‘In Alam v Valuation Officer (2018) UKUT 266 (LC) Mr Alam is the proprietor of the restaurant. He took a lease of a Property. His agents submitted a proposal to reduce the rateable value of the Property. In their proposal they stated correctly that Mr Alam was the occupier of the Property but also stated that the Property was “owner/occupied”. The proposal was completed in that way because of a misunderstanding between Mr Alam and his agents. As a result, the agents did not include any information in response to the question “if not owner/occupied, is a rent or licence fee paid?” and, in particular, did not state the rent payable, the date it had first become payable and the date of the next rent review. All of this was information required by Regulation 6(3) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009 (“the 2009 Regulations”). The issue in Mr Alam’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) concerned the consequence of the mis-statement of the capacity in which Mr Alam occupied the Property and the omission of any information about the rent payable. The Valuation Tribunal for England (“VTE”) found that the proposal was invalid, explaining: “… in whatever circumstances to omit the rent from the proposal was a substantial failure to comply with the Regulations. The panel was therefore persuaded that the error was so fundamental that the proposal could not in any circumstances be treated as valid.” ‘
Local Government Law, 9th January 2019
Source: local-government-law.11kbw.com
