The law in relation to national non-domestic rates (Business Rates) contains a high level dichotomy. This dichotomy is between:

(1) compiling and maintaining the rating lists (central[1] and local[2]) - typically know as the 'non-domestic rating lists' or simply the 'lists'; and

(2) collection and enforcement of the tax due.

Each of these may be subdivided further, in respect to the entity that is tasked with undertaking these.

In respect to (1) - compiling and maintaining the two types of rating lists - this task is placed upon:

(a) Local list - 'the valuation officer for a billing authority in England' (section 41(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 ('LGFA 1988')); and

(b) Central list - 'the valuation officer' (section 52(1) of the LGFA 1988).

In respect to (2) - collection and enforcement of the tax due - this task is placed upon:

(a) Local list - individual billing authorities (see the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989/1058); and

(b) Central list - the Secretary of State (see the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Central Lists) Regulations 1989/2260)

In North Somerset DC v Honda Motor Europe Ltd [2010] EWHC 1505, Burnett J referred to this high level dichotomy. Under the heading 'The statutory scheme for the collection of business rates', at paragraph 9, Burnett J said:

'The system of business rates is governed by the Local Government Finance Act 1988 [“1988 Act”] and Regulations made under it. Those include the 1989 Regulations. The system has two broad parts. The first is concerned with the preparation, maintenance and alteration of rating lists. Such lists identify hereditaments (that is property on which rates must be paid) and rateable values. This aspect of the system is administered by the Valuation Officer, an official of HM Revenue and Customs, in the Valuation Office Agency (“VOA”). The second part is concerned with the recovery of rates in accordance with the rating list. That aspect of the system is administered by the billing authority for the statutory area concerned...'

Burnett J also referred to this dichotomy in Secerno [2a] (reference below).

But, while this high level dichotomy (between (1) and (2) above) exists, in relation to local lists, there is not a complete separation as to roles. This is because billing authorities have a role in ensuring the rating lists are maintained property. There is a duty on billing authorities, in respect to local lists, to give the relevant valuation officer its assistance (so to speak), in keeping the local list up to date / accurate. In Secerno (reference below), Burnett J, at paragraph 23, described this as a '...duty upon billing authorities to provide information to the Valuation Officer to assist him in the discharge of his statutory duty to maintain an up to date list' (as well as referring to the high level dichotomy. Or more particularly, it is a duty imposed upon billing authorities, to supply certain information to a relevant valuation officer (in practice, the Valuation Office Agency ('VOA')[3]), as soon as reasonably practicably, after the Billing Authority forms the opinion that a property is (or may become) liable to rate, but for which: (i) there is no entry in the local list; or (ii) the (or any) entry in such a list, in the authority's opinion, requires to be altered.

Article

This article will consider:

(a) the duty on valuation officers to compile and maintain the local rating lists;

(b) the billing authorities' duty to assist the valuation officers discharge their duties to maintain the accuracy of the local lists; and then,

(c) whether non-compliance by a billing authority, with its duty, will give to a ratepayer, a defence to a complaint brought by a billing authority, in the Magistrates Court[4]. That is, a defence to a claim that that ratepayer has failed to pay business rates in relation to an affect[5] hereditament. The article will consider this issue in light of two authorities:

(i) R. (on the application of Secerno Ltd) v Oxford Magistrates' Court (also known as: Secerno Ltd v Oxford Magistrates' Court) [2011] EWHC 1009 (Admin); [2011] RA 247 ('Secerno'), a decision of Burnett J in the High Court on 19.4.11 (the leading authority); and

(ii) Southwark LBC v Cherry Advertising [2009] RVR 38 ('Cherry'), a decision of DJ (MC) Zani in Camberwell Green Magistrates Court on 14.1.09.

Valuation Officers' Duty to compile and maintain Local Lists

There is a duty on valuation officers to compile and maintain local lists (otherwise known as 'local non-domestic rating lists').

Section 41(1) of the LGFA 1988 is entitled 'Local rating lists: England'[6], and is in Part III of the LGFA 1988 (sections 41 to 67), and reads, so far as presently material[7]:

'(1) In accordance with this Part the valuation officer for a billing authority in England shall compile, and then maintain, lists for the authority (to be called its local non-domestic rating lists).

...

(3) A list shall come into force on the day on which it is compiled and shall remain in force until the next one is compiled.

