In England, where a Valuation Officer responds negatively to a proposal to alter an entry on the Local Rating List (i.e. negatively to a 'challenge', as part of the check, challenge, appeal procedure), the (aggrieved) proposer can appeal that negative Valuation Officer's Response (communicated in a reg.16 decision notice) to the Valuation Tribunal of England ('VTE'[1]).
However, there is a time limit to such an appeal to the VTE; the proposer only has '...4 months beginning with the date of the decision notice...' (reg.13B of the 2009/2268 Regs (citation below))
But, the VTE has the power to extend this time limit (the 'Time Limit'). Regulation 6(3)(a) of the 2009/2269 Regulations (citation below) gives the VTE a discretion to extend (or shorten) the time for complying with any regulation or direction, including the Time Limit in reg.13B of the 2009/2268 Regs.
This article will consider the exercise of this reg.6(3)(a) power to extend time for appealing under reg.13B, in light of:
(1) Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009/2268 ('2009/2268 Regs');
(2) Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009/2269 ('2009/2269 Regs');
(3) Caffe Concerto Ltd v Johnson [2026] UKUT 148 (LC) ('Caffe'), Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke on 15.4.26.
(4) Carecall Ltd v Giles [2026] UKUT 369 (LC) ('Carecall'), Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke on 29.9.26.
CHECK, CHALLENGE, APPEAL
In relation to non-domestic rating (colloquially known as 'Business Rates'), the “check, challenge, appeal” procedure:
(a) was introduced in 2017 and
(b) is set out in the 2009/2268 Regs.
Relevant is that:
(1) the 'challenge' part of the procedure is found in 2009/2268 Regs, regulations 5 to 9[1a]; and
(2) the Valuation Officer’s response to a challenge, part, is to be found in 2009/2268 Regs, regulations 10 to 13[2].
Reg.13 of the 2009/2268 Regs - Disagreement as to proposed alteration
One possible outcome of the 'challenge', is that the Valuation Officer ('VO'[3]) decides that a proposal is 'not well-founded'. In such circumstances, reg.13 of the 2009/2268 Regs will apply (unless: (a) the proposal is reg.11 withdrawn[4]; or (b) a reg.12 agreement is reached[5]). Reg.13 of the 2009/2268 Regs is entitled 'Disagreement as to proposed alteration' and reads (so far as presently material[6]):
'(1) This regulation applies if the VO decides that a proposal is not well-founded, and-
(a) the proposal has not been withdrawn under regulation 11; and
(b) there has been no agreement under regulation 12.
(2) The VO must, as soon as reasonably practicable after making a decision in relation to a proposal under paragraph (1), serve a notice of the decision (“decision notice”) on the following-
(a) the proposer;
(b) if the proposer is not the ratepayer, the ratepayer;
(c) any person mentioned in regulation 12(2)(e) or (f);
(d) the relevant authority if the authority has served a notice on the VO that it wishes to receive a copy of a decision notice in relation to—
(i) the proposal;
(ii) any proposal relating to the hereditament to which the proposal relates; or
(iii) a specified class of proposal or a specified class of hereditament, and the proposal or hereditament to which the proposal relates falls within that class.
(3) Subject to paragraph (3A), a decision notice served on a person mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) to (c) must contain-
(a) a statement that the VO is of the opinion that the proposal is not well-founded, that the VO disagrees with the proposed alteration of the list and that the VO has decided-
(i) not to alter the list according to the proposal; or
(ii) to alter the list otherwise than in accordance with the proposal;
(b) the reasons for that decision, including a statement of the evidence and information used to make the decision;
(c) a statement in relation to each of the grounds of the proposal setting out why in the opinion of the VO the ground is not made out, including a summary of any particulars of the grounds of the proposal with which the VO did not agree; and
(d) details of the proposer's right to appeal against the decision.'
Reg.13A of the 2009/2268 Regs - Making an appeal to the VTE
As stated, where the VO responds negatively to the proposer's proposal, the proposer may, under reg.13A, appeal VO's 'not well-founded' determination (the VO's Response, encapsulated in the 'reg.13 decision notice'),
Regulation 13A is entitled 'Making an appeal to the VTE' and makes provision for an appeal to the VTE from the VO’s response. So far as relevant[6a], reg.13A provides:
'(1) A proposer may appeal to the VTE on either or both of the grounds set out in paragraph (2) if-
(a) the VO has decided under regulation 13 not to alter the list;
(b) the VO has decided under regulation 13 to alter the list otherwise than in accordance with the proposal; or
(c) the VO has not made a decision under regulation 10 or 13...
...
