[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Lands Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Lands Tribunal >> Christie v Hudson (VO) [2000] EWLands RA_33_1999 (25 February 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLands/2000/RA_33_1999.html Cite as: [2000] EWLands RA_33_1999

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

[2000] EWLands RA_33_1999 (25 February 2000)

RA/33/1999

LANDS TRIBUNAL ACT 1949

RATING – Extent of hereditament incorrectly calculated – assessment includes domestic element and is excessive – Appeal dismissed.

IN THE MATTER of an APPEAL against a DECISION of the

DURHAM VALUATION TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN LAWRENCE ARKLE CHRISTIE Appellant

and

BARRY HUDSON Respondent

(Valuation Officer)

Re: Shop & Premises

99 Main Street, Shildon, Co.Durham

Tribunal Member: P.R.Francis FRICS

Hearing under the Simplified Procedure at:

Darlington County Court, Coniscliffe Road, Darlington

on

1 February 2000

Appearances: The appellant in person.

The respondent valuation officer in person, with leave of the Tribunal.


 


DECISION

1. This is an appeal by the owner of the shop and premises at 99 Main Street, Shildon, Co.Durham ("the subject premises") from a decision of the Durham Valuation Tribunal ("the VT") dated 28 June 1999 which had dismissed an appeal by the applicant and confirmed the assessment in the 1995 non-domestic rating list at £1,500.
2. It was agreed between the parties that the hearing would be held in accordance with the Simplified Procedure (rule 28, Lands Tribunal Rules 1996).
3. Mr. L A Christie, the appellant, appeared in person with leave of the Tribunal and briefly stated his reasons for the appeal. The respondent valuation officer, Mr. Barry Hudson appeared in person with leave of the Tribunal and gave evidence together with a useful summary of the rating history relating to the subject property.
4. Although the parties had not formally agreed facts prior to the hearing, Mr. Hudson produced a comprehensive statement of facts giving details of the situation and location, description of the hereditament, accommodation (including areas), a history of the assessment and the appeals that had been made in respect thereof, and set out the issues to be decided by this Tribunal. Mr. Christie confirmed that there was nothing therein with which he did not agree.
5. It is not necessary, for this decision, to recite the full rating history particularly in respect of the substantial number of past appeals, but from Mr. Hudson's statement of facts, and the evidence given at the hearing, I find the following relevant facts:

5.1 The appeal hereditament consists of an end-terrace shop and house built of stone (with roughcast front elevations) under tiled roofs, and the premises have been used as a newsagents business for in excess of fifty years. The rating history shows that various parts of the accommodation now forming part of the domestic area, were formerly part of the shop and business premises.

5.2. The premises are located at the westernmost edge of the central part of Shildon which has a linear shopping area centred on Main Street and Church Street. The principal shopping area is at the junction of these two streets, at the opposite end of Main Street to the subject property.

5.3. The accommodation within the appeal premises comprises a shop, store at rear (also used as an office) and a further rear store giving access to the back yard. The remainder of the property, occupied with the shop, is classed as domestic premises, assessed in accordance with Council Tax Band A. Access between the shop/sales area and the rear office/stores is through a passage that forms part of the living accommodation and thus the non-domestic part is not self contained.

5.4. The appeal premises' dimensions are agreed as:

Sales shop 37.30 sq.m.

Office/Store 4.80 sq.m.

Rear Store 8.70 sq.m.

Total commercial area 50.80 sq.m.

5.5. The premises are in a reasonable state of repair commensurate with their age and type, and all mains services are connected.

5.6. The appellant has occupied the property since 6 February 1989, and has continued the newsagents use throughout.

5.7. The premises were formerly included within the rating list with No.101 Shildon Street, the adjoining property, having an assessment under the 1973 Valuation List as 'Shop, House, Garage and Premises' – 99/101 Main Street - Gross Value ("GV") £450, Rateable Value ("RV") £347, the assessment being divided in January 1984, to become:

'Shop House, Garage & Premises' 99 Main Street GV £425 RV £326

'House' 101 Main Street GV £190 RV £132

5.8. The premises were re-surveyed in 1990, at the request of the appellant, to take account of changes within the accommodation as between domestic and non-domestic, and the assessment became:

'Shop, House, Garage & Premises' 99 Main Street GV £390 RV £298

5.9. Under the 1990 Rating List, following the separation of the domestic and non-domestic tax systems, the non-domestic part was assessed:

'Shop & Premises (part)' 99 Main Street Rateable value £1,300

Following subsequent further adjustments, and a number of appeals, the assessment was amended to £1,200 for the remainder of the 1990 Rating List.