(4) Before a list is compiled the valuation officer must take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that it is accurately compiled on 1 April concerned.

(5) Not later than 31 December preceding a day on which a list is to be compiled the valuation officer shall send to the authority a copy of the list he proposes (on the information then before him) to compile.

...

(6A) As soon as is reasonably practicable after compiling a list the valuation officer shall send a copy of it to the authority.

....

(7) A list must be maintained for so long as is necessary for the purposes of this Part, so that the expiry of the period for which it is in force does not detract from the duty to maintain it....'

New local lists are suppose to be complied every 5 years, though this has not been happening recently (the last three were 2010, 2017 and 2023[8])

Section 42 is entitled 'Contents of local lists' and provides, so far as is presently relevant[9]:

'(1) A local non-domestic rating list must show, for each day in each chargeable financial year for which it is in force, each hereditament which fulfils the following conditions on the day concerned-

(a) it is situated in the authority's area,

(b) it is a relevant non-domestic hereditament,

(c) at least some of it is neither domestic property nor exempt from local non-domestic rating, and

(d) it is not a hereditament which must be shown for the day in a central non-domestic rating list.

(2) For each day on which a hereditament is shown in the local list, it must also show whether the hereditament-

(a) consists entirely of property which is not domestic, or

(b) is a composite hereditament.

(3) For each day on which a hereditament is shown in the list, it must also show whether any part of the hereditament is exempt from local non-domestic rating.

(4) For each day on which a hereditament is shown in the list, it must also show the rateable value of the hereditament.'[10]

Section 55 of the LGFA 1988 empowers the making of regulations in relation to: the alteration of lists, by the Valuation Officer of his own motion or on the proposal of others. Section 55 includes[11] section 55(2), which reads:

'The appropriate national authority may make regulations about the alteration by valuation officers of lists which have been compiled under this Part...'

In Secerno, Burnett J explained, at paragraph 10:

'The duty to compile and maintain a valuation list, known as the local non-domestic rating list, rests upon the Valuation Officer: see section 41 of the 1988 Act. The reference in the statute and subordinate legislation to a Valuation Officer is in practice a reference to the Valuation Office Agency which is independent of local authorities. Section 55 of the 1988 Act makes provision for alteration of lists by the Valuation Officer of his own motion or on the proposal of others.'

The Statutory Duty on Billing Authorities to supply Information

A Billing Authority (Local Authority) is under a statutory duty to provide certain information to the relevant valuation officer (in practice, the VOA).

The LGFA 1988, Schedule 9 is entitled 'Non-Domestic Rating: Administration', and paragraph 6 provides:

'(1) If in the course of the exercise of its functions any information comes to the notice of a billing authority which leads it to suppose that a list requires alteration it shall be the authority's duty to inform the valuation officer who has the duty to maintain the list.

(1A) The appropriate national authority may make regulations containing provision that, at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed, a billing authority shall supply to the valuation officer for the authority information of such description as may be prescribed.'[12]

Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009/2268 ('2009 Regulations'), reg.24, prescribes the information to which this duty applies. These 2009 Regulations have applied since 1.10.09.

Reg.24 of the 2009 Regulations

Reg.24 of the 2009 Regulations is entitled 'Information to be supplied by relevant authorities', and reg.24 provides:

'(1) Information of the description set out in paragraph (2) is prescribed for the purposes of paragraph 6(1A) of Schedule 9 to the Act.

(2) In relation to any property of a description mentioned in paragraph (3), the information is-

(a) the address of the property;

(b) the nature of the event by reason of which, in the opinion of the relevant authority, the local list is required to be altered;

(c) the day from which, in the opinion of the relevant authority, such alteration should have effect; and

(d) if the property is shown in a local list, any reference number ascribed to it in that list.

(3) The property referred to in paragraph (2), in relation to a relevant authority, is any non-domestic property in the authority's area-

(a) which, in the authority's opinion, is property which is or may become liable to a rate; and

(b) in relation to which-

(i) there is no entry in the local list; or

(ii) in the authority's opinion any entry in such a list requires to be altered.