(2) The grounds are-
(a) the valuation for the hereditament is not reasonable;
(b) the list is inaccurate in relation to the hereditament (other than in relation to the valuation).
(3) In this regulation, “valuation” means the rateable value as determined under Schedule 6 to the Act.
...'
Reg.13B of the 2009/2268 Regs - Time for making an appeal to the VTE
Readers will have noted that reg.13A of the 2009/2268 Regs does not contain any Time Limit for making a reg.13A appeal to the VTE, against a negative VO Response. That is because the Time Limit is contained in reg.13B of the 2009/2268 Regs.
Reg.13B of the 2009/2268 Regs is entitled 'Time for making an appeal to the VTE' and reads in full:
'(1) A proposer may only make an appeal following a decision of the VO under regulation 13 within the period of 4 months beginning with the date of the decision notice under that regulation.
(2) A proposer may only make an appeal in the circumstances set out in regulation 13A(1)(c) within the period of 4 months beginning with the date on which-
(a) the period of 18 months mentioned in regulation 13A(1)(c)(iii) has elapsed; or
(b) any longer period agreed under that regulation has elapsed'
(Given the appeal is against a VO's Response decision under reg.13, the key provision is reg.13B(1) in the above. The whole of reg.13B is set out just for completeness)
Reg.6(3)(a) of the 2009/2269 Regs
Reg.6 of the 2009/2269 Regs is entitled 'Appeal management powers'[7] and reg.6(2)(a) reads:
'...the VTE may-
(a) extend or shorten the time for complying with any regulation or direction under these Regulations or any provision of the CT Regulations or the NDR Regulations.'
Reg.2 of the 2009/2269 Regs is entitled 'Interpretation: general' and reads:
(1) In these Regulations-
...
'“NDR Regulations” means the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009;'
Consequently, reg.6(2)(a) bestows a power on the VTE, to extend (or shorten) the time permitted for submitting an reg.13A appeal. Whether the VTE will exercise its discretion under reg.6(2)(a) of the 2009/2269 Regs, and grant any extension of time needed by an aggrieved proposer, seeking to appeal to the VTE, is another matter.
Caffe
In Caffe, UT Judge, Judge Elizabeth Cooke, heard an appeal, brought by a proposer, against the VTE refusing to extend for submitting the proposer's appeal in the VTE. The delay was short: 38 days.
As to the law, the Judge said,
(1) that the decision to dismiss the appeal here, involved a case management decision. At paragraph 8, that:
'Appeals against such decisions are conducted by way of review (see paragraphs 63 and following of Simpsons Malt and others v Jones (VO) and others [2017] UKUT 460 (LC) , and rule 12 of the Tribunal's Practice Directions). The VTE's decision appears to be a harsh response to an inadvertent delay, and one which was short by comparison with the appeal period of four months. But the appeal can succeed only if the VTE's decision was not a proper exercise of its discretion'
(2) the decision was to be guided by the Denton principles. At paragraphs 9 and 10, the Judge said:
'The VTE was rightly guided by the principles in the Denton decision, although its consideration of those principles was very brief. It is useful to look at the way the Denton principles were summarised in Simpsons Malt by the Tribunal. (the President, Holgate J as he then was, and the Deputy President Mr Martin Rodger KC):
"At its first stage the Denton guidance requires an assessment of the seriousness or significance of the breach in respect of which relief from sanctions is sought. If, after considering its effect on the particular litigation and on litigation generally, a judge concludes that a breach is not serious or significant, relief from sanctions will usually be granted. If, however, the tribunal considers that the breach is serious or significant, the second and third stages assume greater importance.
54. The second stage is to consider why the failure or default occurred. The burden is on the defaulting party to persuade the court to grant relief and it must therefore explain what happened and why. If there is a good reason, such as illness or accident, relief against sanctions is likely to be granted, but merely overlooking a deadline, for whatever reason, is unlikely to be a good reason. That is not to say that, in the absence of a good reason for default, an application for relief will inevitably fail, as the Court of Appeal emphasised in explaining its third stage (paragraphs [12], [29-30] and [38]).
55. At the third stage the court must consider all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable it to deal justly with the application. Rule 3.9(1)[of the CPR] expressly so requires, but it also emphasises the particular weight to be given to two important factors, namely, the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost and the need to enforce compliance with rules, directions and orders (paragraphs [32] and [35]). … In looking at all the circumstances, the court may take into account the promptness of the application for relief against sanction and any other past or current breaches by the parties of the rules, practice directions and orders (paragraph [36]).
