[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Lands Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Lands Tribunal >> Ebury (Valuation Officer) [2003] EWLands RA_1_2003 (04 July 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLands/2003/RA_1_2003.html Cite as: [2003] EWLands RA_1_2003

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

[2003] EWLands RA_1_2003 (04 July 2003)

RA/1/2003

LANDS TRIBUNAL ACT 1949

RATING – alteration of rating list – determination by VT of rateable value on appeal arising from ratepayers proposal – alteration by VO at higher value after proposal but before VT decision – effective date same in each case – held that VO alteration did not override VT decision

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE

NORTHAMPTONSHIRE VALUATION TRIBUNAL

by

RICHARD JOHN EBURY

(Valuation Officer)

Re: Shop and Premises

1A/2 Sheep Street

Wellingborough

Northants NN8 1BL

Before: The President

Sitting at 48/49 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JR

on 30 June 2003

Mr A P Sainer for Solicitor of Inland Revenue for the appellant valuation officer.

The ratepayer did not respond to the appeal.

The following case was referred to in argument:

Marks and Spencer PLC v Fernley (VO) [1999] RA 409


 


DECISION

Introduction

1. This appeal by the valuation officer against a decision of the Northamptonshire Valuation Tribunal raises a point on the application of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993. Those regulations and their predecessor and amending regulations have created a constantly changing procedural complexity which rating surveyors and valuation officers, and their legal advisers, and valuation tribunals have struggled to understand and to operate. Put shortly the point in that arises in the present case is this. The ratepayer's shop premises were entered in the 2000 rating list at £14,250 RV. In September 2000 the ratepayer's agent made a proposal to reduce this assessment and in December 2000, the VO not agreeing it, he referred the disagreement to the valuation tribunal. In March 2001 the VO altered the list to show an assessment of £14,000. Before the VT hearing in December 2002 the VO and the ratepayer's agent agreed that the correct assessment was £13,500, and at the hearing the VO invited the tribunal to direct that this should be the assessment shown in the list with effect from 1 April 2000. But, he said, such a direction would be nugatory because his own alteration of March 2001, which had not been the subject of any proposal by the ratepayer, would constitute the effective entry. The VT, however, not only directed that the assessment should be £13,500, but it also ordered that this should be the effective entry rather than the £14,000 assessment in the VO's March 2001 alteration. In the present appeal, to which the ratepayer does not respond, the VO contends that the VT had no power to make this latter order. His case is that the entry in the list should be £14,000, rather than the £13,500 which he agrees to be correct (so that the ratepayer should have to pay rates on the basis of the incorrect value). Mr A P Sainer, who appears for the VO, described the VO's case as totally unmeritorious but correct in law. I agree with the first part of the description but not the second.

The statutory provisions

2. Under section 41(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 the VO has a duty to compile, and then maintain, a local non-domestic rating list for the area. It is this duty to maintain the list that gives him power to alter the list so as to make it correct. The right of a ratepayer to make a proposal for the alteration of a list is conferred by the 1993 Regulations, which define the circumstance in which a proposal can be made, the procedure to be followed when a proposal has been made, the date on which an alteration is to take effect, and the orders that a VT can make. Regulation 13A makes provision for the time from which an alteration is to have effect. The regulation is extensive and complex. It provides:

"13A.–(1) This regulation has effect subject to regulation 44 and in relation to alterations to a list compiled on or after 1st April 2000.

(2) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (14), when an alteration is made to correct any inaccuracy in the list on the day it was compiled, then –

(a) where the alteration is made in pursuance of a proposal, it shall have effect as follows –

(i) if the proposal is served on the valuation officer on or before 30th September in the financial year in which the list is compiled, from the date on which the list is compiled;

(ii) if the proposal is served on the valuation officer after 30th September in that year but before the end of that year, from 1st October in that year;

(iii) if the proposal is served on the valuation officer after the end of that year, from the first day in the financial year in which a proposal is served;

(b) where the alteration is not made in pursuance of a proposal, the alteration shall have effect from the first day of the financial year in which the alteration is made.

(3) Subject to paragraph (11), an alteration made as a consequence of a hereditament coming into existence or ceasing to exist in the circumstances described in paragraph (4) shall have effect from the day on which the circumstances giving rise to the alteration occurred.

