[2025] UKUT 256 (LC)

Ms McArdle directed us to The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009 /2268) (2009 Regulations) which set out the circumstances in which proposals can be made.

Miss McArdle went on to say that the scope of the challenge which resulted in the appeal before the Tribunal was solely limited to the question of whether the hereditament should be deleted from the rating list and was not concerned with valuation as that issue had to be raised at the proposal stage. We were referred to the Tribunal’s decision in Nelson Plant Hire Ltd v Bunyan (VO) [2022] UKUT 309 where it was held that the extent of the challenge is limited to the ground or grounds set out in the proposal. At paragraph 66 the Tribunal (Martin Rodger QC, Deputy Chamber President and Mark Higgin FRICS) said:

“There is nothing in the 2009 Regulations in their amended form to suggest that it was intended to depart from the long-established position that the scope of any appeal depends on the scope of the proposal. In our judgment the old rule continues to apply.”

In our view, Mr Schroeder’s challenge to the VO’s decision was correctly construed as an application to treat the Property as one that should be deleted from the Rating List and not as a challenge to the valuation of the Property. It was open to Mr Schroeder to submit a proposal which required the VO to justify its valuation of the Property, but he did not do so. The scope of the ratepayer’s challenge for the purposes of this appeal is solely an application to delete. This affected both the scope of the decision reached by the VO, the subsequent challenge before the VTE and this appeal to the Tribunal.