56. In Denton, at paragraph [37], the Court of Appeal warned against an unduly draconian approach to relief and emphasised that compliance was not to be regarded as an end in itself; rules and rule compliance were the handmaids not the mistresses of justice and could never be allowed to assume a greater importance than doing justice in any case."
The Court of Appeal in HMRC v Medpro Healthcare Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 14 has confirmed that it is appropriate for the Upper Tribunal to provide guidance to the FTT in procedural matters such as this one.'
On the facts in Caffe, 38 days was considered short, and the reason the appeal deadline was missed, was inadvertence. In those circumstances, the Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal (extending time for an appeal to the VTE, and re-instating that appeal in the VTE (paragraphs 18 and 19)). The Judge in Caffe said, at paragraph 8:
'The VTE's decision appears to be a harsh response to an inadvertent delay, and one which was short by comparison with the appeal period of four months.'
Carecall
The facts in Carecall can be provided shorty:
(1) the proposer (ratepayer Carecall Ltd):
(a) ran a business of running care homes for the elderly. One particular property (hereditament) was 124 Carholme Road, Lincoln (the 'Property');
(b) had 2 directors: (i) Mr Shiv Ghai (father)(79 years old); and (ii) Mr Rishi Ghai (son), who had joint responsibility for the management of the company (paragraph 15);
(2) the proposer had lodged a Challenge (proposal), with the Valuation Office, seeking the deletion of the Property from the Local Rating List, with effect from 1 April 2023 (paragraph 6);
(3) on 19.6.25, the VO served on the proposer, the VO's Response decision under reg.13, in respect to the Challenge (proposal);
Pausing there: 19.6.25 plus 4 months, gave a VTE appeal submission deadline of 19.10.25;
(4) on receipt of the VO's Response decision, the proposer instructed its rating agent, Appeal Business Rates, to lodge an appeal. It did not do so. Later, Mr Shiv Ghai said that he believed that the agent had submitted the appeal in time, and only discovered later (after the time limit expired) that it had not done so (paragraphs 7 and 8). However, the Upper Tribunal later found that Mr Shiv Ghai was aware that the appeal had not been submitted by late September 2025 (paragraph 13);
(5) From September 2025 onwards, Mr Shiv Ghai was affected by serious health issues which prevented him from monitoring the agent’s progress or making the appeal himself (he told the VTE that once he was sufficiently recovered and became aware of the problem, he took steps to make the appeal without further delay). Mr Shiv Ghai's last contact with Appeal Business Rates was on 24.9.25 (paragraph 8);
(6) on 7.6.26, the proposer's appeal to the VTE was submitted (paragraph 6). This was 231 days late;
(7) the proposer sought an extension of time, to the reg.13B Time Limit. In determining this extension application (the 'Extension Application'), the VTE applied the (well-known) three-stage approach in Denton & Ors v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906 ('Denton');
(8) on 2.7.26, the VTE hand down its decision, refusing to extend time for appealing (for the reasons set out below), as required by the proposer. The appeal to the VTE therefore failed.
(9) the proposer appealed the VTE's 2.7.26 decision to refuse to extend time for appealing to the VTE, to the Upper Tribunal[8].
Extension Application - on appeal in the VTE
Turning to the VTE's reasons. The VTE, on the facts, decided that:
(1) the delay was significant; that it arose because an agent had been engaged in good faith to submit the appeal but had failed to do so, and Mr Shiv Ghai’s health problems had prevented him from attending to it himself.
(2) As to the Denton third stage (the 'just' stage), the VTE said this:
'At the third stage, I am required to consider all of the circumstances in order to enable the Tribunal to deal justly with the appeal. In particular, I must place significant emphasis upon the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost in addition to the need to enforce compliance with rules, directions and orders. Furthermore, in Denton the Court of Appeal warned against an unduly draconian approach to relief and emphasised that compliance was not to be regarded as an end itself; rules and rule compliance are the handmaids not the mistresses of justice and could never be allowed to assume a greater importance than doing justice itself.
I noted that Mr Ghai had returned to work, albeit in a reduced capacity, after a period of ill health aware of the fact an appeal still had not been submitted. The submission of an appeal is not considered to be a particularly onerous task and I conclude that Mr Ghai could have submitted an appeal an appeal much earlier than he did on 7 June 2026.
I also note that Carecall Limited has a second director, Rishi Ghai, (appointed in November 2010) who has joint responsibility for the management of the company and I find it reasonable to conclude that he was able to submit an appeal on behalf of the company at any time after 24 September 2025 to ensure a timely submission by the deadline of 19 October 2025 and certainly much earlier than 7 June 2026.
