MUA Response to Check Challenge Appeal consultation Part 2

Consultation – Check Challenge Appeal

Part 2 of 2;

Dear Danielle,

These are the representations of the machinery Users’ Association Inc., representing the interests of commercial property users, and MUA Property Services Ltd (Chartered Surveyors), the latter representing ratepayers directly within the appeals system.

I am making my comments in two parts. This email concerns the general bulk of the document, excluding the “Determining Appeals” section.

Q1; we do not tend to comment on detailed drafting. However, we are left wondering where the “incentives” are (see Para 8), as we can only see requirements and some limitations on new restrictions, neither of which count as incentives.

Q2; we are not generally in favour of appeal fees. Although intended to act as a restriction on appeal numbers, we do not feel that the practical effect will reduce in isolation the numbers going on to the final stage of three.

If fees must be introduced, they should be fixed for the List duration. Additionally, fees should be refunded in full, if an assessment is found to be too high, yet the VT are precluded from giving order to the reduction.

Q3; We are not in favour of this type of penalty, which may lead ratepayers to restrict information given to the VO (outside of evidence) to the minimum, for fear of making a mistake. For those ratepayers knowingly giving false information, a penalty of perhaps only £200 is no disincentive. In fact, it almost gives legitimacy to what should be considered as Fraud for it to become a technical offence pitched at a similar level to that of wandering into a bus lane!

Q4; the proposals are to define a small business by using the definition of a micro business. This definition is unfair. Particularly, it will exclude businesses transacting in high price, low margin goods – i.e. a rural petrol kiosk charging 110p a litre, with a 3p retailer margin, would become a large business at less than 2m litres p.a., despite only having a gross profit of £60k before all costs.

Who is to police whether a business is large or small? Will the checking of this aspect add another layer of bureaucracy and cost?

Q5; the MCC proposals in Para 27 are inadequate. Para 27 states that a ratepayer will “have up to 16 months….” This is presumably based on Check taking 12 months plus 4 months to move to Challenge. What happens if Check takes less than a year? What happens, if it only takes a month? I believe we were both at the meeting when members of the VO said that it might only take an afternoon! What happens if 16 months (as a maximum) is insufficient for evidence of changes in rents or trade levels to evolve and be gathered? In the case of temporary MCCs, the MCC itself may last for more than 16 months. In order to reflect this concern, we submit that the 4 month time limits for moving from Check to Challenge are waived for MCC cases. This waiver should also extend to appeals against VONs made to reflect an MCC. In this way, the Material Day provisions as outlined in Para 27 can be regarded as effective and fair to the ratepayer.

Q6; for reasons stated in my separate representations, Part 1 of 2, we consider the current proposals to be unworkable and unfair.

Q7; subject to a specific point, we accept these BA proposals as generally reasonable. The exception relates to where the BA provides information to the VO on Challenges. We consider that such information must also be made available to the ratepayer. The ratepayer must be able to comment on it and produce counter-evidence in both Challenge and Appeal stages. Where the BA produces inaccurate information, the penalty regime should apply to them.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Sewell BSc (Hons), FRICS, IRRV (Hons), MEI

19/9/2016