Part 10: Appendix 3 – CCA davice Re-relinking assesments

Rating Manual section 6: Part 10: Appendix 3 – CCA davice Re-relinking assesments

CCA – Sheep St and relinking of cases

Background

The default position when considering proposals are that they should be able to stand on their own as legal documents and clearly state their intention (be unambiguous) and comply with the relevant provisions for making proposals under regulations 4 and 11 of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (Wales) Regulations 2023.

Proposers must provide the grounds of the proposal together with evidence and reasoning which must relate to the actual grounds of that proposal. Other information is also required, which includes full details of the required alterations to the list, and rental details for certain types of proposals. Submissions must be made via the VOA portal unless otherwise agreed.

Conflicting information on the proposal

If the evidence and reasoning attached to the proposal do not support the grounds of proposal chosen, or conflict with them, then the proposal is incomplete and it must be refused.

It is not for the VO caseworker to guess what the proposer intended – the proposal should be clear.

If there is any confusion, inconsistency, or the content of the proposal cannot be clearly understood, then the proposal should be rejected and the guidance for incomplete proposals on the CCA homepage should be followed.

Inconsistency between the proposal and the assessment selected for challenge and the grounds/evidence

The VOA portal requires the proposer to select the assessment against which they wish to make a proposal. Alternatively, if a manual submission has been prior agreed and accepted, then the VOA will register the proposal against the relevant assessment in the list on receipt.

Occasionally, the assessment which the proposal is registered against may appear to be incorrect for the grounds/evidence/reasoning contained within the proposal;

e.g.    A proposal against a VO alteration has been incorrectly linked to a compiled list entry.

Then as long as the grounds/evidence and reasoning are all consistent, i.e. relate to the VO list amendment, as the proposer is lawfully entitled to make such a proposal, the proposal may be re-linked to the later list amendment.

e.g.    Similarly, if a compiled list proposal has been received, and the grounds/evidence and reasoning support the fact that it is a compiled list proposal, but it has been linked to a later list amendment, then the proposal may be re-linked to the same assessment.

Provided the grounds, evidence and reasoning are all consistent and the proposer is lawfully allowed to make the intended proposal, then it should be re-linked to the correct assessment and the case may proceed.

If the evidence/reasoning and list entry are consistent but the grounds selected are not, then the proposal should be made as incomplete as the evidence does not support the grounds.

You should only re-link if the evidence/reasoning and grounds support each other, the correct hereditament has been identified and the only thing that is incorrect is the assessment currently linked on CDB.

Changes at check not considered in the challenge

Often following check, the list may be amended to reflect changes in the property declared by the interested person, but the proposal documentation still refers to the compiled list entry and has been attached to the compiled list entry.

The proposal should not be re-linked to the later list entry, however the caseworker should consider whether any changes agreed at challenge stage should be actioned as sequential changes to later list entries by raising and actioning VORs, e.g. changes in zone A/ base rates etc.

Sheep St and re-linking of assessments

The scenarios described above are distinct from where the principles in the ‘Sheep Street’ Lands Tribunal decision apply and the list has been altered after the proposal has been made.

Where a lawful and complete proposal has been made against a list entry which is then subsequently amended by a VON for a list alteration, that substitutes an assessment with the same Material Day and Effective Date, then effectively the original proposal becomes linked to an historic assessment and therefore it has no effect.

The Tribunal held that the outcome of the original proposal should not prejudice the ratepayer’s position because the VO has altered the list from the same dates effectively superseding the proposal.

In these cases, the caseworker should not re-link the proposal. The proposal should be agreed, as appropriate in the usual way ,and then a VON raised to amend the subsequent list entry to reflect the agreed amended RV.

For further details please see RM Section 6 Part 5B on Sheep Street for further information and guidance.

Summary

As long as the IP is legally entitled to make a proposal on the grounds selected and the evidence/reasoning attached to the submission supports those grounds, if the wrong assessment has been selected then the proposal may be re-linked provided they have chosen the correct hereditament.

However, if the proposal has been linked to an assessment, but the grounds/evidence and reasoning submitted are contradictory or are unclear as to the intention of the proposal, the proposal should not be relinked but rejected as incomplete.

Examples

The examples below cover a range of scenarios, many of which have arisen due to manual submission of a proposal and the VO has made assumptions as to which assessment the proposal should be linked to.

Regulation 11(2) requires all proposals to be submitted via the VOA Portal unless an alternative method has been agreed in advance.  If an alternative method of service has not been agreed in advance, then any proposals submitted outside the portal will be unlawful. In those cases, they should be refused, and the IP advised to use the portal to make their submissions.

Improvements to the portal now mean that except in a few circumstances, e.g. ‘digital assist’ cases, there is no reason why submission via the portal cannot be used. The information now provided via the portal means that some of the issues arising below should become less common in future.

When registering manual proposals where required :

Follow the proposal if it’s clear but if the content is inconsistent or there are missing elements, then link the proposal to the current assessment and make the proposal incomplete.