Furthermore, I am also mindful that this appeal appears to have no reasonable prospect of success. Mr Ghai is seeking the deletion of the subject property from the rating list but a hereditament appears to remain in existence and there is no evidence of any overt act to commence demolition work. Therefore, it must be valued rebus sic stantibus (as it stands) and at the material day of 1 April 2023 the property continued to exist as a hereditament.
In view of the foregoing, I find that I have not been provided with any compelling reasons to persuade me to exercise my discretion and authorise the acceptance of this exceptionally late appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.'
Extension Application - on appeal in the Upper Tribunal
As stated, the proposer appealed to the Upper Tribunal. The grounds of appeal:
(1) repeated the proposer's explanation, given to the VTE, that while Mr Shiv Ghai believed that the agent was dealing with the appeal, Mr Shiv Ghai's health deteriorated significantly. That, Mr Shiv Ghai suffered approximately eight months of overlapping medical problems, including emergency hospital treatment, investigations and consultant appointments. Mr Shiv Ghai said: “Although I continued to carry out the essential financial responsibilities needed to keep our two care homes operating, I did not have the physical or mental capacity to pursue legal and administrative matters that required sustained attention.” That, once he discovered the problem, Mr Shiv Ghai decided not to instruct another firm so as not to incur further professional costs. Instead, Mr Shiv Ghai prepared the appeal himself, which took considerably longer than it would have taken a professional adviser because Mr Shiv Ghai was still recovering from illness.
(2) provided medical evidence. As to this, the UT Judge (Judge Elizabeth Cooke) said that she entirely accepted that '...Mr Ghai was not able to submit the appeal earlier that he did because of his health.' (paragraph 12).
It is noteworthy that there was no challenge in the proposer's appeal, against the VTE having adopted the Denton test, as the applicable test on such an Extension Application.
Despite the Upper Tribunal accepting that Mr Shiv Ghai had not able, because of Mr Shiv Ghai's ill-health, to submit the proposer's appeal, earlier than it was, the appeal still failed. The test on an appeal in the Upper Tribunal, against a VTE case management decision (which a decision on an Extension Application, was), that it must be shown that '...the VTE’s decision was not a proper exercise of its discretion.', had not been met (paragraph 3 and 14).
Indeed, not only was the test not met, the UT Judge in Carecall said that the VTE's '...decision was entirely appropriate because no good reason for the delay has been supplied' (paragraph 14). As to why, the UT Judge in Carecall said, at paragraph 13 (after stating '...Mr Ghai was not able to submit the appeal earlier that he did because of his health' (paragraph 12):
'In my judgment that cannot excuse the delay. Mr Ghai has not explained why the other director, his son, could not deal with the appeal. He has not explained why, in light of his age, he does not have arrangements in place for the company to be managed if he is unable to do so. That is particularly important if he is responsible for the financial management that keeps the care homes operating; for that reason alone the failure to have emergency arrangements in place is inexplicable. Nor has Mr Ghai explained why not instructing alternative agents was a sensible decision in light of his ill-health. He has also produced his correspondence with the agent, which demonstrates that he was aware that the appeal had not been submitted by late September 2025; the four-month deadline could easily have been met if another professional firm had been appointed at that point.'
SIMON HILL © 2026*
BARRISTER
33 BEDFORD ROW
NOTICE: This article is provided free of charge for information purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole, or the Copyright holder. No attempt has been made to provide an exhaustive review/account of the law in this area. *Copyright is owned by Barrister Search Limited.
[1] Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009/2268, reg.2 is entitled 'Interpretation: general' and provides, so far as relevant:
'(1) In these Regulations—
...
“VTE” means the Valuation Tribunal for England.'
[1a] Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009/2268, regulations 5 to 9 are:
(1) reg. 5A Proposals: limits
(2) reg.6 Proposals: general
(3) reg.6A Proposals made on ground in regulation 4(1)(b)
(4) reg. 7 VO's acknowledgement of proposals
(5) reg. 8 Incomplete proposals
(6) reg. 9 Procedure after a proposal is made
(7) reg. 9A Imposition of a Part 2 penalty
(8) reg. 9B Payment of a Part 2 penalty
(9) reg. 9C Appeal against imposition or amount of a Part 2 penalty
(10) reg. 9D Effect on time frame for determining proposal
To give a flavour only, the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009/2268 contains:
[1] Reg.6 which reads (in full):
'(1) Subject to regulation 6A, a proposal in relation to a hereditament may only be made within the period of 4 months beginning with the date on which a check was completed in relation to the hereditament.
(2) A proposal must be made by serving it on the VO-
(a) using the VO's electronic portal; or
(b) in another manner agreed with the VO.
