The Nail & Beauty Zone LTD against Assessor for Grampian Valuation Joint Board (Court of Session)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant operated a shop at [Number] Main Street. The property was entered in the valuation roll at the 2017 revaluation with a net annual value (NAV) of £16,750 (roll effective 1 April 2017). There are two entrances; one descended to the trading area from one street level and the main access/egress was level with a car park on the other street. The premises had been let under a lease from September 2008 (initial rent £18,000 p.a.), with a rent review to £20,500 in March 2014. An assignation and variation in May 2017 transferred the lease to the Appellant, extended the term to 30 April 2027, provided a six‑month initial rent‑free period from 5 May 2017, and altered payment and review terms.

The statutory valuation ("tone") date for the 2017 revaluation was 1 April 2015. The Appellant did not appeal the 2017 entry or lodge a new‑tenant/new‑occupier appeal within six months. On 23 December 2019 the Appellant lodged a running roll appeal under section 2(1)(f) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975, proposing an NAV of £13,679. The Appellant later argued the subjects should have been valued on a zoning basis with a reduced zone A rate (producing a proposed NAV of c. £7,539.48).

The appeal process was delayed by the Covid‑19 pandemic and the matter transferred to the First‑tier Tribunal on 1 April 2023. The Tribunal cited parties to a hearing for 20 December 2024, refused an adjournment request (but offered videoconference participation), and, at the Appellant's request, determined the appeal on written representations. The Tribunal refused the appeal, made findings of fact (including use of a rate of £120/m2 on a trading floor area of c.162m2, and that a comparison with another shop at [Number] Main Street supported that rate), and found no error within section 2(1)(f). The Appellant appealed to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court. The court (three judges) refused the appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the assessor committed an "error of measurement, survey or classification or any clerical or arithmetical error" within section 2(1)(f) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 that would permit alteration of the roll.
2. Whether the assessor erred in valuing the subjects on an overall basis rather than on a zoning basis and/or erred in the choice of comparable properties.
3. Whether the Tribunal's procedure (refusal to adjourn, decision on written representations) or reasons rendered the process unfair or inadequate.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The assessor erred in classification by valuing on an overall basis instead of a zoning basis; the trading area should have been treated as a basement and valued at one‑fifth of the North Deeside Road zone A rate with a quantum reduction.
• The assessor selected an inappropriate comparable (a shop on the same car‑park level) instead of comparators on North Deeside Road or other nearby shops, producing an excessive NAV.
• The Tribunal erred in accepting the rent following assignation as £20,500 rather than £18,000 (and failing to account for the initial rent‑free period).
• The process was unfair because of delay, determination on written representations rather than an oral hearing, and inadequate reasons from the Tribunal.

Respondent's Arguments

• Section 2(1)(f) is limited to objectively verifiable factual errors; differences of valuation approach or judgement are not within its ambit.
• The assessor's choice between zoning and overall valuation, and choice of comparables, were matters of valuation opinion and judgement; assessors are not bound by practice notes.
• The Tribunal's factual findings (including the rent and comparability with the other shop) were supported by evidence; the NAV was consistent with passing rent when adjusted to the statutory hypothesis.
• The Tribunal's procedure and reasons were fair and adequate given statutory deadlines and the parties' choices (including the Appellant's request for written determination).

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed section 2(1)(f) (Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975) and applied the principles in the cited authorities: the subsection is confined to objectively ascertainable factual errors (measurement, survey, classification in the sense of placing subjects into the correct category), not differences of valuation opinion or judgement. The assessor had classified the subjects correctly as a "shop". The choice between a zoning basis and an overall basis, and the selection of appropriate comparators, involved the assessor's valuation judgement rather than any factual misclassification.

The Tribunal's findings of fact were: the NAV was calculated using a rate of £120/m2 on a trading floor area (found c.162m2, actual area 166.3m2), allowances applied for thick wall and quantum, the Appellant's predecessors agreed an assignation at a rent of £20,500, and the assessor had used comparable rents (notably a comparison shop whose trading area was level with the same car park). The court accepted that adjusted passing rents supported the NAV and that the Appellant's lower proposed NAV was inconsistent with the rental evidence and statutory hypothesis. The Tribunal's reasons addressed why the alleged errors did not fall within s 2(1)(f). The court also found the Tribunal's procedural choices (refusal to adjourn, written determination) justified by statutory deadlines and the Appellant's requests and thus not unfair.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL REFUSED

Direct effect: the Appellant's appeal is dismissed and the entry in the valuation roll (NAV £16,750) stands. The court treated the assessor's methodological choices as valuation judgement, not factual errors cognisable under section 2(1)(f), and found no inadequacy in the Tribunal's reasons or procedure. No new legal principle was established; the decision applied existing authorities concerning the limited scope of section 2(1)(f).