5.10. Under the 1995 Rating List, the premises were assessed as:

'Shop & Premises' 99 Main Street Rateable Value £1,650

Subsequent to an appeal, the assessment was amended to £1,500, the value that currently subsists.

5.11. Mr. Christie's appeal to the Durham Valuation Tribunal, which was heard on 9 June 1999 was dismissed, and the tribunal confirmed the entry in the Rating List as:

'Shop & Premises' 99 Main Street Rateable Value £1,500

5.12. The Notice of Appeal to the Lands Tribunal was dated 15 July 1999.

Issue

6. The sole issue for me to determine is whether the Rateable Value is correct.

Appellant's case

7. Mr. Christie said that the main bone of contention, not only in respect of this appeal, but also forming the basis of many of his earlier ones, is that he is convinced the Council has based the assessment on incorrect assumptions. His argument, he said, goes right back to 1983 when the assessment was split. Why was it that, when the two properties originally had an assessment of £347 RV, it became RV £326 for 99 Main Street and £132 for No. 101, totalling £458? Also, why was the house at No. 101 so much less, when, in reality it was a very large property?
8. It was his contention, Mr. Christie said, that the domestic element (upon which he now pays Council Tax under Band A) is still not separated from the non-domestic assessment, and the whole of the area that was originally subject to the £326 assessment (i.e. the whole of 99 Main Street), has been applied to the non-domestic part in arriving at the 1995 re-valuation figure of (now) £1,500. He is thus, in effect, paying twice for the residential part. Mr. Christie said this explains the basis of the grounds of the appeal, which stated "the assessment is incorrect and excessive due to the wrong rateable value being applied to 99 Main Street. The total RV applied to my property is being used in the UBR calculation which is then applied to a business area of 50.8 sq.m."
9. In response to a question from Mr. Hudson, Mr. Christie said that he did not have a figure in mind for the reduction he was seeking in the current RV.

Respondent's case

10. Mr. Hudson said it was the Council's submission that the assessment is neither incorrect nor excessive. The parts of the premises assessed in the non-domestic Rating List are quite separate to the domestic accommodation upon which Council Tax is payable. He confirmed that the current rating assessment of £1,500 relates solely to the shop and stores, amounting to 50.8 sq.m. (an area that had been agreed, he said, with the appellant) and no part of the residential area is, or has been, included since domestic and non-domestic were separated with effect from 1 April 1995.
11. He explained, in respect of the pre-1990 period, that it was quite normal for the total rateable value to exceed that which had originally applied when a hereditament is re-assesed following alterations. The fact that a hereditament is being divided, or the user within it is being changed, or two hereditaments are being joined to be assessed as one, is only a part of what the valuation officer needs to take into account. If there have been any changes to the layout, the quality of the accommodation, or the extent of the commercial area, since the property was last assessed, then that will also be taken into account.
12. As a parallel, he referred to the occasions when Mr. Christie had applied to have his premises re-assessed, or had appealed against an assessment; the changes, if any, that were made to the assessment reflected the changes to the property. As to why the figures were assessed as they were when the premises were divided in 1983, Mr. Hudson had been able to retrieve the original 1973 Rating List calculations. These showed the amendments and additions made thereto in respect of the 1983 application to divide the original premises, and also following the re-survey undertaken in 1990, together with the calculations and adjustments resulting therefrom. These were produced to the Tribunal.
13. It was Mr. Hudson's view that the original 1973 assessment (of RV £347), having checked the calculations against the ready reckoner used at the time, may have been incorrect in that the amount of £172 shown against the living accommodation appears too low. However, using the ready reckoner as a check against the calculations forming the basis of the application to split the hereditaments in 1983 and the re-survey in 1990, he said these are correct. These facts, he said, could explain why the sum of the RV's for the two premises exceeded that originally applied in 1973 when the two were assessed as one. As to why the house at No.101 Main Street was less than the premises at No.99, Mr. Hudson said it was probably because No.99 was part commercial.
14. Mr. Hudson produced, in his evidence, a total of ten valuations relating to the appeal property, each of which served to analyse the basis of the entries under the various Rating Lists at the time of their publication, in respect of alterations by request and on appeal. As to the current assessment, against which this appeal relates (rather than earlier assessments which, he said, are no longer relevant), he set it out thus:

Shop Zone A 25.1 sq.m. @ £50.00 = £ 1,255

Shop Zone B 12.2 sq.m. @ £25.00 = £ 305

Store 1 Gross area 7.5 sq.m.

Less access 2.7 sq.m.

