THE DOG & GUN (OXENHOPE) LTD v Catherine Howarth (Valuation Officer)
Decision date: 19 October 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 475 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether a Valuation Officer (VO) was entitled to issue a regulation 15 certificate correcting the 2005 list entry for transitional purposes and whether the certified rateable value for the Dog & Gun on 31 March 2010 was correct. The Upper Tribunal held that issuing a regulation 15 certificate to certify what the 2005 list entry should have been did not impermissibly impugn the earlier list, that the VO had acted unreasonably slowly in issuing the certificate but the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to set it aside on timing grounds, and on the merits substituted a certificate fixing the rateable value at £41,000 effective 31 March 2010.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
Regulation 15 of the 2009 Regulations permits a VO to certify a corrected rateable value for a prior list for transitional purposes without that act amounting to an improper impugning of the earlier list; appeals under the 2009 Regulations are confined to the value certified, and procedural defects in the timing of certification do not themselves give the Tribunal jurisdiction to quash the certificate—relief is confined to altering the certified value.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
Guidance in the VOA rating manual about issuing certificates promptly (aiming for a six‑week target) is relevant to assessing whether certification was done "as soon as practicable" but is not determinative of the Tribunal's jurisdiction; prolonged delay by the VOA may produce inequitable consequences for ratepayers even where the Tribunal lacks power to withdraw the certificate.