[2025] UKUT 00291 (LC)

Prior to the hearing Ms Xiaoli provided a detailed note of her experience in dealing with the VO and a list of the various changes to the assessment of her shop since 1 April 2017. According to Ms Xiaoli the alterations were as follows:

Ms Xiaoli was confused by the multiple changes in assessment and the different measurements that accompanied them. The VO had visited her shop three times between 2022 and 2025 and produced seven different assessments. She found this process extremely unfair and upsetting. Despite her repeated requests, the VO failed to offer a transparent and reasonable explanation for the inconsistent valuations. Furthermore, the VO selectively compared her property to neighbouring properties when it suited their arguments but dismissed similar comparisons raised in her favour. She also questioned why she was required to pay rates based on these new figures when her appeal against the original assessment remained outstanding.

Ms Xiaoli had visited the gov.uk website and understood the explanation of zoning that was provided. However, she noted that the zoning pattern was based on zone depths of 6.1 metres for the first three zones (A, B and C) and any space beyond the third zone was treated as a remainder. She appreciated that rental evidence was expressed as a value per metre squared per zone and that the value of each zone reduced by half with each successive zone.

Ms Xiaoli said that the guidance stated that each zone should have a depth of 6.1 metres but in her case Zone B of her property was measured at 7.62 metres and was followed immediately by a “remaining zone,” effectively skipping Zone C. She noted that the remaining zone was actually charged at Zone C rates (£112.50 per m²), when in fact, it should have been half of the Zone C rate. Ms Xiaoli concluded that this erroneous classification and the lack of transparency in the calculation had led to an unfair assessment of her property.

She also highlighted that the Property was the only one on Landor Road assessed above rateable value £15,000 and was the sole property with a remaining zone. She suspected that the VO had skipped Zone C and used the remaining zone to justify the application of the two-zone method, which was the only way their valuation would align with other properties on the same street. It appeared to Ms Xiaoli that the selective use of zoning methods and deviation from standard practices meant that the valuation had been adjusted to fit an inconsistent approach.

Ms Xiaoli said that the VTE had, in its decision, valued the staff room at the higher Zone B retail rate of £225 per m² despite being described as a staff room in the floor plan submitted by the VOA, and photographs of the space, both of which clearly marked the area as a staff room. Neighbouring properties with similar staff rooms have had these areas classified at a lower rate of £56.25 per m².

Finally, on 2 June 2025 Mr Mak had sent her 279 pages of information (the hearing bundle) which left insufficient time, with her very limited command of English, to digest the contents prior to the hearing.

The respondent acknowledges that the VO Rating Manual (‘the Manual’) states that shops are valued by reference to a zoning approach based on 6.1 metre zones. However, in the case of shops in Landor Road and in other secondary retail locations the VO still makes use of a historic 4.57/7.62 metre (15/25 feet) zoning pattern. The VO accepts that the text in the Manual is misleading and has led to considerable misunderstanding in this particular case. The VO says that the rent for the Property has been analysed by using a 4.57/7.62 metre zoning pattern and that all of the shops in the parade have been consistently valued on the same zoning basis.

The VO accepts that it is appropriate that the assessment for the Property is reduced. However, the reduction is not related to the grounds upon which the appeal was made. The VO says that the appeal prompted a review of the rental evidence in the locality and upon further analysis it was apparent that there should be a reduction in the tone (value per m²). Having applied this revised tone to the existing areas and zoning approach the resultant assessment is close to the figure originally requested.

In her Statement of Case Ms Xiaoli asserted that the assessment should be no more than rateable value £15,000. The VO made an offer to settle the appeal at this figure in February 2025 but the offer was rejected. In a letter to the Tribunal filed on 10 June 2025 Ms Xiaoli stated that the assessment for the Property should ‘be around’ rateable value £6,035. The VO’s case is that the assessment should be determined at rateable value £15,000 based on a zone A rate of £390 per m².