EXAMPLES

e.g.	Details	Action
1	A = RV £35,000 ED 1/4/23 Check submitted 20/5/24 VON issued 11/5/25 amends the RV to £33,500 ED 1/4/23 Compiled list proposal submitted on 1/9/25 and linked to original assessment of £35,000 ED 1/4/23 which is now historic	The proposal is against the compiled list (i.e. Reg 4(1)(a)) and the grounds and evidence support this 01 challenge. The proposal should not be re-linked. The case should be agreed or a DN issued and then a VOR raised to amend the current live entry to the correct figure.
2	A = RV £50,000, ED 1/4/23 Check submitted 11/2/24: VO amends the list reducing A to £45,000, ED 1/4/23 17/4/24: Ratepayer makes a challenge linked to the assessment of £50,000 RV but the content of both the grounds and submission makes clear reference to the VO alteration and the new RV	If both the proposal grounds and evidence within the submission are clear when the proposal is read in its entirety, that the intention is to challenge the VO amendment then it may be re-linked to the current list entry. If there is any conflict between the grounds chosen, the evidence and the linked assessment then the proposal should be treated as incomplete and not re-linked.
3	Assessment A, B & C Check submitted.10/12/24 VO merged A with B and C to form unit D 21/1/25: Agent makes manual challenge which the VO has linked to A, but the Challenge clearly states that it is against the new entry D.	As long as the Challenge makes it clear that it relates to the current D assessment and is complete then it can be re-linked. It is an IT issue causing the incorrect linking. If the content of the proposal is unclear as to exactly what is being challenged, then it should be made incomplete.
4	A = RV £30,000, ED 1/4/23 26/6/24 VO alters list on a Check case to RV £27,000 ED 1/4/23 7/9/24: A manual Challenge made VO linked it to the £30,000 ED 1/4/23, the original compiled list assessment. The grounds of proposal and supporting evidence clearly state and support the contention that ”a change made by the VO on or after 1 April 2023 is wrong”. It is therefore clear that it just has the wrong linking.	This is a challenge made against the VO alteration dated 26/6/24 i.e. an 02 (reg 4(1)(d)) proposal The proposal should be re-linked to the amended assessment. If however, the evidence attached to the submission does not support the grounds selected, i.e. there is a conflict or confusion between them and/or the assessment selected, then the ‘incomplete processes’ should be followed and the proposal should be rejected and should not be relinked.
5	A = RV £42,000, ED 1/4/23 B = RV £30,000, ED 1/4/23 Reconstitution following check to C = RV £41,000, ED 1/4/23 D = RV £31,000, ED 1/4/23 The addresses of A and C are identical as are the addresses of B and D, but they are distinct and different hereditaments. 6/10/24: Two manual challenges made on the grounds that the ‘IP disputes an alteration to the RV made by the VO’ but does not state the RVs being challenged. The VO has linked the proposals to the original RVs	The 2 Challenges should not be re-linked but should be rejected as incomplete as it is not clear what is being challenged. Had the proposals been submitted through the portal then the IP is required to identify the hereditament being challenged and the content and clarity of the submission will determine how to proceed with the proposals. If unclear, they should be treated as incomplete.
6	A = RV £30,000, ED 1/4/23 1/6/24: VO splits A into B and C, ED 1/4/23 27/8/24: Manual Challenge received from ratepayer with no reference to RV. The proposal cites the Check reference and at Section C ticks both “the RV shown in the rating list on 1 April 2023 was wrong” (suggesting a proposal against the historic entry) and “a change made by the VO on or after 1 April 2023 is wrong” (suggesting the proposal is intended to be against the current entry.)	In this scenario there is confusion as to what is the true intention of the proposal. Only if, when reading the submission as a whole and in the absence of any information to the contrary, it is clear that it is the list alteration is being challenged, should the proposal be accepted and re-linked to the current entry. However, if the proposal is ambiguous and the intention is not clear it should be treated as incomplete.
7	Hand car wash – 1 Bond Rd Unrepresented ratepayer 16/3/2020 check requesting a split Assessment split into 1 Bond Rd= RV £20,000, ED 1/4/23 and 1a Bond Rd= RV £4,500, ED 1/4/23 21/8/2024 manual challenge received Linked by VO to historic RV – but evidence missing -Treated as incomplete. 27/8/2024 Second manual challenge received On form both compiled list and VO alteration grounds ticked by IP. Also, the address of the property being challenged only identified as 1 Bond St but no RV given so it is not clear which hereditament is being challenged. VO linked proposal to historic RV.	There are 2 different hereditaments with assessments in the Rating List, both known as 1 Bond St, one is historic and one is live. It is not clear from the proposal which hereditament the IP is intending to challenge. However, as the IP is unrepresented, on reading the proposal as a whole, and as the effective dates of both addresses are the same, it would be reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt to the ratepayer and re-link the proposal to the new assessment. Had the split taken effect from a later Effective Date e.g. 5/9/23, the situation would be approached differently. The IP is entitled, in the latter scenario, to submit a challenge against either the historic or the current assessment. It is not clear in the current proposal which assessment/ hereditament they are intending to challenge. It would therefore be appropriate in that circumstance to reject the proposal as incomplete. The IP is required to make it clear what alteration they are proposing to the list (Reg 11(2)(c) appeal regs) and they have not done so. The proposal should be rejected, and an explanation given to the IP that they need to clarify, in any re-submission, which list entry/hereditament they wish to challenge.