(4) The circumstances mentioned in paragraph (3) are those in which –

(a) property previously rated as a single hereditament becomes liable to be rated in parts, or

(b) property previously rated in parts becomes liable to be rated as a single hereditament, or

(c) any part of a hereditament becomes part of a different hereditament.

(4A) ……

(5) Subject to paragraphs (7), (11) and (14) –

(a) where the alteration is made in pursuance of a proposal on the grounds of material change of circumstances other than the change to which paragraph (3) or (9) applies, the alteration shall have effect from the day on which the circumstances giving rise to the alteration first arose, or the first day of the financial year in which the proposal is served whichever is the later;

(b) where the alteration is made on the grounds of a material change of circumstances other than a change to which paragraph (3) or (9) applies, and is not made in pursuance of a proposal, the alteration shall have effect from the day on which the circumstances giving rise to the alteration arose or the first day of the financial year in which the alteration is made, whichever is the later.

(6) Subject to paragraphs (7), (11) and (14), where an alteration is made so as –

(a) to show in the list a hereditament which, since the list was compiled –

(i) has come into existence; or

(ii) has ceased to be exempt from non-domestic rating; or

(iii) has ceased to be, or become, required to be shown in the central list; or

(iv) has ceased to be, or come to form, a part of an authority's area by virtue of a change in that area; or

(b) to reflect in a list part of a hereditament which, since the list was compiled, has ceased to be exempt,

the alteration shall have effect from –

(aa) where it is made in pursuance of a proposal the day that would apply under paragraph (5)(a); or

(bb) where it is not made in pursuance of a proposal, the day that would apply under paragraph (5)(b).

(7) For the purpose of paragraphs (5) and (6) where the alteration is made in pursuance of a proposal served during April in any financial year subsequent to that in which a list is compiled and the circumstances giving rise to the alteration first arose in March immediately preceding the month of April in which the proposal is served, then the proposal shall be treated as served in that preceding month.

(8) Notwithstanding paragraph (5), where an alteration is made –

(a) to show in or delete from a list any hereditament which, since the list was compiled–

(i) has ceased to exist,

(ii) has become or has ceased to be domestic property, or

(iii) has become exempt from non-domestic rating, or

(b) to reflect in a list part of a hereditament becoming or ceasing to be domestic property or becoming exempt,

the alteration shall have effect from the day on which the circumstances giving rise to the alteration occurred.

(9) Subject to paragraph (10), but notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this regulation, where a list is altered to give effect to a completion notice, the alteration shall have effect from the day specified in the notice.

(10) Where under Schedule 4A a different day is –

(a) substituted by a different notice under paragraph 1(3),

(b) agreed under paragraph 3, or

(c) determined in pursuance of appeal under paragraph 4

the alteration shall have effect from the day so substituted, agreed or determined.

(11) Where for the purposes of paragraph (3), (5), (6) or (8), the day on which the relevant circumstances arose is not reasonably ascertainable –

(a) where the alteration is made in pursuance of a proposal, the alteration shall have effect from the day on which the proposal was served on the valuation officer; and

(b) in any other case, the alteration shall have effect from the day on which it is made.

(11A) ……

(12) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this regulation, where an alteration is made because the rateable value or any other information shown in the list for a hereditament is shown, by reason of a decision of a valuation tribunal, the Lands Tribunal or a court determining an appeal or application for review from either such tribunal, to be or to have been inaccurate, the alteration shall have effect from the day on which the list became inaccurate.

(13) Subject to paragraph (14), where an alteration is made to correct an inaccuracy in a list which arose in the course of making an alteration in connection with any of the matters mentioned in foregoing paragraphs of this regulation, then –

(a) where the alteration is made in pursuance of a proposal, it shall have effect as follows –

(i) if the proposal is served on the valuation officer within 6 months of the date of the previous alteration, from the date on which the previous alteration fell to have effect;

(ii) if the proposal is served on the valuation officer after 6 months from that date but on or before 30th June 2002, from the date on which the previous alteration fell to have effect or 1st April 2001 whichever is the later;

(iii) if the proposal is served on the valuation officer after 6 months from that date and after 30th June 2002, from the date on which the previous alteration fell to have effect or the first day of the financial year in which the proposal is served, whichever is the later; or

(b) where the alteration is not made in pursuance of a proposal, the alteration shall have effect from the date on which the previous alteration fell to have effect or from the first day in the financial year in which the correcting alteration is made, whichever is the later.