(3) The date a proposal is made is the date on which it is served on the VO.
(4) A proposal must include -
(a) the name, address and contact details of the proposer;
(b) the grounds of the proposal including the particulars on which each of the grounds is based (“particulars of the grounds of the proposal”);
(c) details of the proposed alteration of the list;
(d) the date from which the proposer asserts the proposed alteration should have effect;
(e) the date on which the proposal is served on the VO;
(f) evidence to support the grounds of the proposal; and
(g) a statement as to how the evidence supports the grounds of the proposal.
(5) A proposal in relation to a hereditament (“the hereditament”) made on the ground set out in regulation 4(1)(e) must also include-
(a) the date of the decision made in relation to another hereditament (“the decision”);
(b) the name of the tribunal or court which made the decision;
(c) information to identify the other hereditament;
(d) the reasons the proposer believes that the decision is relevant to the rateable value or other information shown in the list for the hereditament; and
(e) the reasons the proposer believes that, by reason of the decision, the rateable value or other information shown in the list for the hereditament is inaccurate.
(6) If a proposal in relation to a hereditament is made on one or more of the grounds set out in regulation 4(1)(a) to (g) and (i) to (l) and the hereditament is occupied under a lease, easement or licence to occupy (or, where sub-paragraph (c) applies, was so occupied), the proposal must also include-
(a) where the proposer is the occupier, the amount payable each year by the proposer, as at the date the proposal is made, in respect of the lease, easement or licence to occupy, the date at which that amount first became payable and details of any rent-free periods;
(b) where the proposer is not the occupier but is an IP in relation to that hereditament, the amount payable each year to the proposer, as at the date the proposal is made, in respect of the lease, easement or licence to occupy, the date at which that amount first became payable and details of any rent-free periods; or
(c) where the proposer is not an IP in relation to that hereditament, the amount that was payable each year by or to the proposer (as the case may be), as at the last day on which the proposer was such an IP, in respect of the lease, easement or licence to occupy, the date on which that amount first became payable and details of any rent-free periods.
(7) A proposal may deal with more than one hereditament only-
(a) if it is made on the ground set out in regulation 4(1)(k) or (l); or
(b) where the person making the proposal does so in the same capacity in relation to each hereditament and each hereditament is within the same building or the same curtilage.
(8) A proposal made on the ground set out in regulation 4(1)(d) or (f) may include a request for either or both of the following -
(a) the restoration of the list to its state before the alteration was made; and
(b) a further alteration of the list in respect of the hereditament.'
Readers will be interested also to note reg. 14 of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009/2268, entitled 'Time from which alteration is to have effect: 2005 and subsequent lists'. In relation to Local Rating Lists compiled on or after 1st April 2017, only some of the provisions in reg.14 apply. In respect to Local Rating Lists compiled on or after 1st April 2017, the following are relevant from reg.14:
'(1) This regulation has effect in relation to alterations made on or after 1st October 2009 to a list compiled on or after 1st April 2005.
(1A) Paragraphs (2), (2A), (2B) and (6) do not apply in relation to a list compiled on or after 1st April 2017.
(1B) Subject to paragraphs (3) to (7), for a list compiled on or after 1st April 2017, where an alteration is made to correct any inaccuracy in the list on or after the day on which it is compiled, the alteration shall have effect from the day on which the circumstances giving rise to the alteration first occurred.
...
(3) Subject to paragraph (4), where an alteration is made to give effect to a completion notice, the alteration shall have effect from the day specified in the notice.
(4) Where under Schedule 4A to the Act a different day-
(a) is substituted by a different notice under paragraph 1(3) of that Schedule;
(b) is agreed under paragraph 3 of that Schedule; or
(c) is determined in pursuance of an appeal under paragraph 4 of that Schedule, the alteration shall have effect from the day so substituted, agreed or determined.
(5) Where the day on which the relevant circumstances arose is not reasonably ascertainable-
(a) where the alteration is made to give effect to a proposal, the alteration shall have effect from the day on which the proposal was served on the VO; and
(b) in any other case, the alteration shall have effect from the day on which it is made.
...
(7) An alteration made to correct an inaccuracy (other than one which has arisen by reason of an error or default on the part of a ratepayer)-
(a) in the list on the day it was compiled; or
(b) which arose in the course of making a previous alteration in connection with a matter mentioned in any of [paragraphs (1B) to (5)] 5 , which increases the rateable value shown in the list for the hereditament to which the inaccuracy relates, shall have effect from the day on which the alteration is made.
