Part 10: Appendix 4 – Duplicate proposals

Rating Manual section 6: Part 10: Appendix 4 – Duplicate proposals

DUPLICATE PROPOSALS REG 4(3)

(3)     No proposal may be made—

(a)     by reference to more than one ground unless, for each ground relied on, the material day and the effective date are the same;

(b)     by . . .—

(i)     [an IP, where] that person (or a person having a qualifying connection with that person), acting in the same capacity, has made a proposal to alter the same list in relation to the same hereditament on the same ground and arising from the same event;

(ia)     [a person mentioned in paragraph (2)(aa) or (c), where that person (or a person having a qualifying connection with that person), acting in that capacity or acting as an IP, has made a proposal to alter the same list in relation to the same hereditament on the same ground and arising from the same event;]

(ii)     [an IP or a person mentioned in paragraph (2)(aa) or (c), where] a proposal to alter the list in relation to the same hereditament and arising from the same facts has been made by another person (excluding a person having a qualifying connection with the IP) and has been considered and determined by a valuation tribunal, the VTW, the Lands Tribunal or the Upper Tribunal;

(c)        on the ground set out in paragraph (1)(d), to the extent that the alteration [was made as a result of a previous proposal relating to that hereditament or] gives effect to the decision of a valuation tribunal, the VTW, the Lands Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal or a court determining an appeal or an application for a review in relation to the hereditament concerned.

	Maker of proposal	Requirements	List altered re Proposal 1	List not altered re Proposal 1
1	Proposer 2 is the same as proposer 1	Reg 4(3)(b)(i) Same capacity Same list Same H Same ground Same event Reg 4(3)(b)(ii) proposer is a former IP and original proposal made as an IP Same list Same H Same ground Same event	Barred - unlawful (same capacity) - Reg 4(3)(b)(i) Barred - unlawful - Reg 4(3)(b)(ii)	Barred -unlawful (same capacity) - Reg 4(3)(b)(i) Barred - unlawful - Reg 4(3)(b)(ii)
2	Proposer 2 is different to proposer 1	-Reg 4(3)(b)(iii) Proposer was someone else Same H Same facts Determined by a VT/ UT etc	Barred - unlawful -Reg 4(3)(b)(iii)	Barred- unlawful -Reg 4(3)(b)(iii)
3	Proposal 1 made by anybody (same or different to proposer 2)	Reg 4(3)(c) -Reg 4(1)(d) only proposal (VO alteration) - list altered due to previous proposal on H	Barred - unlawful	If proposal 1 is WD, so there is no list change, 4(3)(c) cannot apply but Reg 4(3)(b)(i) or (ia) will and proposal 2 will be barred - unlawful.
4	Proposal 1 made by anybody (same or different to proposer 2)	Reg 4(3)(c) Reg 4(1)(d) proposal only (ie challenging a list alteration)	VT has altered the list Barred -unlawful re Reg 4(1)(d) (VON) proposals only barred by Reg 4(3)(c) as the notice challenged gives effect to a proposal or a decision of a tribunal determining an appeal / review of decision Otherwise would be caught under Reg 4(3)(b)(i) or (ia) Appeals of Pearce applies – can’t re-challenge a VT decision Consent Order for list alterations These are not decisions per se but if the list is altered then barred either under Reg 4(3)(c) or 4(3)(b)	VT Decision confirming assessment - ie list not altered Barred- unlawful Ie if no list alteration eg VT confirms decision / dismisses appeal Proposal 2 will likely be caught by 4(3)(b)(i) or (ia) if same proposer and same grounds, H etc or 4(3)(b)(ii) if proposer 1 is different. Appeals of Pearce applies – can’t re-challenge a VT decision If NO VT DECISION as appeal was WD so list was NOT altered re proposal 1 If proposer 1 and 2 are the same - then barred under Reg 4(3)(b)(i) or (ii) If proposer 1 and 2 are different - then 4(3)(b) and (c) do not apply as there is no VT decision NB could still be barred by Reg 6A(3) on second proposals made on MCC grounds Reg 4(1)(b) Consent Order for withdrawal - no list alteration These are not ‘decisions’ per se but 2nd attempt at a proposal likely to be barred as above depending on the status of who made the second proposal. Even if a proposal could be lawfully made the IP would have to have significant new evidence for the RV to be amended otherwise could be an abuse of process. In addition consider the effect of Appeals of Pearce - cannot change a VT decision.