(13A) Subject to paragraph (14), an alteration made to correct an inaccuracy in a list (other than an alteration which falls to take effect as provided in the foregoing provisions of this regulation) shall have effect from the day on which the list became inaccurate

(14) 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 the matters mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of this regulation

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."

3. Regulation 17 provides that, where an alteration is made, the list shall show the day from which the alteration is to have effect. Regulation 44 makes provision for the orders that a VT may make. As material it provides:

"44.–(1) On or after deciding an appeal under regulation 12 …., the tribunal may, subject to paragraph (4), require a valuation officer, in consequence of the decision, by order to alter a list in accordance with any provision made by or under the Act.

(3) The valuation officer shall comply with an order under paragraph (1) …. within a period of two weeks beginning on the day of its making.

(4) Subject to paragraph (5), where the decision is that a disputed rateable value should be an amount greater than–

(a) the amount shown in the list at the date of the proposal; and

(b) the amount contended for in the proposal,

the order shall require the list to be altered with effect from the day on which the decision is given.

(7) An order under this regulation may require any matter ancillary to its subject matter to be attended to."

The facts

4. The subject hereditament is a shop at 1A/2 Sheep Street, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire. At the material time it was occupied by a company known as Spicer McColl, trading under the name "haart". Spicer McColl ceased to occupy the shop on 23 November 2001, and after that it was unoccupied. The hereditament came into existence in its relevant form on 31 May 1996. On 25 October 1996 the Valuation Officer for the billing authority, Wellingborough Council, altered the local non-domestic rating list for the council which he had compiled on 1 April 1995 to include an entry in respect of the hereditament, effective from 31 May 1996, with a rateable value of £11,500. In the 2000 list the VO included the hereditament at £14,250 RV.
5. On 29 September 2000, Lee Baron (a firm), acting as agents for the occupier, served on the VO two proposals in relation to the hereditament. The first proposal challenged the assessment in the 1995 list and was settled by agreement in March 2001 at £11,250 RV. This reduction reflected a minor adjustment to the measured area of the hereditament. The other proposal, which has led to the present appeal, related to the 2000 list and proposed that the RV should be reduced to £10 with effect from 1 April 2000. The VO did not consider the proposal to be well-founded (in the language of the Regulations); and, since the proposal was neither withdrawn nor the subject of agreement, the VO, as he was required to do, on 10 December 2000 referred the disagreement to the VT as an appeal by Spicer McColl against his refusal to alter the list in conformity with the proposal.
6. The discussions that the VO had held in connection with the proposal for the alteration of the 1995 list entry led him to conclude that the entry in the 2000 list was affected by the same inaccuracy and should be reduced. Accordingly on 28 March 2001 he altered the 2000 list to show an assessment of £14,000 RV. No proposal has been made challenging that alteration.
7. At the appeal which was heard by the VT on 7 November 2002, the appellant VO appeared but the ratepayer did not. By that time a representative of the VO's office had agreed with Mr Jonathan Barker-Smith of Lee Baron that the correct assessment for the hereditament was £13,500 RV. The reduction of £750 made extra allowance for the high width/depth ratio, the difference in floor levels between the two parts of the building and a masked area at the rear of the ground floor sales area. At the hearing of the appeal the VO's witness stated that these disabilities had all existed at 1 April 2000, and he conceded that they had not been adequately reflected either in the assessment shown in the 2000 list when compiled or in the altered assessment entered on 28 March 2001. The VO asked the VT to determine the appeal by directing that the 2000 list should be altered to show an assessment of £13,500 with effect from 1 April 2000. He asked the VT to arrive at that decision and to make the necessary order despite that fact that, in his submission, it would have no effect on the occupier's liability which had been, and would continue to be, calculated by reference to the assessment shown in the 2000 list as a result of the alteration to £14,000 made by him on 28 March 2001.
8. In its decision dated 9 December 2002 the VT accepted the evidence as to value advanced on behalf of the VO and decided therefore that the entry should be altered to show an assessment of £13,500 with effect from 1 April 2000. It went on to say as follows:

"For the purpose of the calculation of liability under sections 43 and 44 of the 1988 Act, this alteration shall supersede the earlier incorrect alteration made by the valuation officer to the rateable value shown in the list entry. The list entry will continue to show an effective date of 1 April 2000. The tribunal Orders that the list entry be amended in accordance with this decision."