(8) Where an alteration needs to be made after the first anniversary of the day on which the next list is compiled, it shall have retrospective effect only if it is made to give effect to a proposal.' [bold added]
[2] Reg.6A, which reads (in full):
'(1) Paragraph (2) applies to a proposal in relation to a hereditament made on the ground set out in regulation 4(1)(b) if the ground relates to a material change of circumstances mentioned in paragraph 2(7)(d), (da) or (e) of Schedule 6 to the Act.
(2) The proposal may be made by the later of-
(a) the last day in the period of 4 months beginning with the date on which a check was completed in relation to the hereditament; and
(b) the last day in the period of 16 months beginning with the date on which the VO received a confirmation.
(3) Subject to paragraph (4), a person may make only one proposal on the ground set out in regulation 4(1)(b) in relation to each material change of circumstances.
(4) A person may make one proposal on the ground set out in regulation 4(1)(b) in relation to more than one material change of circumstances if-
(a) the material day is the same for each material change of circumstances; and
(b) the effective date is the same for each material change of circumstances.
(5) If a person has provided information to the VO under regulation 4C(1) in relation to a material change of circumstances but does not make a proposal within the period in regulation 6(1), or if applicable the period in paragraph (2) of this regulation, the person may not make a proposal in relation to that material change of circumstances.'
Reg.4 of the 2009 Regs is entitled 'Circumstances in which proposals may be made' and reg.4(1)(b) reads:
'(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 (but this is subject to paragraph 2ZA of Schedule 6 to the Act)'
Schedule 6 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 is entitled 'Non-domestic Rating: Valuation' and paragraph 2ZA reads:
'(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies for the purposes of-
(a) compiling a list on or after 1 April 2026, where the day by reference to which the rateable value of a non domestic hereditament in England is to be determined is a day specified under paragraph 2(3)(b), and
(b) altering a list compiled on or after 1 April 2023.
(2) In making a determination or a further determination as to the rateable value of a hereditament situated in England for the purposes for which this paragraph applies, no account is to be taken of any change to a matter within paragraph 2(7)(aa), (da) or (e) that-
(a) is directly or indirectly attributable to a relevant factor, and
(b) in a case within sub-paragraph (1)(a), occurs after the day by reference to which the rateable value is to be determined but on or before the day on which the list is to be compiled.
(3) The relevant factors are-
(a) legislation of any country or territory;
(b) provision that is not within paragraph (a) but is made under, and given effect by, legislation of any country or territory;
(c) advice or guidance given by a public authority of any country or territory;
(d) anything done by a person with a view to compliance with anything within paragraph (a), (b) or (c).
(4) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply to the making of a determination to the extent that it concerns whether a hereditament or some part of a hereditament—
(a) is or is not a domestic property, or
(b) is or is not exempt from local non-domestic rating.
(5) In this paragraph “legislation” includes any provision of a legislative character; “public authority” includes any person exercising functions of a public nature.'
[2] Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009/2268, regulations 10 to 13 are:
(1) reg.10 Proposals agreed by VO
(2) reg.11 Withdrawal of proposals
(3) reg.12 Agreed alterations following proposals
(4) reg.13 Disagreement as to proposed alteration
(5) reg.13A Making an appeal to the VTE
(6) reg.13B Time for making an appeal to the VTE
(7) reg.13C Notice of appeal
(8) reg.13D Payment of appeal fees
(9) reg.13E Refund of appeal fees
[3] Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009/2268, reg.2 is entitled 'Interpretation: general' and provides, so far as relevant:
'(1) In these Regulations—
...
“VO” means valuation officer'
[4] Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009/2268, reg.11 is entitled 'Withdrawal of proposals' and reads:
'(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the proposer may withdraw the proposal by notice sent to the VO.
(2) Where-
(a) the proposer was a ratepayer in respect of the hereditament at the date of the proposal but is no longer, or
(b) the proposal was made by a person mentioned in regulation 4(2)(aa),
the proposal may not be withdrawn unless the person who is currently the ratepayer agrees in writing.
(3) Where-
(a) within two months from the day on which the VO receives a proposal-
(i) an IP, or
(ii) a person ("P") who was an IP on the date on which the VO received the confirmation for the check to which the proposal relates, notifies the VO in writing that the IP or P wishes to be a party to the proceedings in respect of that proposal, and
(b) after receiving the notification referred to in sub-paragraph (a), the proposal is withdrawn, the VO must give notice of the withdrawal to the IP or to P.