(4) The information required by this regulation must be supplied as soon as is reasonably practicable after it comes to the attention of the relevant authority.' [bold added]

Reg.2 of the 2009 Regulations is entitled 'Interpretation: general' and reg.2(1) contains:

'(1) In these Regulations:

'“the Act” means the Local Government Finance Act 1988;'

Reg.42 of the 2005 Regulations - Immediate Predecessor Provision

Before going on to consider reg.24 of the 2009 Regulations, it is helpful just to consider reg.24's immediate predecessor, that is: reg.42 of The Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2005/659 ('2005 Regulations'). Reg.42 of the 2005 Regulations (not to be confused with section 42 of the LGFA 1988, which is something completely different) applied between 1.4.05 to 31.9.09, before it was revoked, and reg.24 of the 2009 Regulations, was brought into effect in substitution. The provisions are very similar. Reg.42 and reg.24 were/are:

(a) both entitled 'Information to be supplied by relevant authorities'; and

(b) have exactly the same wording, save for some irrelevant updates in language (these irrelevant language changes are considered in a footnote, alongside the full wording of reg.42 of the 2005 Regulations[13]).

The reason this is relevant, is because the leading authority on the third topic (i.e. (c) above) this article will focus on, was decided on reg.42 of the 2005 Regulations (i.e. the obsolete, previous regulation). As a result of reg.24 being materially the same as reg.42, the fact that it was decided on the predecessor provision, will not matter (and so, readers need not be concerned that reg.42 is being referred to rather than the presently applicable reg.24).

That leading authority, is, as stated earlier, Secerno. In Secerno, Burnett J explained, at paragraph 10:

'The 2005 Regulations are concerned primarily with the practice and procedure to be followed in the event of proposals from someone other than the Valuation Officer, and include an appeals mechanism. It was common ground before me that an alteration may be made by a Valuation Officer because a hereditament not shown in the local list ought to be shown. Regulation 42 of the 2005 Regulations appears in a part headed ‘Miscellaneous and General’.'

Non-compliance with reg.24 duty - can it provide a defence to an affected ratepayer, to a unpaid Business Rates Compliant?

The duty under reg.24 undoubtedly exists. But what is the consequence if the Billing Authority fails to comply?

In particular, does reg.24 non-compliance (whether delayed reg.24 compliance or complete failure), which leads to:

(a) a delayed amendment / correction to the local list; resulting in

(b) adverse consequences for a ratepayer arising from the delay; with then

(c) a late demand for Business Rates, and subsequent Complaint to court,

give a ratepayer a defence to that Complaint, of some sort? in particular, does it render Business Rates which would otherwise be 'payable', not 'payable' by the ratepayer?

For those short on time, the answer is: no. Reg.24 non-compliance cannot be deployed as a defence to a claim, made by a Billing Authority, for unpaid and due Business Rates. That was the point in issue in Secerno, and Burnett J held that, Billing Authority reg.24 non-compliance did not give a ratepayer a defence to such a claim (with or without an additional ingredient of prejudice to the ratepayer).

Secerno

In Secerno, a billing authority (Value of White Horse District) applied by way of compliant, against 3 (alleged) ratepayers (the 'ratepayers'), in the (Oxford) Magistrates Court, for business rates liability orders ('BRLOs') against them. In the Magistrates Court, before a DDJ (MC) ('DDJ'), the ratepayers contended that:

(a) there had been a breach of the Billing Authority's duty (then imposed by reg.42; now by reg.24) - in that, the Billing Authority has failed, as soon as is reasonably practicable after it had come to the Billing Authority's attention, to supply the prescribed information to the valuation officer; and

(b) that had rendered the Business Rates, sought by the Billing Authority, from the ratepayer, not 'payable'.

Burnett J recorded the submission as follows:

'...[the Billing Authority] had failed to supply to the Valuation Office as soon as reasonably practicable after it came to its attention information relating to the properties which it considered should be liable to non-domestic rates. The result was that the valuation list was not altered to reflect the occupation of the properties by the three [ratepayers] as early as it could have been. There were consequent delays in demands for business rates which, it was contended, caused difficulties for the ratepayers.'

At first instance, the DDJ concluded '...that he had no jurisdiction to decline to make a liability order in respect of unpaid business rates on the basis of arguments advanced by the [ratepayers].' (Secerno, paragraph 1). Consequently, the DDJ made the BRLOs sought by the Billing Authority.

