Council Tax Property Definitions

laymans

is it not the fact if a property term is excluded from within the lgfa * act it is in fact exempt

is it not the fact if a property lawful definition is excluded from within the lgfa * act it is in fact exempt

This does not in fact equate to 'houses', 'domestic property', 'living accommodation', 'private domestic property', or 'private domestic living accommodation', the term 'dwellings' is used, without in fact referring to the ‘lawful definition’ of the property one resides in, and the local government finance act * in fact makes no reference to the ‘dwelling lawful definition’ being such definition of the noted individual definition of the types of property were one resides.

the property is where one resides

the law states if its excluded from legislation it not included

you are imply every property is a dwelling

but such property has to be incluse as stated in the act on the non domestic list

so if a private property is not on that list its excluded

you cannot have it both ways it one or the other

was does use as a dwelling mean in law

what about use as a home

implies is not fact

if it doesn't specifically mean 'home' its exempt

so show me how in the * act a home or any of the above definition for private use becomes liable

consider is not fact

but i reside in a home not a hereditament dwelling

in law they are not

show the meanings

is it not the fact the dwelling requires entablement of the hereditament before it can be created

woolway v mazars contradicts what you stae

clear stae the dwelling cannot exist in law without the hereditament

but the dwelling cannot exist in law without hereditament refer to Mazars for verification

Case Name: Woolway v Mazars [*] UKSC * (* July *) Topic: unit of assessment Full case: [click here] Summary: All floors in a multi-occupied office building occupied by the same entity must be separately assessed even where the floors are contiguous, save where there is a direct link (e.g. an internal staircase) without passing through the common parts. Commentary: This Supreme Court landmark case related to premises leased by a firm of accountants in Tower Bridge House, being on the 2nd and 6th floors of a multi-occupied office building. The intervening floors were leased to a firm of solicitors. The question before the court was whether the two floors should be assessed for business rates as a single hereditament or as two separate hereditaments, the former being generally advantageous for ratepayers where the combined area of the premises is sufficient to attract a quantum allowance (although this was not the case for Mazars, hence their representation by an Advocate of the Court, at public expense). The practice of the Valuation Office prior to this case starting its journey through the various courts had been to enter parts of an office building occupied by the same entity as a single hereditament where they were contiguous but as separate hereditaments where they were not. As long ago as * Mazars had applied to merge the two entries with effect from November *, when they had started to occupy the space, on the basis that the floors were functionally inter-dependent. The VTE agreed and directed merger, with a fragmentation allowance of *%. On appeal by the valuation officer, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) affirmed the VTE’s decision, but with no allowance. The Court of Appeal dismissed the VO’s appeal. The Supreme Court took the opportunity to review and seek to rationalise the case law dating from as far back as the 19th century and considered a number of Scottish cases decided on the same principles as those applicable in England. The Court analysed the geographical and functional principles which underpinned the early Scottish cases under which, in the absence of a functional connection of an objective nature, different buildings should be separately assessed. A unit of occupation which was self-contained and could be separately let was invariably separately assessed in a number of Scottish cases. An attempt to argue that the use made by a particular business of premises separated by a main road was sufficient for the premises to be treated as one for rating purposes (a unum quid in Scots law terminology) was unsuccessful in a case decided by the Lands Tribunal for Scotland in * – the underlying purpose [of rating legislation] was said to be to provide a tax on property, not a tax on persons or businesses. Lord Sumption derived three basic principles from these Scottish cases: *. The primary test is geographical (where premises are contiguous they will only be assessed as one if there is physical intercommunication between the two); *. Where two premises are geographically distinct a functional test may enable them to be a unified assessment but only where the use of one is necessary to the effectual enjoyment of the other; and *. The question of “necessary to the effectual enjoyment” depends not on the business needs of the ratepayer but on the objectively ascertainable character of the subjects. The Supreme Court was highly critical of the decision which had previously stood the test of time – Gilbert v Hickinbottom [*] * QB *. In short, it was said that the decision could not be supported on the grounds relied upon by the judges involved. Similar criticism was levelled at the reasoning of the then President of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) when the Mazars case came before him. Lord Sumption’s conclusion was that the premises demised to Mazars should be separately assessed as they are not contiguous and even if they were the void between each floor (belonging to the landlord) would render them separate in the absence of an intercommunicating staircase. Lord Gill agreed and emphasised that functionality is not a reference to the use which the ratepayer chooses to make of the premises. It is instead a reference to a necessary interdependence of the separate parts that is objectively ascertainable. He also rejected the Valuation Officer’s suggestion that the decisive criterion is contiguity. He failed to see how the proximity of two separate floors in an office building where the only means of access is via the common parts made any difference to their treatment as two separate hereditaments. Lord Neuberger added that by interlinking the two floors by an internal staircase one would make them one hereditament, so emphasised the importance of the self-containment criterion. In his words “if they are each self-contained from the other, then, absent very unusual facts, they should be separate hereditaments… Absent a communicating internal staircase or lift, passing through the void, two consecutive floors in the same building would be physically separated in much the same way as two non-consecutive floors.” Lord Carnwath expressed doubt as to whether contiguous floors in single occupation should be separately assessed but that set of facts was not before the Court and he did not, therefore, need to develop that line of reasoning. Following an announcement in the * Budget the Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill was introduced in the House of Commons and received Royal Assent on * November *. The Act has retrospective effect from * April * and provides that where two or more hereditaments are occupied by the same person (whether or not in the same building but provided they are not used for a different purpose) and meet the “contiguity condition” they will be assessed as one hereditament (contrary to the Mazars SC decision). Premises will be contiguous if either (a) they are on consecutive floors of a building and some or all of the floor of one hereditament lies directly above all or part of the ceiling of the other hereditament (ignoring voids for services etc) or (b) they share a common wall, fence or other means of enclosure. Importantly, there is no reference in the Act to any internal means of communication between the two (or more) contiguous hereditaments as being required to achieve a single assessment. This Supreme Court decision has become the new benchmark in identifying the unit of assessment and the * Act is intended to restore the VOA’s practice of assessing as a single unit of occupation contiguous floors of multi-occupied office buildings. However, there is expected to be a body of developing case law engendered by the Act and the attendant Regulations (SI2018/*).

