Revaluation Update

1
Revaluation Update

2
Rateable Value Movements

3
Summary Valuations Reaction

4
Appeals Procedures - New Regulations

• Non Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and
  Appeals) (England) Regulations 2005 SI 2005/659
  
• The Non Domestic Rating (Material Day for List
  Alterations) (Amendment) (England) Regulations
  2005

5
Aims of New Procedures

• Reduce number of rushed unsubstantiated appeals
• Submit fully evidence based appeals
• Improve quality of information submitted
• Appeals system will be streamlined
• Appeals system will faster and fairer

6
Summary of 2000 List Procedures

• Date limitations placed on effective dates in
  2000 list
• If proposal submitted before 30 September 2000
  effective date 1 April 2000
• If submitted between 1 October 2000 and 31 March
  2001 effective date 1 October 2000
• If submitted in subsequent financial years then
  effective date 1 April of that financial year
  e.g.
• If made between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2004
  effective date 1 April 2003.
• Originally only had 6 months to appeal against VO
  Notice no time limit after 1 April 2002 but
  effective date limitations

7
Consequences of 2000 List Procedures

• Agents tended to submit proposals before each
  date limitation to cover their options
• This placed pressure on VOA resources
• Complications arose in practice surrounding the
  effective date and the system became confusing to
  some ratepayers

8
Summary of 2005 List Procedures

• 2005 Regulations do not re-introduce time limits
  for making proposals
• Nor do they retain the restrictions on effective
  dates used for the 2000 list
• They do, however, restrict an interested person
  to making a single proposal for a single event
  i.e
• One challenge to the compiled list entry (entry
  at 1 April 2005)
• One challenge to a single Material Change of
  Circumstances (MCC)
• One challenge to a Valuation Officer Notice of
  alteration (VON)

9
Ratepayers Rights

• Ratepayer can appeal against the rateable value
  of their business premises at any time during the
  five year period of the list providing a valid
  proposal has not already been made for the event
• The ratepayer is not disadvantaged if proposal is
  invalid as can always make a fresh one
• No restriction on effective date

10
Completion of Proposal

• A new requirement is that proposals on most
  grounds need to state the amount payable each
  year in respect of the lease, the easement or the
  licence to occupy the premises as at the date of
  the proposal
• Unless the proposal is a deletion, proposing an
  amendment to the address or a change in
  description.
• The new paper and internet proposals have a box
  for this (Box 9)
• The intention is that the correct amount not an
  approximation should be stated
• Do not now have to supply details of how long
  rent has been payable and when rent will be
  reviewed
• Some respondents considered ratepayers would have
  difficulty obtaining this information

11
Invalidity

• VO can send a Regulation 8 invalidity notice at
  any time within 4 weeks of service of the
  proposal
• If outside the 4 week period since service the VO
  is able under regulation 30(13) to challenge
  validity at the Valuation Tribunal
• If proposal found to be invalid during
  discussions, VO should still continue discussions
  and suggest ratepayer or agent immediately make a
  fresh proposal rectifying the defect

12
Ownership of Proposal

• A proposal from an agent without instruction is
  invalid regardless of how the VO has registered
  it
• If originally accepted as valid but made without
  authority VO cannot change status to invalid.
• Such a proposal can only be cleared by withdrawal
  or by an order of the VT
• A new valid proposal can then be made

13
Ownership of Proposal

• If the principal tells the VO that the agent is
  not instructed, the VO must accept this.
• Even if a proposal is valid the interested
  person, as principal, can take a proposal away
  from an agent
• The importance of validity is reduced under the
  new regulations due to the relaxation of the
  rules for effective dates.

14
Second Proposals

• A duplicate proposal may be received from
  different agents or made by the ratepayer
  directly
• A new or different interested person (e.g. the
  occupier or landlord) can make a proposal for the
  same event.
• The same interested person , or that persons
  agent cannot make a second proposal for the same
  event
• Where such a duplicate proposal is received, it
  will be treated as invalid
• This may lead to confusion as to who is
  instructed by the client
• Any such dispute is not a matter for the VO

15
Second Proposals

• The identification of the appropriate valid
  proposal is important
• However, the most crucial matter for the VO is
  who is representing the ratepayers interests and
  with whom does the ratepayer wish the VO to
  discuss the assessment?
• The principal and agents must be the ones to
  sort out who is properly instructed
• If the original proposal proves to be invalid the
  second proposal will then become valid and its
  status on the system amended
• VOs will need to judge whether they need specific
  confirmation from the client as to who is to act.

16
Programming - the Principles

• DETR Consultation paper 1999 5 principles of
  change
• Publicised advanced timetable of appeals to
  enable ratepayers to have some indication of when
  their proposals will be considered
• VOA to provide ratepayers or their
  representatives with more detailed information of
  their assessments
• Other changes ratepayers have better
  understanding of appeals process, incentives
  for early negotiation and need for simplicity

17
Programming - details

• Programming is non-statutory
• Arrangements introduced from April 2000
• Each VO produced, after consultation with
  appropriate Valuation Tribunals and ratepayers
  representatives a programme for their area each
  year
• Initially drawn up to cover 2 year forward period
  now 1 year.
• Programme divided into a number of sub programmes
  (groupings of similar proposals) to enable
  ratepayers to identify when their proposals would
  be considered
• Sub-programmes have start and target date
  normally 2 month period of discussion in between
  if not settled would then proceed to VT shortly
  afterwards

18
Programming - 2002 Review

• RICS, RSA and IRRV generally in support of
  principle of programming
• As too were the Valuation Tribunals
• RSA helped create a more systematic approach to
  the appeals procedure
• Programming has given some certainty and
  structure to the appeals process
• Ratepayers are now more aware if when their
  appeals will be dealt with

19
Programming - The Way Forward

• We are currently considering best way forward but
  no decisions yet made
• One factor could be number of appeals received
  nationally we currently have as many as this time
  in 2000 list but this may change
• There will be no draft programmes and no formal
  consultation period on actual programmes as I
  understand it, although I assume some
  consultation will take place with professional
  bodies on any changes
• VO will be much more pro-active before start
  dates in order to send information out early and
  instigate earlier discussions Groups may
  consider reducing some discussion periods to 1
  month