(4) Where, within six weeks from the day on which the IP or P receives the VO's notice under paragraph (3), the IP or P notifies the VO in writing that the IP or P is aggrieved by the withdrawal of the proposal-
(a) the notification shall, if the IP or P would at the date of the proposal have been competent to make that proposal, be treated for the purposes of the following provisions of these Regulations as if it had been a proposal in the same terms made on the day on which the VO received the notification; and
(b) any resulting alteration shall have effect from the day which would have been applicable had there been no withdrawal under this regulation.
(5) For the purposes of considering under paragraph (4)(a) whether an IP or P would have been competent at the date of a proposal to make that proposal, the requirements in regulations 4A(1) and 4B(2) are disregarded.'
[5] Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009/2268, reg.12 is entitled 'Agreed alterations following proposals' and reads:
'(1) Where, following the making of a proposal, all the persons mentioned in paragraph (2) agree on an alteration of the list in terms that comply with the requirements of this Part but differ from those contained in the proposal, and that agreement is signified in writing-
(a) subject to paragraph (4), the VO shall, not later than two weeks after the day on which the agreement was made, alter the list to give effect to the agreement; and
(b) the proposal shall be treated as having been withdrawn.
(2) The persons referred to in paragraph (1) are-
(a) the VO;
(b) the proposer;
(c) subject to paragraph (3), the occupier (at the date of the proposal) of any hereditament to which it relates;
(d) the ratepayer (at the date of the agreement) in relation to any hereditament to which it relates;
(e) subject to paragraph (3), any IP ... who-
(i) would at the date of the proposal have been competent to make the proposal in question, and
(ii) not later than two months after the day on which the proposal was received by the VO, informs the VO in writing that the IP ... wishes to be a party to the proceedings in respect of the proposal;
(f) any person ("P") who-
(i) was an IP on the date on which the VO received the confirmation for the check to which the proposal relates and on that date would have been competent to make the proposal; and
(ii) not later than two months after the day on which the proposal was received by the VO, informs the VO in writing that P wishes to be a party to the proceedings in respect of the proposal.
(3) The persons referred to in paragraph (1) do not include-
(a) the occupier of the hereditament at the date of the proposal who is no longer in occupation of any part of it at the date on which all the other persons mentioned in paragraph (2) have agreed as mentioned in paragraph (1), provided that the VO has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain that former occupier's whereabouts, and they have not been ascertained, or
(b) any person referred to in paragraph (2)(e) or (f) who cannot be contacted at the address supplied to the VO.
(3A) For the purposes of considering under paragraph (2)(e)(i) or (f)(i) whether a person would have been competent at the date of a proposal to make that proposal, the requirements in regulations 4A(1) and 4B(2) are disregarded.
(4) Where-
(a) the period of two weeks mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) would expire before the period of two months mentioned in paragraph (2)(e)(ii), and
(b) the VO has not received a request under paragraph (2)(e)(ii) within that two-month period,
the VO shall make the alteration required by paragraph (1)(a) as soon as practicable after that period ends.'
[6] Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009/2268, reg.13 is entitled 'Disagreement as to proposed alteration' and reads (in its entirety):
'(1) This regulation applies if the VO decides that a proposal is not well-founded, and-
(a) the proposal has not been withdrawn under regulation 11; and
(b) there has been no agreement under regulation 12.
(2) The VO must, as soon as reasonably practicable after making a decision in relation to a proposal under paragraph (1), serve a notice of the decision (“decision notice”) on the following-
(a) the proposer;
(b) if the proposer is not the ratepayer, the ratepayer;
(c) any person mentioned in regulation 12(2)(e) or (f);
(d) the relevant authority if the authority has served a notice on the VO that it wishes to receive a copy of a decision notice in relation to—
(i) the proposal;
(ii) any proposal relating to the hereditament to which the proposal relates; or
(iii) a specified class of proposal or a specified class of hereditament, and the proposal or hereditament to which the proposal relates falls within that class.
(3) Subject to paragraph (3A), a decision notice served on a person mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) to (c) must contain-
(a) a statement that the VO is of the opinion that the proposal is not well-founded, that the VO disagrees with the proposed alteration of the list and that the VO has decided-
(i) not to alter the list according to the proposal; or
(ii) to alter the list otherwise than in accordance with the proposal;
(b) the reasons for that decision, including a statement of the evidence and information used to make the decision;
(c) a statement in relation to each of the grounds of the proposal setting out why in the opinion of the VO the ground is not made out, including a summary of any particulars of the grounds of the proposal with which the VO did not agree; and
(d) details of the proposer's right to appeal against the decision.
