Introduction

The case of BMC Properties And Management Ltd v. Jackson (VO) [2014] UKUT 93 (LC) addresses a pivotal issue in the realm of non-domestic rating: the effective dating of alterations to rating lists by valuation officers. This commentary delves into the intricacies of the judgment, elucidating its background, the legal principles involved, the court's reasoning, and the broader implications for future cases and the non-domestic rating framework.

Summary of the Judgment

BMC Properties and Management Ltd, the appellant, contested a decision by the Valuation Tribunal for England (VTE) regarding the effective date of an alteration to the 2005 non-domestic rating list. The alteration involved the inclusion of their property at 8 Collingham Road, London SW5 OLT, which had been erroneously omitted from the list at the time of its compilation on 1 April 2005.

The crux of the dispute lay in determining whether the effective date of the alteration should be backdated to when the circumstances necessitating the alteration first arose (1 April 2005) or to the date when the alteration was actually made (22 March 2011). The VTE favored the latter, aligning with the Valuation Officer's (VO) position, leading BMC Properties to appeal the decision.

Upon review, the Upper Tribunal upheld the VTE's decision, affirming that the effective date of the alteration should indeed be the date when the list was compiled, thereby making the alteration effective from 1 April 2005. This decision underscored the interpretation of regulation 14(2) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references Lamb & Shirley v Bliss (VO) [2001] EWCA Civ 562 as a foundational precedent. This case dealt with similar issues regarding alterations to rating lists and the effective dating of such changes. The Upper Tribunal in BMC Properties reinforced the principles established in this precedent, particularly regarding the interpretation of the relevant regulations governing rating list alterations.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on the correct interpretation of regulation 14 of the 2009 Regulations. Specifically, it examined whether the "circumstances giving rise to the alteration" pertained solely to the change of use of the property or if they included the recognition of the inaccuracy in the compiled list itself.

The tribunal concluded that the circumstances giving rise to the alteration encompassed the fact that the list was inaccurately compiled due to the omission of the property. Consequently, since the inaccuracy was present at the time of the list's compilation, the effective date of the alteration was anchored to the compilation date, 1 April 2005, rather than the later date of alteration.

Additionally, the tribunal dismissed secondary arguments posited by the appellant, emphasizing the clarity of the regulatory language and the absence of any intent to introduce uncertainty into the effective dating mechanism.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for both ratepayers and valuation officers:

• Clarification of Regulation 14(2): The decision provides a definitive interpretation of regulation 14(2), affirming that inaccuracies present at the time of list compilation are rectified with backdated effectiveness.
• Encouragement of Accurate List Compilation: Valuation officers are incentivized to ensure the accuracy of rating lists at the time of compilation, knowing that omissions can result in alterations being backdated.
• Ratepayer Liability: Ratepayers may face retrospective billing if omissions are later identified, underscoring the importance of diligent property assessments.
• Precedential Value: Future cases involving rating list alterations can reference this judgment for guidance on effective dating, promoting consistency in judicial interpretations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Upper Tribunal's decision in BMC Properties And Management Ltd v. Jackson (VO) serves as a crucial interpretative guide for the application of regulation 14 of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009. By clarifying that alterations correcting inaccuracies present at the time of list compilation are effective from that compilation date, the judgment reinforces the necessity for precision in the initial creation of rating lists.

For valuation officers, this underscores the imperative to meticulously compile rating lists, minimizing errors that could lead to retrospective billing and potential disputes. For ratepayers, particularly large commercial entities, the decision highlights the importance of understanding their rating assessments and the implications of any omissions or inaccuracies therein.

Overall, this judgment contributes to the jurisprudence surrounding non-domestic rating, promoting fairness and clarity in the administration of business rates and ensuring that both valuation officers and ratepayers are held to rigorous standards of accuracy and accountability.