The ratepayer brought judicial review[14] proceedings against the DDJ's decision. In the appeal, there was:

(1) no dispute that the hereditaments occupied by each of the ratepayers were entered in the valuation list, for the periods for which rates had been demanded (paragraph 1); and

(2) no suggestion that the Billing Authority had failed to serve demand notices in accordance with the applicable statutory regime (paragraph 1).

On the appeal in Secerno, it was contended that the DDJ had been wrong to reject the submission that reg.42 non-compliance must affect his decision as to whether or not to impose a BRLO. The ratepayers' argued that:

(a) '...before the hereditaments were added to the list the [Billing Authority] had been in breach of its statutory duty under Regulation 42 of the Non Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2005...' (paragraph 1)

(b) (to repeat) '...[the Billing Authority] had failed to supply to the Valuation Office as soon as reasonably practicable after it came to its attention information relating to the properties which it considered should be liable to non-domestic rates. The result was that the valuation list was not altered to reflect the occupation of the properties by the three [ratepayers] as early as it could have been. There were consequent delays in demands for business rates which, it was contended, caused difficulties for the ratepayers.' (paragraph 3)

(c) '...the alleged antecedent breach of the statutory duty to provide information to the Valuation Officer could, as a matter of law, have resulted in the Magistrates' Court being obliged to refuse to make the liability orders sought against the ratepayers.' (paragraph 3) and that, 'For that reason the [DDJ] was obliged to investigate the circumstances surrounding the provision (or lack of provision) of the information and its consequences upon the ratepayers.' (paragraph 3), whereas the DDJ had, in fact, '...declined to hear any evidence because he concluded that such questions were immaterial to the applications for liability orders before him.' (paragraph 6);

But the ratepayers in Secerno did not argue that '...the failure of a [Billing Authority] to provide information as soon as reasonably practicable following its forming the opinions referred to in regulation 42 of the 2005 Regulations should lead to total invalidity.' (paragraph 13). More particularly, Burnett J recorded that it was '...not the [ratepayers'] case that the [Billing Authority] would necessarily be disabled from recovering the rates for the period between the notional date on which they should have passed on the information and the date on which they did, or otherwise the date on which the Valuation Officer entered the hereditament in the list without the aid of information from the authority. Rather, [counsel for the ratepayers] submitted that the approach to invalidity in this context should be the same as applies to a failure by the billing authority to comply with the time limit specified for service of the demand notice in regulation 5 of the 1989 Regulations.' (paragraph 13). In other words, the approach to invalidity for reg.42 should be, it was submitted, the same as was formulated in North Somerset District Council v. Honda Motor Europe Limited [2010] EWHC 1505 (QB) ('Honda'). An approach, relation to Billing Authority non-compliance with an 'as soon as reasonably practicable' deadline, which was summarised, as follows:

'...a failure to serve a Regulation 5 notice as soon as practicable does not result in automatic invalidity. Rather, the court determining any issue resulting from such a failure will have regard to the length of delay and the impact of that delay upon the ratepayer, in the context of the public interest in collecting outstanding rates. The greater the prejudice to the ratepayer flowing from the delay, the more likely will be the conclusion that Parliament intended invalidity to follow.

Prejudice may flow to business ratepayers in any number of ways as a result of a late notice to pay rates. Prejudice is different from inconvenience. In using the language of ‘real prejudice’ in [Wang v Inland Revenue Commissioner [1994] 1 W.L.R. 1286], ‘material prejudice’ in [Charles v Judicial and Legal Service Commission [2002] UKPC 34] and ‘significant’ in [R v. Soneji and another [2006] 1 AC 340] the various judges were conveying the same notion: that the prejudice relied upon must be substantial and certainly not technical or contrived. It is in that way that I shall consider the question of prejudice argued for by the defendants in these proceedings. The countervailing public interest is in the collection of taxes, the interests of other tax payers and the revenues of the local authority concerned.' (Honda, paragraphs 60 to 61, as quoted in Secerno, at paragraph 13 (amongst other paragraphs [15]))

The ratepayers in Secerno contended that:

'If that approach applies to regulation 42 of the 2005 Regulations then...the facts both as to the delay and any prejudice should have been considered by the [DDJ] just as they were by the High Court in [Honda]. That is because the Magistrates' Court could, following the enquiry, decline to make a liability order.' (paragraph 14).

