Carey Group PLC v A Ricketts (Valuation Officer)
Decision date: 15 November 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKUT 356 (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 hereditament made temporarily unoccupiable by basement water ingress should be removed from the rating list or valued at £1, and whether remedial works to seal a defective construction joint amounted to "repair" for rating purposes under paragraph 2(1)(b) of Schedule 6 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The tribunal found the remedial resin injection and overbanding carried out in April 2021 were properly to be treated as repairs under the repair assumption and therefore the hereditament must be valued on the basis that the damage had been repaired. The appellant's appeal was dismissed; neither removal from the list nor a nominal £1 assessment was ordered.
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
Where water ingress has caused damage to parts of a hereditament and the only reasonable means of restoring the hereditament to a state of reasonable repair is to eradicate the defect causing recurring damage, works to rectify that defect (even if addressing an inherent construction or design defect) can qualify as "repair" for the purposes of paragraph 2(1)(b) of Schedule 6; accordingly the repair assumption requires valuation on the basis that such remedial works have been carried out, provided they are reasonable and not uneconomic.
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
The tribunal noted but did not decide the broader legal question whether premises temporarily incapable of beneficial occupation by reason of disrepair should be treated as non-hereditaments excluded from the list; that issue remained open and was not determinative of this appeal. It also observed that prior failed remedial attempts or intermittent ingress do not automatically prevent later successful remedial measures from being treated as repairs, but emphasized the need for close factual inquiry into deterioration and causation.