Valuation Office Agency
This is a Generalist class. Co-ordination responsibilities are set out in Rating Manual: section 6 part 1.
Special Category code 018 should be used. The relevant suffix letter (G) will be computer generated automatically. Sections 8-17 cover particular issues relating to sites of Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs).
This guidance has been updated to reflect the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Cardtronics UK Ltd and others (Respondents) v Sykes and others (Valuation Officers) (Appellants) [2020] UKSC 21 concerning whether ATMs situated within superstores and retail host hereditaments are properly shown as separate hereditaments in the occupation of the ATM operator.
The Supreme Court reviewed the judgments of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) and the Court of Appeal, and accepted the reasoning expressed by the Upper Tribunal:
We are therefore satisfied that each of the appeal sites, with the exception of the first floor site at Tescos Nottingham store (where the machine is free standing), is capable of being the subject of a separate entry in the rating list (Para 151 of the UT (LC) decision).
In respect of the site of the moveable ATM, the Supreme Court found that the essential qualities of this ATM were impermanence and mobility and agreed with the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal that, in the light of these characteristics, its site could not form a separate hereditament. The sites of the remaining ATMs were, in principle, capable of being identified as separate hereditaments regardless of whether they were accessed from within the host hereditament or from the pavement etc.
The Supreme Court endorsed the finding that the retailers retained occupation of the ATM sites, accepting the reasoning of the Upper Tribunal in the earlier stage appeal of Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd & Others v Chris Sykes & Others (VOs) [2017] UKUT 0138 (LC) at paragraph 169:
The Store has not, in any of these cases, parted with possession of the site of the ATM, but it has agreed to confer rights on the Bank which substantially restrict the Stores use of that small part of its premises which comprises the ATM site. The Store has agreed to that restriction because the presence of the ATM furthers its own general business purposes and because the operation of the ATM by the Bank provides the Store with an income.
The Supreme Court approved, at paragraph 49, the finding of the Upper Tribunal that Both parties derive a direct benefit from the use of the site for the same purpose and share the economic fruits of the specific activity for which the space is used. The Supreme Court considered this was sufficient to support the conclusion that the sites of the internal ATMs remained in the occupation of the retailers and that the ATM sites did not, therefore, comprise separately rateable hereditaments.
The Supreme Court found there was no distinction between internal-facing and external-facing ATMs in this respect and found that any difference between them was not sufficient to treat them differently. Accordingly, in the particular cases they considered the host store owners, and not the ATM operators, were in rateable occupation of all of the ATM sites.
The decision does not wholly apply to all sites of automatic machines, and even some ATM sites may still fall to be separately assessed where the host hereditament has clearly parted with possession of the site and does not directly benefit from the use of the site for the same purpose.