In response, the Billing Authority in Secerno submitted (paragraph 14) that:

(a) there is no reason, in the context of the statutory scheme in which the duty imposed on relevant authorities by regulation 42 arises, to impute to Parliament an intention that a failure to provide information as soon as reasonably practicable in breach of that regulation should have any impact of recoverability of rates; and

(b) such an outcome would be inconsistent with a long line of authority that a Magistrates' Court cannot question the validity of an entry in the local list when dealing with an application for a liability order.

After setting out reg.42 and paragraph 6(1A) to Schedule 9 of the LGFA 1988[16], and these overviews of the submission made, Burnett J explained that the ratepayers' submission recognised:

'...the statutory duty is different from a simple obligation to pass on information as soon as reasonably practicable after it comes to the attention of the authority. The language of regulation 42 dictates that before the statutory duty arises the relevant authority must have formed an opinion on various matters. The authority must be of the opinion that the property is or may become liable to a rate (42(3)(a)) when there is no entry in the list or that in its opinion the entry requires alteration (42(3)(b)). The information to be provided includes the nature of the event which in the opinion of the authority gives rise to the need to alter the list (42(2)(b)) and the authority's opinion concerning the date from which the alteration should have effect (42(2)(c)). Taken together, these matters show that the duty to pass on information to the Valuation Officer arises after the relevant authority has applied its mind to the question and concluded that the list needs alteration.'

After setting out the facts[17], Burnett J said, at paragraph 10:

'The 2005 Regulations are concerned primarily with the practice and procedure to be followed in the event of proposals from someone other than the Valuation Officer, and include an appeals mechanism. It was common ground before me that an alteration may be made by a Valuation Officer because a hereditament not shown in the local list ought to be shown. Regulation 42 of the 2005 Regulations appears in a part headed ‘Miscellaneous and General’.'

Discussion

Under the heading 'Discussion', Burnett J emphasised:

(a) the distinction between the source of the two duties on the Billing Authority:

(i) the duty - to serve demand notices 'on or as soon as practicable after...', in Honda, was in reg. 5(1) to the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations (SI 1989/1058) ('1989 Regulations') - which govern the collection and enforcement of business rates; whereas

(ii) the duty - to notify the VOA of certain information 'as soon as is reasonably practicable after...', under consideration in Secerno, was in reg.24 of the 2009 Regulations.

(b) Reg.12 of the 1989 Regulations - which deals with BRLOs - particularly, the contents of reg.12(5):

'The court shall make the order if it is satisfied that the sum has become payable by the defendant and has not been paid.'

Burnett J said as regards reg.12(5):

'It is clear that the Magistrates' Court has no discretion in the making of a liability order. If it is satisfied that (a) the sum has become payable and (b) has not been paid then the order must be made.

(c) on the facts in Secerno, 'There is no dispute that the sums in question had not been paid by these [ratepayers] and so the question was whether the sums had become payable.'

(d) the liability is calculated pursuant to section 43 (or s.45) of the LGFA 1988, and becomes payable in accordance with 1989 Regulations;

(e) In relation to 'whether the sums had become payable', and in contrast to the 1989 Regulations, Burnett J said, at paragraph 23, that:

'...the 2005 Regulations have nothing to do with the collection and enforcement of business rates. They are concerned with the content of the local lists which provide the foundation for liability for business rates. In my judgment Regulation 42 of the 2005 Regulations cannot be interpreted as providing any qualification of the clear statutory scheme for collection and enforcement found in the 1989 Regulations. That is despite the fact that, at least arguably, a ratepayer may be prejudiced by the delay in the hereditament being entered into the list. The reality is that the [ratepayers] argue for a qualification of the 1989 Regulations. It is a necessary contention that regulation 4 of the 1989 Regulations should be qualified so that the ‘amount payable’ is not calculated by reference to section 43 of the 1988 Act but may be adjusted to reflect a breach of regulation 42 of the 2005 Regulations before the hereditament entered the list. The provision empowering the Secretary of State to make the regulation (Paragraph 6(a) of Schedule 9 of the 1988 Act) does not give power by this mechanism to qualify the calculation of the amount due. There is, in any event, no sign of such a qualification in the 2005 Regulations. I reject the argument that Parliament intended to qualify the liability for business rates, or the duty to collect them, in the event of a breach of regulation 42. Regulation 42 imposes a duty upon billing authorities to provide information to the Valuation Officer to assist him in the discharge of his statutory duty to maintain an up to date list. It is concerned with the efficient operation of the business rating system. Entry in that list is the foundation of any liability for business rates. Regulation 42 is not concerned with, and cannot affect, a liability for rates which arises under section 43 of the 1988 Act and which become payable by virtue of the 1989 Regulations. It follows that any question relating to compliance with regulation 42 of the 2005 Regulations is an irrelevance when a Magistrates' Court is adjudicating upon an application for a liability order.'