The appellant's submission

9. The VO challenges the VT decision on one ground only. He says that the VT had no power to direct that, for the purposes of calculating liability, the alteration to be made in consequence of the VT's order should supersede the entry made by him on 28 March 2001. Mr Sainer submits that the relevant jurisdiction of a VT – and, in consequence, of the Lands Tribunal on appeal – is limited to determining the "disagreement" referred to it under regulation 12 of the Appeals Regulations. That disagreement, he says, arises from the refusal of the VO to give effect to a proposal which, on its face, clearly relates to the entry for the property in the 2000 List as originally compiled, showing the assessment of £14,250. The only matter in issue was the accuracy of that assessment. When the VO altered the 2000 List on 28 March 2001 to reduce the assessment to £14,000 RV with effect from 1 April 2000 his alteration overtook the original entry for all practical purposes and gave the occupier (or its agent) the opportunity of choosing whether –

(1) to withdraw the proposal (and/or the resulting appeal) – but only if the reduced assessment was considered correct; or,

(2) to make a further proposal, under regulation 4A(1)(c), challenging the alteration and seeking a different assessment.

If such a proposal had been made and had been determined by agreement or by the decision of the VT at the RV (£13,500) which is now accepted to be correct, any alteration made by the VO in consequence of that agreement or decision would have been effective to determine the occupier's liability to rates. But no such proposal was ever made.

10. The appellant was therefore correct, Mr Sainer says, to invite the VT to determine the appeal by reducing the assessment £13,500 with effect from 1 April 2000. Similarly the VT was right to decide that the appeal should be upheld "to the extent that the content of the valuation list entry is to be further amended to show a revised rateable value of £13,500." Where, in his submission, the VT went wrong was in seeking to go beyond the dispute of which they were seised by adding that the alteration should supersede the earlier alteration made by the valuation officer. Under regulation 44(7) the VT's order could require any matter ancillary to its subject matter to be attended to. Mr Sainer submits that the VT's order has the same effect as though an appeal had been constituted by the VO's alteration of 28 March 2001 and subsequently determined by the tribunal. That cannot, he says, properly be described as giving a direction ancillary (subordinate) to the subject matter of the only order they could properly make for the purpose of resolving the disagreement which had been referred to them as an appeal, namely an order "to alter [the] list in accordance with any provision made by or under the Act"
11. Mr Sainer points out that regulation 16(1) and (2) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1990 were replicated (with immaterial changes) by regulation 12(1) and (2) of the 1993 Regulations, but that regulation 16(3) of the 1990 Regulations was not. Regulation 16(3) provided:

"(3) Where an appeal is referred as mentioned in this regulation, and on or after the date on which the proposal was served on him the valuation officer alters the list in respect of the hereditament to which the proposal relates, the appellant shall be deemed also to have appealed against that alteration."

Regulation 16(3) has no parallel in the 1993 Regulations, with the result that no deemed appeals could be brought into existence on or after 1 April 1993.