Annual Rating Conference The aftermath of Woolway: repeal of the ‘staircase tax’ Jacqueline Lean Previous VOA practice “Following the general rules set out in [Gilbert (VO) v S Hickinbottom & Sons Ltd [*] * Q.B. *], it has been the practice of the Valuation Office Agency to treat contiguous properties as a single hereditament when occupied by the same person. The Valuation Office Agency’s approach to the meaning of contiguous was to treat two units of property as being contiguous where they were separated by a wall or floor/ceiling. For example, a floor/ceiling between two otherwise contiguous offices may contain services in a void occupied by the landlord but such space in walls and floors/ceiling were not considered by the Valuation Office Agency to prevent the units of property being contiguous” ‘Business Rates in multi-occupied properties’ Consultation on reinstating the practice of the Valuation Office Agency prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in Woolway (VO) v Mazars [*] UKSC * Para * Previous VOA practice “There were some exceptions to the general rules: a. two contiguous properties in the same occupation would still be treated as separate hereditaments where the two parts were used for wholly different purposes. An example might be where one part was capable of separate letting and was not in use, and b. two non-contiguous properties separated by a public highway or common area (such as a common corridor) would still be assessed as a single hereditament where a sufficiently strong functional connection could be shown to exist between the two parts. An example would be * parts of a golf course separated by a road.” ‘Business Rates in multi-occupied properties’ Consultation on reinstating the practice of the Valuation Office Agency prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in Woolway (VO) v Mazars [*] UKSC * Para * The Issue Woolway (VO) v Mazars LLP [*] UKSC * “* It was suggested in the discussion in this case that if the two parts of the office had been on adjacent floors they could have been treated as one hereditament on the view that they were contiguous in the vertical rather than the horizontal plane. That, in my view, is a contrived argument. The disjunction of the two parts of the ratepayer's offices lies in the fact that the only access between them is through the public part of the building. The same disjunction would apply even if they were on adjacent floors. In that event, I would have taken the view that they remained separate hereditaments.” “* In my opinion, two separate self-contained floors in the same office building, whether or not they are contiguous, cannot be said to satisfy such a test, at least in the absence of very unusual facts. Once they cease to be self-contained, because, say, an internal means of access (eg an internal staircase) is constructed, so that each floor is accessible from the other without going onto other property—eg the common parts of the building—then the two hereditaments will normally be treated as have been converted into one larger hereditament. Unless there is such a means of access, each floor is selfcontained from the other, and each can be occupied and let independently of the other. Accordingly, I can see no good reason why they should be treated as a single hereditament merely because they happen to be let to and occupied by the same tenant. …..” • Some instances of amendments to the * List (following receipt of a BAR) , with loss of ‘quantum discount’ and demands for backdated rates; • Potential for principles in Woolway to be applied to appeals outstanding at date of SCt decision – with risk of changes to hereditament/rates liability; • Leases negotiated against backdrop of previous VOA practice – limited scope for amending to take account of new approach post Woolway • Application to vertically adjoining (though not interconnected) properties: when is an occupier in “exclusive possession” of common parts? • (From * April *) potential ineligibility for Small Business Rate Relief The Problem Autumn Budget *: “I’ve also listened to businesses affected by the so-called ‘staircase tax’. We will change the law to ensure that where a business has been impacted by the Supreme Court ruling it can have its original bill reinstated if it chooses, and backdated.” The Government’s response ‘Business Rates in multi-occupied properties’ Consultation on reinstating the practice of the Valuation Office Agency prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in Woolway (VO) v Mazars [*] UKSC * • “… the Government will legislate to reinstate the relevant elements of the Valuation Office Agency’s practice prior to the Supreme Court decision” (para *) • “… some alterations as a result of the Mazars decision may have been backdated to * April *. To allow the Valuation Office Agency to reapply its previous practice to affected properties, the change in legislation will be retrospective to * April *…” (para *) • “The government wants to ensure that those ratepayers who have been affected by the Mazars decision in the * rating list have the opportunity to request a reassessed rateable value on the basis of the reinstated previous practice of the Valuation Office Agency. Therefore, once the Bill receives Royal Assent, the government will provide a right to make a proposal to amend the * rating list” (para *) The Government’s response • Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill lodged * March * (2R * April *) • “A Bill to Make provision, where two or more hereditaments occupied or owned by the same person meet certain conditions as to contiguity, for those hereditaments to be treated for the purposes of non-domestic rating as one hereditament; and to increase the percentage by which the billing authority in England may increase the council tax payable in respect of a long-term empty dwelling” The Bill • Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill lodged * March * (2R * April *) • “A Bill to Make provision, where two or more hereditaments occupied or owned by the same person meet certain conditions as to contiguity, for those hereditaments to be treated for the purposes of non-domestic rating as one hereditament; and to increase the percentage by which the billing authority in England may increase the council tax payable in respect of a long-term empty dwelling” • In respect of non-domestic rating, would insert new subsections (3ZA)- (33ZD) after subsection (*) in section * of the Local Government Finance Act * (Clause *(*)) • Clause *(*) provides that changes are to have effect from * April * The Bill SS(3ZA) In relation to England, where- (a) two or more hereditaments (whether in the same building or otherwise) are occupied by the same person, (b) the hereditaments meet the contiguity condition (see subsection (3ZC)), and (c) none of the hereditaments is used for a purpose which is wholly different from the purpose for which any of the other hereditaments is used, The hereditaments shall be treated as one hereditament The Bill SS(3ZC) The hereditaments meet the contiguity condition if- (a) at least two of the hereditaments are contiguous, (b) where not all of the hereditaments are contiguous with each other – (i) one or more of the hereditaments is contiguous with one or more of the hereditaments falling within paragraph (a) (ii) each of the remaining (if any) is contiguous with at least one hereditament that falls within sub-paragraph (i) or this sub-paragraph The Bill SS(3ZD) For the purposes of subsection (3ZC) two hereditaments are contiguous if- (a) Some or all of a wall, fence or other means of enclosure of one hereditament forms all or part of a wall, fence or other means of enclosure of the other hereditament, or (b) The hereditaments are one consecutive stories of a building and some or all of the floor of one hereditament lies directly above all or part of the ceiling of the other hereditament, and hereditaments occupier or owned by the same person are not prevented from being contiguous under paragraph (a) or (b) merely because there is a space between them that is not occupied or owned by that preson The Bill SS(3ZD) For the purposes of subsection (3ZC) two hereditaments are contiguous if- (a) Some or all of a wall, fence or other means of enclosure of one hereditament forms all or part of a wall, fence or other means of enclosure of the other hereditament, or (b) The hereditaments are one consecutive stories of a building and some or all of the floor of one hereditament lies directly above all or part of the ceiling of the other hereditament, and hereditaments occupier or owned by the same person are not prevented from being contiguous under paragraph (a) or (b) merely because there is a space between them that is not occupied or owned by that person The Bill • ““… the Government will legislate to reinstate the relevant elements of the Valuation Office Agency’s practice prior to the Supreme Court decision” (Consultation doc para *) – Offices on adjoining floors - ✓ – Adjoining offices on the same side of a corridor - ✓ – Premises (including a parcel of land) separated by a wall / fence / other means of enclosure - ✓ – Land / premises separated by a public highway or common area eg golf course (see para 9b of consultation document) - ?? Effect of the Bill • Does it go too far? – Trunkfield (V0) v Camden LBC [*] RA * (LC) • “Contiguity is, in most cases, a good starting-point for determining whether property in the same occupation constitutes one or more than one hereditament, and it may well provide the obvious answer on the facts of a particular case: see Slough Heat and Power Ltd v Thompson (VO) [*] RA *. Whether it does or not, however, may depend on the type of hereditament under consideration…” • What is required is a “common-sense assessment of the features of the case” (citing Morris LJ in Gilbert v Hickinbottom) Effect of the Bill – Bill would seem to ‘deem’ horizontally adjoining industrial units/ warehouses in the same ownership/occupation and not used for “wholly different” purposes. • Merely reinstating VOA previous practice? • Risk of unintended consequences? Effect of the Bill SS(3ZA) In relation to England, where- (a) two or more hereditaments (whether in the same building or otherwise) are - (i) owned by the same person, and (ii) unoccupied (b) the hereditaments – (i) Cease to be occupied on the same day, and (ii) Have remained unoccupied since that day (c) Immediately before that day, the hereditaments were, or formed part of, a single hereditament by virtue of subsection (3ZA),and (d) The hereditaments meet the contiguity condition (see subsection (3ZC) the hereditaments shall be treated as one hereditament Unoccupied properties • “The government wants to ensure that those ratepayers who have been affected by the Mazars decision in the * rating list have the opportunity to request a reassessed rateable value on the basis of the reinstated previous practice of the Valuation Office Agency. Therefore, once the Bill receives Royal Assent, the government will provide a right to make a proposal to amend the * rating list” (Consultation doc para *) • No further indication in Explanatory Notes / 2R debate as to implementation of this commitment (other than post R/A) • Strong preference expressed by consultees for former appeals structure (not Check Challenge and Appeal system). • Government’s position appears to be that that will be adopted (see para * Summary of Responses and Government Response) and that it “will consider the regulations in draft with rating practitioners before proceeding” Yet to come… • Rates demanded on basis of amendments to * List / current List due and owing • Query whether / to what extent the draft Bill / Government consultation document & responses will – or can – be relied upon to resist payment In the meantime…