Cherry

Cherry is referred to only in passing. This is because Secerno is the leading authority in this area and is the only authority that need be referred to. Secerno is:

(a) High Court (so binding on all first instance courts); Cherry is Magistrates Court level (so persuasive authority only);

(b) more recent than Cherry.

Briefly then, in Cherry, the Magistrates Court (DJ (MC) Zani) had before it a business rates case, wherein a preliminary point has arisen for determination. That preliminary point was:

'...whether the determination of the issue as to whether there has been any failure of the local authority to notify the valuation officer under reg 42 of the Non Domestic Rate (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 2005 as soon as reasonably practicable after it has come to the attention of the relevant authority that the rating list required to be altered to include the property, falls within the jurisdiction of the magistrates' court.' (paragraph 1)

The deployability of the (putative) defence then, was split into (at least) 2 issues. The first being, whether the Magistrates Court had jurisdiction to determine whether or not the Billing Authority had breached its reg.42 of the 2005 Regulations duty. The second issue being, whether, if it had so breached, this could found a defence to otherwise due and payable Business Rates. On the first issue then, of jurisdiction, the ratepayers contended the issue was within the Magistrates Court's jurisdiction. Whereas, the Billing Authority argued that:

'...there is no jurisdiction for the magistrates' court to inquire into the validity or correctness of a rating list entry. The correct venue of appeal for the defendants ... is by way of judicial review to the High Court to quash the entry.' (paragraph 7)

On this jurisdiction issue, after referring to (a) Hackney London BC v Mott and Fairman [1994] RA 381; (b) County & Nimbus Estates Ltd v Ealing London BC [1979] RA 63; (c) R v Thames Magistrates' Court ex p Christie [1979] RA 231; (d) Pebmarsh Grain Ltd v Braintree District Council [1980] RA 136; and finally (e) R v Valuation Oficer ex p High Park Investments Ltd [ 1987] RVR 84, DJ (MC) Zani said, at paragraphs 11 and 12:

'I am satisfied that this court has not been given jurisdiction to enquire into the propriety of such procedures as may have led to an entry in the rating list, but has a duty, indeed an obligation to give effect to such an entry. The arguments made by the local authority are, in my view, compelling and persuasive.

This court's powers have been limited, rightly or wrongly, to enquiring as to whether the sums sought against each of the defendants are due and payable.'

Conclusion

The relevant valuation officer for a Billing Authority (in practice, the VOA), has the statutory duty to compile, and then maintain, local lists for that Billing Authority (known as 'local lists' or 'non-domestic rating lists'). Supplementing the VOA's duty to maintain these local lists, there is, now in reg.24 to the 2009 Regulations, a statutory duty, imposed upon the relevant Billing Authority, the duty being '...to provide information to the Valuation Officer to assist him in the discharge of his statutory duty to maintain an up to date list' (Secerno, paragraph 23). More specifically, the duty is to supply certain information to the VOA, as soon as reasonably practicably, after the Billing Authority forms the opinion that a property is (or may become) liable to rate, but for which: (i) there is no entry in the local list; or (ii) the (or any) entry in such a list, in the authority's opinion, requires to be altered.

A breach by a Billing Authority, of its reg.24 duty, does not though give any affected ratepayer, any release or defence to that ratepayer, to a claim by the Billing Authority for unpaid and due Business Rates in respect that property (hereditament). This includes when the VOA update the local list, effective from a date in the past (i.e. backdating), and the Billing Authority then seek Business Rates, from that date in the past.

SIMON HILL © 2025*

BARRISTER 

33 BEDFORD ROW  

NOTICE: This article is provided free of charge for information purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole, or the Copyright holder. No attempt has been made to provide an exhaustive review/account of the law in this area. *Copyright is owned by Barrister Search Limited.