12. Mr Sainer says that the concept that a tribunal decision can, on occasion, have no practical effect is implicit in the legislation, for example where a VT hears an appeal after the end of the list's quinquennium and decides that the value shown in the list should be increased. Since under regulation 44(4) the tribunal's order will be limited to taking effect from the date of its decision, it can never have any practical effect on the occupier's rate liability. The real problem in the present case results, Mr Sainer says, from the failure of the occupier or its agent to serve a timely proposal challenging the VO's alteration of 28 March 2001, coupled with the restrictive provisions in regulation 13A of the Appeals Regulations. Moreover, if an alteration had been made following the VO's agreement with the occupier's agent shortly before the VT hearing on 7 November 2002 it would have been limited to taking effect from 1 April 2002, whether that alteration resulted from a proposal (regulation 13A(13)(a)(iii)) or was made by the VO of his own volition (regulation 13A(13)(b)).
13. Mr Sainer points out that the policy about the extent to which alterations could be back-dated (given retrospective effect) has changed very significantly over the past 15 years or so, and he traces through the successive provisions. He says that, while a fairly free policy applied for the period of the 1995 list, this was succeeded for the 2000 Lists by the detailed and often stringent limitations in regulation 13A of the 1993 Regulations as amended. Although many proposals for alterations to the 2000 Lists can be made at any time until 31 March 2005 (under regulation 4C), it seems to be the clear intention of the legislation that ratepayers and valuation officers should be encouraged to make proposals or alterations as soon as they reasonably can after the event which the proposal/alteration is designed to reflect. Under regulation 13A(2) proposals challenging entries in the 2000 Lists (as originally compiled) can only take effect from 1 April 2000 if served by 30 September 2000; alterations pursuant to proposals made for the same purpose served between 1 October 2000 and 31 March 2001 will be limited to taking effect from 1 October 2000; and alterations made for the same purpose pursuant to proposals served on or after 1 April 2001 will be limited to taking effect from the beginning of the financial year in which they are served. Similarly, alterations made by a VO to correct inaccuracies in the 2000 Lists as compiled will be limited to taking effect from the beginning of the financial year in which they are made. Mr Sainer accordingly submits that the legislation compels a relatively strict approach and contemplates that any failure to act promptly (whether by ratepayer or Valuation Officer) may cause the effective date of any resulting alteration to be artificially limited.
14. Mr Sainer goes on to suggest that the point can be tested in a slightly different way. Assume that, instead of doing nothing, the occupier (or its agent) had, in April 2002, made a proposal challenging the VO's alteration of 28 March 2001. Under regulation 13A(13)(a)(ii), the effective date for any resulting alteration would be limited to 1 April 2001. If the proposal had given rise to an appeal to the VT, which had been heard at the same time as the appeal arising from the September 2000 proposal, the VT could not have ignored the effect of regulation 13A(13) and decided as they did that the effective date was 1 April 2000.
15. Mr Sainer puts forward two further illustrative examples. It is I think, sufficient if I refer only to the second one. Assume, he says, that the ratepayer makes a proposal before 30 September 2000 to reduce the assessment shown in the 2000 list and the VO refers the disagreement on this to the VT. Then, in the year beginning 1 April 2001, the VO makes an alteration reducing the assessment, and the ratepayer does not make a proposal challenging this alteration. Under paragraph 13A(2)(b) the VO's alteration would take effect on 1 April 2001. But any reduction made by the VT would take effect on 1 April 2000, and it could not override the VO's alteration. The same, he says, should apply where, as in the present case, the VO's alteration is made in the year beginning 1 April 2000.