Area valued 4.8 sq.m. @ £ 5.00 = £ 24

Store 2 8.7 sq.m. @ £5.00 = £ 44

50.8 sq.m. £ 1,628

Less end allowance for steps 7.5% £ 122

£ 1,506

Rounded to Rateable Value £1,500

15. The area of 50.8 sq.m. had been agreed, so Mr. Hudson said the only possible area for dispute could be in relation to the multiplier that had been applied. To prove his case that the correct figures had been used, he produced a number of comparables. Firstly, 101 Byerley Road is a corner newsagents shop in a residential area a long way from the town centre. That had been assessed on the basis of £45 per sq.m. for the shop, £4.50 for a ground floor staff room and £2.25 for first floor stores. No. 72 Main Street, slightly closer to the central shopping area, was a former butchers shop (now converted to a house) that had been assessed at £60 per sq.m. for the shop, £7.50 for the preparation area and other ground floor rooms, and £3.00 for first floor stores. Similarly, No.77 Main Street, a security company with A.2 use, and again nearer the centre, was based on £55 per sq.m. for the front offices (Zone A). Rear offices were at £6.88, ground floor stores at £5.50 with first floor offices and stores at the same rates.
16. The shop and premises at 102-104 Main Street (a fish and chip shop), which are directly opposite No. 77 and again marginally nearer the town centre, were assessed on the basis of £55 per sq.m. for the shop, £6.88 for a preparation room and £5.50 for ground floor stores. Nos. 47-49 Main Street, a furniture shop, closer still to the centre, was assessed at £60 per sq.m. for the shop (Zone A), £7.50 for the remainder of the ground floor and £5.00 for first floor showrooms. No 1 Main Street, a chemist shop, was calculated at £75 per sq.m. for the shop (with a 5% uplift for corner premises), £7.50 for the dispensary and £3.75 for the first floor storerooms. Finally No. 9 Church Street, a solicitors office, is assessed at £110 per sq.m. for the front offices, £13.75 for two rear offices and £6.90 and £5.50 respectively for first floor offices and store. Both of these last comparables are located right in the town centre.
17. Mr. Hudson said that this selected sample of assessments proved beyond doubt that the tone for the subject premises was correctly assessed, it being clear that values increased substantially the nearer premises were to the main centre at the junction of Main Street and Church Street. He said that Mr. Christie's shop was at the periphery of the principal shopping area but was in a much better trading location than, for instance, the first comparable cited. He said that, bearing in mind the number of appeals that had been submitted by Mr. Christie, and the appellant's considerable interest in the subject of the rating of his premises, he and his colleagues had worked hard to ensure that all the assessments relating thereto, particularly in respect of precise areas were absolutely correct. He said that they had worked hard to assist the appellant as much as possible in getting the assessment down to £1,500, and the comparables he produced bore out the fact that the assessment was correct.
18. In response to a question by the appellant, asking why none of the comparables he had provided related to mixed hereditaments, Mr. Hudson said any disadvantage that might be perceived by having shop premises that were not totally self contained were outweighed, or at least balanced out, by the advantage of having living accommodation as part of a newsagents premises.

Decision.

19. Mr. Christie is convinced that the assessment of the UBR at £1,500 on his shop premises includes the residential element upon which he also pays Council Tax – Band A, and is therefore, in effect, paying twice for part of the property. The confusion appears to have arisen from his interpretation of the split that was effected to the rateable values when the property was divided in 1983. The history of appeals, produced as background information in Mr. Hudson's evidence, indicates that the claimant has consistently been dissatisfied with whatever assessments were attributed to the premises. Several of the appeals lodged, by various rating surveyors acting on the claimant's behalf were withdrawn, this suggesting to me that in many instances those surveyors were unable to sustain arguments against the Valuation Officer's assessments.
20. As far as this appeal is concerned, I explained to the claimant that this Tribunal's jurisdiction relates only to the appeal against the VT's determination on the current assessment. In this regard, I found Mr. Hudson's evidence to be well presented, comprehensive, and convincing in respect of the method by which the RV of £1,500 had been calculated. His comparables provided, in my judgment, conclusive evidence to support the level of rents attributed to the shop and stores. His answer to the claimant's concerns over the premises not being self-contained (whereas the comparables were) was, in my view, correct and sustainable.
21. It was abundantly clear to me, from the calculations relating to the current assessment and those relating to the earlier ones, that the RV attributed to the non-domestic part relates only thereto and there was no evidence adduced to suggest otherwise.
22. In conclusion, I determine that the appeal shall be dismissed, and confirm the Rateable Value for the non-domestic premises at the subject property at £1,500.
23. This decision determines the substantive issue of this appeal. I heard no submissions as to costs, and as this was a hearing under the Simplified Procedure rules, I make no award. The provisions relating to the right of appeal in section 3(4) of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949 and Order 61 rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules will come into operation from the date of this decision.

DATED 25 February 2000

(Signed) P R Francis FRICS