GovWire

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 incomplete proposals.

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)

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 of:-

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.

4.3 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 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 BE PROVIDED 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

The VOA may impose a penalty on an IP or former IP at Challenge if they knowingly, recklessly or carelessly provide information which is false in a material particular. i.e. the details of the proposal.

Any information supplied to the VOA as part of the Check related to the Challenge, or at any stage during the Challenge, can be subject to a penalty (see Penalties (Reg 9) for further information).

4.8 Making Proposals

Only interested persons (IPs) or a person who was an interested person (within the meaning in the 2009 Regulations at the time the check of information was initiated, but is no longer an interested person in relation to that hereditament), may make proposals. (Reg 4 (2)).

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:

(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 (i.e. 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 requestthey 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 c

View the original news story