Conclusions

16. The VT decided, as it was invited by the VO to decide, that the correct assessment was £13,500 on 1 April 2000 and after that date, and it ordered, as it was invited to order, that the list should be altered to show that assessment with effect from that date. Mr Sainer's contention is that the alteration made by the VO on 29 March 2001 takes precedence over the alteration ordered by the VT and renders it nugatory. In my judgment, however, there is nothing in the legislation to suggest this, and it would seem to me to be clearly wrong that it should do so.
17. Mr Sainer suggests that the result that he urges is implicit in the fact that the Regulations in their present form, in contrast to previous statutory provisions, do not contain the provision as to deemed appeals in respect of VO alterations made subsequent to the ratepayer's proposal, but I attach no particular significance to this. It does not in itself in my view imply that a later VO proposal is to take precedence over an appeal decision on an earlier proposal. That regulation 16(3) of the 1990 Regulations was not included in the present Regulations could be equally consistent with a view on the part of the draftsman and the Secretary of State that later VO alterations should be left to take their course, and that, if necessary, regulation 44(7) would enable the VT to do what was procedurally necessary where two different alterations would fall to be made with effect from the same date. In any event, it would in my view require something more to deprive an appellant ratepayer of his right to have the VT make an effective decision in his appeal. Mr Sainer accepts that if he is right, the consequence of a VO alteration made subsequent to but in the same year as a ratepayer's proposal that has been referred to the VT, is to render any decision of the VT on that proposal of no effect. It would only be the VO's alteration, whether unopposed, or, following a ratepayer's proposal, the subject of an agreement or a VT decision, that could have effect.
18. Mr Sainer suggests that his argument can be tested by considering what would have happened if, instead of doing nothing in relation to the VO's alteration of 28 March 2001, the ratepayer had made a proposal challenging this alteration in April 2002. He says that regulation 13A(13)(a)(ii) would have applied to an alteration to £13,500 ordered by the VT. That is because such alteration would be one that was made to correct an inaccuracy in the list which arose in the course of making an alteration (ie the VO's alteration of 28 March 2001) in connection with the matter mentioned in paragraph (2) of the regulation (ie correcting an inaccuracy in the list on the day it was compiled). Since the proposal was served after 6 months from the VO's alteration and before 30 June 2002, paragraph (13)(a)(ii) would have applied, so that the alteration would take effect from 1 April 2001 since this was later than the date on which the VO's alteration fell to have effect (under paragraph (2)(b), 1 April 2000). If the ratepayer had served the proposal within 6 months of the VO's alteration paragraph (13)(a)(i) would have applied and the effective date for the alteration ordered by the VT would have been 1 April 2000.
19. In this example the VT would, it seems to me, have reached two decisions. The first, under the appeal relating to the ratepayer's proposal of 29 September 2000, would have been that the correct assessment of the hereditament was £13,500 and that the alteration to enter this value should take effect from 1 April 2000. The second, under the appeal relating to the ratepayer's proposal of April 2002 would have been that the correct assessment was £13,500 and that the alteration to enter this value should take effect from 1 April 2001. The purpose of an order made in pursuance of these decisions would be to ensure that the hereditament was entered at the correct value from each of the effective dates. It would not have been the purpose to ensure that it was entered at an incorrect value for the period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001. In view of this, there would be no conflict. The VT would order that the list should be altered to show an assessment of £13,500 from 1 April 2000; and there would be no need to order that it should be altered again to £13,500 with effect from 1 April 2001. Mr Sainer's example, it seems to me, does not support his argument.
20. In Mr Sainer's other example the ratepayer makes a proposal, which goes to the VT on appeal, in the year beginning 1 April 2000, and the VO makes an alteration in the year beginning 1 April 2001 which is not the subject of a challenging proposal by the ratepayer. In such a case, it seems clear, the VT's decision, if it ordered a reduction, would take effect on 1 April 2000, and the VO's alteration would take effect on 1 April 2001. One alteration would not override the other. Each would take effect. There would only be one assessment in the list for the year beginning 1 April 2000 (the VT's), and there would be one assessment in the list for the year beginning 1 April 2001 (the VO's). The example sheds no light on the situation that arises here where both alterations, the one directed by the VT and the VO's, would take effect on the same day.
21. In the present case the VT determined, accepting the evidence on behalf of the VO, that the correct value of the hereditament on 1 April 2000 was £13,500 and it made an order giving effect to its decision. It then considered that it had to address the fact that the VO had earlier altered the list to insert an assessment of £14,000 with effect from the same date, although he now accepted that this value was incorrect and should be £13,500. If it had not added the sentences about which the VO now complains, I think that the effect of its order would clearly have been that the assessment in the list would have been £13,500. There could not have been two different assessments taking effect for the same hereditament from the same date. I can see no reason why the VO's incorrect assessment should take precedence over the correct assessment which was the subject of the later alteration directed by the VT.
22. In ordering that the assessment of £14,000 was not to be treated as the effective assessment, the VT may therefore have been going further than was strictly necessary to ensure that its decision on the correctness of £13,500 took effect. But, in view of the VO's assertion that the alteration would be of no effect and that his own incorrect alteration would prevail, it was obviously appropriate for the VT to make clear that this would not be the case. In making the order that it did the VT was doing no more, in my view, than requiring a matter ancillary to the subject matter of its determination to be attended to. The matter was clearly ancillary to its order, deciding as it did which of two inconsistent entries should have effect in the list. It was acting within the power conferred on it by regulation 44(7) and, in my judgment, it was correct. There was no reason why the ratepayer, having made its proposal challenging the assessment in the list, should have forfeited the opportunity to pursue that proposal to an effective decision in the VT by not objecting to the later alteration made by the VO. The proposal was not withdrawn. The VO knew that it was being pursued. Indeed he told the VT that it ought to succeed to the extent that the assessment should be reduced to £13,500, the figure that he had agreed with the ratepayer's agent. In these circumstances the order of the VT accorded with what had been agreed and, in my judgment, constituted a proper application of the Regulations; and the appeal must accordingly be dismissed.

Dated 4 July 2003

George Bartlett QC, President