one of those items are missing then the proposal must be made incomplete. (Reg 8)

When making a proposal incomplete the CVO must serve a notice on the proposer stating what information is missing and the date of service of the notice.

If a proposal is incomplete the Proposer has the balance of the submission time to re-submit a fresh proposal.

5.5 Acknowledgement of proposal

The CVO is required within 4 weeks of receiving the proposal to acknowledge its receipt which must include information relating to the effects of paras 9-13E, ie the CCA process.

The CVO is also required to send a copy of the proposal on the Secretary of state.

5.6 Reg 9 Process to follow:

On receipt of the proposal, the CVO, if reasonable to do so must send information held relating to the grounds to the proposer. (Initial response (IR)). (Reg 9(7))

The proposer can then provide a response to the IR, but must not include any new grounds (Reg 9(8))

New evidence, ie that not known at the date of proposal, may be admitted and responded to by the CVO.

Any evidence received from the BA must be forwarded to the Proposer who can supply a response, (Reg 9(6)), similarly any information from a third party may also be sent (Reg 9(9))

If the Proposer has submitted extra evidence that does not relate to the VO response and is not new, then the VO can agree to admit this evidence and respond to it (Reg 9(11)). The alternative is to reject the evidence as not falling within one of the above categories of evidence and the Proposer will have to consider making a Reg 17A (2009/2269) application at appeal stage for its inclusion.

All evidence provided only by the Proposer at challenge forms part of the proposal.

5.7 Resolving the proposal

The same processes are followed for the Central List as per the local list. See the main section on CCA challenges for more information on well-founding, agreement, withdrawals and the Decision Notice.

The only difference between the processes is with the issue of copies of the Decision Notice.

The CVO is not required to send a copy to the Billing Authority.

6.0 Appeals

The same procedures apply for the Central List as for the Local List.

See main section in CCA on appeals.

7.0 Effective Dates

The rules for the Central List are the same as those for the local list with the exception that Reg 14(3) and (4) do not apply.

i.e Effective Dates regarding completion notices