‘Hereditament’ “hereditament” means property which is or may become liable to a rate, being a unit of such property which is, or would fall to be, shown as a separate item in the valuation list. GRA *, s115(*)

‘Hereditament’ “until a hereditament is identified, occupation cannot arise, if for no other reason than that what amounts to occupation will ordinarily depend upon the physical and legal character of the hereditament.” Sedley LJ in Vtesse Networks Ltd v Bradford (VO) [*] EWCA Civ * at [*]

so how can a dwelling exist with the hereditament

so how can a dwelling exist with the hereditament answer the pacific point

how does it exist in law without the hereditament

are you still working on this

summarize the above text into paragraphs

'*. A hereditament must exist ... Where a hereditament is vacant and undergoing a scheme of works, the hereditament may cease to exist ... As a dwelling cannot exist without first identifying a hereditament, vacant domestic property evidenced as undergoing a scheme will be deleted from the council tax list.

In S J & J Monk (A Firm) v Newbigin (VO) [*] UKSC *, [*) RA * (a business rates case), the Supreme Court held that an empty office building which was undergoing major reconstruction, was incapable of beneficial occupation. It was not simply in a (mere) state of disrepair. In the VOA Council Tax Manual, Practice Note *, it provides: '*. A hereditament must exist ... Where a hereditament is vacant and undergoing a scheme of works, the hereditament may cease to exist ... As a dwelling cannot exist without first identifying a hereditament, vacant domestic property evidenced as undergoing a scheme will be deleted from the council tax list.

so the dwelling cannot exit without the hereditament

so how can the dwelling exist with identifying the hereditament as stated

so how can the dwelling exist without identifying the hereditament as stated