An unlawful proposal is one the IP is not entitled to make, or it is defective regarding its service, or there is a restriction/prohibition on its submission.
If a proposal is refused as unlawful, there is no right of appeal against that decision.
An unlawful case should be cancelled in RSA and noted accordingly in remarks. Appropriate correspondence should be sent to the proposer to include reasoning for the unlawful decision.
1.1 Proposer Status
In order to make a proposal, the proposer must be an Interested Person (IP) and have a lawful interest in the property, or be a former IP.
The definition of an IP is found in Reg 2(1) Appeals Regs SI 2009/2268
(a) in relation to a hereditament which forms part of the Crown Estate and is held by the Crown Estate Commissioners under their management within the meaning ofsection 1of the Crown Estate Act 1961, means the Crown Estate Commissioners;
(b) in relation to any other hereditament, means
(i) the occupier;
(ii) any other person (other than a mortgagee not in possession) having in any part of the hereditament either a legal estate or an equitable interest such as would entitle him (after the cessation of any prior interest) to possession of the hereditament or any part of it; and
(iii) any person having a qualifying connection with the occupier or a person described in ;
This means that the IP must be a Crown Estate Commissioner, occupier or owner (the latter includes higher interests in the property such as a head lease)
A company with a qualifying connection is either a direct subsidiary or holding company of another
(2) A person shall be treated as having a qualifying connection with another
(a) where both persons are companies, and
(i) one is a subsidiary of the other, or
(ii) both are subsidiaries of the same company; or
(b) where only one person is a company, the other person (the second person) has such an interest in that company as would, if the second person were a company, result in its being the holding company of the other.
If the Proposer does not have one of these qualifying interests, e.g. a managing company, then they cannot make a proposal and it is unlawful.
If the Proposer was an IP, but has since left the property, then depending on when he left it can affect his rights which may be restricted as to which grounds under Reg 4(1) of challenge he may use.
Under Reg 6(2), the proposer is required to make a request for information from the VO to commence the check process.
If at the date of that request, the proposer no longer has a legal interest in the property then he may only make a proposal on grounds relating to P&M (4(1)(c)), RV arising from a list alteration (4(1)(d)) or against the effective date arising from a list alteration (4(1)(f)).
If at the date of that request, the proposer had a legal interest and then later left the property he is entitled to make a proposal on any ground under Reg 4(1)
Where a former IP makes a proposal he is not entitled to make because of a lack of legal interest in the property, the proposal will be unlawful.
1.2 Service of proposal
The proposal is required to be served on the VO using the VOA Portal, unless otherwise prior agreed as stated in Reg 11(2). If the proposal is not served correctly it will be unlawful.
1.3 Time limits and completed checks
A check must be completed by the same person before a proposal can be made.
Regulation 6(2) requires that before making a proposal, the person, must request information from the VO regarding the hereditament. This means that the check must be made by the same person making the proposal.
Additionally, Reg 6(1) requires that a proposal must be made within 4 months of the date the check was completed.
A check is completed when; a notice of decision has been issued at check, or 12 months has elapsed from the date of submission of check (or a period as agreed in writing) and no such notice has been issued (Reg 10(3)).
Note the exception to this are external material change of circumstances (MCC) proposals, which have an extended time limit of 16 months from the date of check submission, if that is a later date than the 4 month period (Reg 12(2)).
Therefore, if the check process is still on going and 12 months has not elapsed any proposal would be premature and unlawful.
Equally, if more than 4 months has elapsed since the notice of check decision, then the proposal will also be unlawful, with the exception of external MCC proposals to which different time limits apply.
With the exception of MCC proposals, if the IP was entitled to make a proposal, they would have to submit a new check, and then make the proposal within 4 months of the new check.
1.4 Grounds of proposal
One of the grounds specified under Reg 4(1) must be chosen in order for a lawful proposal to be made.
This is subject to the restriction on former IPs see 1.1 above.
If a proposal is made on a ground that is not permitted the proposal will be unlawful.
Circumstances in which proposals may be made
(1) The grounds for making a proposal are
(a) the rateable value shown in the list for a hereditament was inaccurate on the day the list was compiled;
(b) the rateable value shown in the list for a hereditament is inaccurate by reason of a material change of circumstances which occurred on or after the day on which the list was compiled;
(c) the rateable value shown in the list for a hereditament is inaccurate by reason of an amendment to the classes of plant and machinery set out in the Schedule to the Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) (England) Regulations 2000 which comes into force on or after the day on which the list was compiled;
(d) the rateable value shown in the list for a hereditament by reason of an alteration made by a VO is or has been inaccurate;
(e) the rateable value or any other information shown in the list for a hereditament is shown, by reason of a decision in relation to another hereditament of
(i) the VTE,
(ii) a valuation tribunal, or
(iii) the Lands Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal or a court determining an appeal or application for review from the VTE, a valuation tribunal, the Lands Tribunal or the Upper Tribunal,
to be or to have been inaccurate;
(f) the day from which an alteration is shown in the list as having effect is wrong;
(g) a hereditament not shown in the list ought to be shown in that list;
(h) a hereditament shown in the list ought not to be shown in that list;
(i) the list should show that some part of a hereditament which is shown in the list is domestic property or is exempt from non-domestic rating but does not do so;
(j) the list should not show that some part of a hereditament which is shown in the list is domestic property or is exempt from non-domestic rating but does so;
(k) property which is shown in the list as more than one hereditament ought to be shown as one or more different hereditaments;
(l) property which is shown in the list as one hereditament ought to be shown as more than one hereditament;
(m) the address shown in the list for a hereditament is wrong;
(n) the description shown in the list for a hereditament is wron
View the original news story
