We have three hypothetical examples of rating appeals below to illustrate the bredth the subject involves.

Jump to...Case 1, Case 2 or Case 3

Case 1

Our client, an occupier of an offices suite in a provincial town, asks us to verify the correctness of his rating assessment with a view to mitigating his liability should the opportunity arise. A protective proposal is issued to the local Valuation Officer for this purpose and after some months of waiting the valuer in the Agency becomes available to discuss figures with us. In the meantime we have made our inspection, taken photographs and made our own initial assessment.

The Valuation Officer informs us of the breakdown of his valuation and we check that this tone is in line with other offices in the building and in the immediate locality. However it is discovered that he is assessing to our client a shared refreshment area also used by other occupiers in the building and which is not in our own client's exclusive occupation.

The Valuation Officer agrees to exclude this area from our client's assessment. It is also discovered that the Valuation Officer incorrectly measured the width of the general office area of our client's suite, producing a further saving. Although our client uses spaces in the car parking area for the building, on investigation it is discovered that there is no formal provision for this facility in his lease and no specific spaces are allocated. The unofficially used car parking spaces therefore are not part of our client's hereditament and the Valuation Officer agrees to exclude these from his assessment. Lastly, the office building itself is near to a busy railway line causing disadvantages of noise and vibration.

The Valuation Officer agrees to make an end allowance in his valuation for this disability.In due course our client receives his rates rebate from the Council at which time our invoice for work caried out, is rendered.

top

Case 2

Our client occupies space on a local industrial estate and due to expansion over recent years has grown from his original single unit, occupied in April 1991, to a second adjoining unit, and lastly to a third unit on the opposite side of the estate road. On receiving his instruction to review his rating Liability we ask to see copies of his rate bills and find that each of the three units is individually rated.

We make appropriate applications to the Valuation Officer and negotiations ensue. As our client is carrying out a manufacturing process, and using the space on both sides of the road in this process, it is ultimately conceded that the three units qualify as one unit of rateable occupation. This allows us to argue for valuation variations for quantum, and more significantly, an end adjustment in the valuation through having the premises divided by a public highway.

As part of our service we arrange for the first assessment to be merged with the second assessment from the date the second unit was taken over in April 1996 and for the third assessment, on the other side of the road, to be amalgamated from its occupational date in April 1998. This process involves the Valuation Officer making several updates to the rating List over subsequent weeks and we liase both with him and the local Council during the period. We ensure that all administrative procedures are followed through correctly and revised rates calculations accurately made.

In exchanging details with the Valuation Officer it also emerges that for the first unit he had continued to assess some storage land which, although once part of the property, had been sold separately by the previous owner when our client acquired in 1991. To correct this error it was arranged for an alteration to be made by the Valuation Officer to the previous 1990 rating List with effect from our client's occupational date in April 1991. A watching brief was kept on the case until our client's rates refund cheque, covering eight years, was received, at which time our invoice was rendered.

top

Case 3

Our client is not clear about figures on his rates bill received from the local Council and asks us to check the workings. The rateable value of his property is £17,000 and it is situated in Crayford, Kent.

On looking through the bill we find that the Council is correctly applying a negative transitional adjustment to our client's account reducing his liability under the Government's transitional phasing scheme, but at the wrong level. Although our client's postal address is Kent, his premises are located in the London Borough of Bexley and as such his property qualifies as small under the Government's scheme, with more favourable phasing provisions than for large properties. On pointing out the Council's oversight to them, amended backdated rate bills are produced and on obtaining his refund of overpaid rates our invoice is rendered to our client.

If we had found our client's bill to be in order, no charge would have been raised for our work carried out.

top