(3A) A decision notice served on a person mentioned in paragraph (2)(c) who is not an IP when the notice is served must contain-
(a) a statement that the VO is of the opinion that the proposal is not well-founded, that the VO disagrees with the proposed alteration of the list and that the VO has decided-
(i) not to alter the list according to the proposal; or
(ii) to alter the list otherwise than in accordance with the proposal;
(b) the reasons for that decision.
(4) A decision notice served on a relevant authority under paragraph (2)(d) must contain-
(a) a statement that the VO is of the opinion that the proposal is not well-founded, that the VO disagrees with the proposed alteration of the list and that the VO has decided-
(i) not to alter the list according to the proposal; or
(ii) to alter the list otherwise than in accordance with the proposal;
(b) where the VO considers it reasonable to do so-
(i) the reasons for that decision, including a statement of the evidence used to make the decision; and
(ii) a statement in relation to each of the grounds of the proposal setting out why in the opinion of the VO the ground is not made out, including a summary of any particulars of the grounds of the proposal with which the VO did not agree.
(5) If the VO decides to alter the list otherwise than in accordance with the proposal the VO must do so as soon as reasonably practicable after making the decision.'
[6a] Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009/2268, reg.13A is entitled 'Making an appeal to the VTE' and reads (in its entirety):
'(1) A proposer may appeal to the VTE on either or both of the grounds set out in paragraph (2) if-
(a) the VO has decided under regulation 13 not to alter the list;
(b) the VO has decided under regulation 13 to alter the list otherwise than in accordance with the proposal; or
(c) the VO has not made a decision under regulation 10 or 13 and-
(i) the proposal is not withdrawn under regulation 11;
(ii) there is no agreement under regulation 12; and
(iii) the period of 18 months beginning with the date on which the proposal was made (or any longer period agreed in writing by the VO and the proposer) has elapsed.
(2) The grounds are-
(a) the valuation for the hereditament is not reasonable;
(b) the list is inaccurate in relation to the hereditament (other than in relation to the valuation).
(3) In this regulation, “valuation” means the rateable value as determined under Schedule 6 to the Act.
(4) Paragraph (5) applies if a Part 2 penalty is imposed before a proposal is determined.
(5) In calculating the 18 month period referred to in paragraph (1)(c)(iii)-
(a) unless sub-paragraph (b) applies, the period beginning on the day on which the Part 2 penalty is imposed and ending on the day after the day on which the period for making an appeal under regulation 9C ends shall be ignored;
(b) if an appeal is made under regulation 9C against the imposition of the Part 2 penalty, the period beginning on the day on which the Part 2 penalty is imposed and ending on the day after the day on which the appeal under regulation 9C is determined shall be ignored.'
[7] Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009/2269, reg.6 is entitled 'Appeal management powers' and reads:
'(1) Subject to the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 11 to the 1988 Act and of these Regulations, the VTE may regulate its own procedure.
(2) The VTE may give a direction in relation to the conduct or disposal of proceedings at any time, including a direction amending, suspending or setting aside an earlier direction.
(3) In particular, and without restricting the general powers in paragraphs (1) and (2), the VTE may-
(a) extend or shorten the time for complying with any regulation or direction under these Regulations or any provision of the CT Regulations or the NDR Regulations;
(b) consolidate or hear together two or more sets of proceedings or parts of proceedings raising common issues, or treat an appeal as a lead appeal (whether in accordance with regulation 7 or otherwise);
(c) permit subject to paragraph (4), or require a party to amend a document;
(d) permit subject to regulations 17, 17A and 18A, or require a party or another person to provide documents, evidence, information, or submissions to the VTE or a party;
(e) deal with an issue in proceedings as a preliminary issue;
(f) hold a hearing to consider any matter, including a case management issue;
(g) decide the form of any hearing;
(h) adjourn or postpone a hearing;
(i) require a party to produce a bundle for a hearing;
(j) stay proceedings; or
(k) suspend the effect of its own decision pending the determination by the Upper Tribunal 5 or a court of an application for permission to appeal against, and any appeal against or review of, that decision.
(4) The VTE may permit or require a party to a NDR appeal to amend a document under paragraph (3)(c) only if the amendment is in order to correct an inaccuracy in the document.'
[8] In Carecall Ltd v Giles [2026] UKUT 369 (LC), Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) said, at paragraph 3:
'Appeals from the VTE are brought as of right, with no permission threshold, and usually proceed by way of re-hearing. However, the VTE’s decision to dismiss the appeal was a case management decision. Appeals against such decisions are conducted by way of review (see paragraphs 63 and following of Simpsons Malt and others v Jones (VO) and others [2017] UKUT 460 (LC) , and rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Practice Directions). The appeal can succeed only if the VTE’s decision was not a proper exercise of its discretion.'