In an important Judgment the High Court has set out a “checklist” for district judges to follow when determining disputes about what constitutes “occupation” for business rates purposes. It has also suggested a protocol for determining such disputes. Parties who don’t follow the protocol may be penalised on costs.
In Public Health England v Harlow District Council [2021] EWHC 909 the High Court has helpfully set out a checklist of propositions of law to enable District Judges to determine disputes about what constitutes “occupation" of premises for non-domestic rating purposes. The propositions of law are as follows:
- The possessor of the property had to be in actual occupation of the property, i.e. making some use of it.
- The possession of the property had to be exclusive to the possessor; it should not be shared with another person also entitled to possession.
- Voluntary use of a small proportion of the property to store a small amount of the possessor’s goods was sufficient.
- It did not matter if the storage was whimsical or eccentric, for example storage of a collector’s items or of redundant items.
- The possessor of the property had to have an intention to occupy the property, which could be inferred from use of the property.
- It did not matter if the possessor’s predominant or sole motive was mitigation of, or exemption from, rates liability.
- There was no occupation of a property where the person entitled to possession intended not to occupy it but to create a semblance or pretence of occupation.
- The presence in the property of goods not worth the trouble of removing, which could be inferred to have been abandoned, was not sufficient for occupation.
- It was not sufficient for occupation if the only use of the property was its upkeep and preservation or alterations in preparation for future occupied use.
- The possessor of the property could be a professional contractor whose business was occupation, provided it had the right to exclusive possession.
- The possession of the property must not be too transient; it must endure for more than a fleeting period of time.
- Occupation could more readily be found too transient where the property was a temporary structure rather than a building for permanent use (see Annex A of the judgment).
The Court also set out a protocol for resolving disputes as to whether premises are occupied for business rates purposes. The protocol is as follows:
- The parties should cooperate in making arrangements for inspection by the billing authority of the property and its contents.
- An agreed list of the contents, with at least a generic description, should be produced and signed and dated by both parties, covering the material times.
- The billing authority should write to the other party stating whether it considered the property to be occupied or not, and at what times or over what periods.
- The billing authority should include in its written communication to the other party its reasons for its conclusions.
- The billing authority should issue any consequent demand for payment of non-domestic rates in the normal way, in accordance with the rating legislation.
- If the recipient of the demand disputed liability, it should write to the billing authority stating why.
- The recipient should not pay the disputed amount with a view to claiming it back later, as that would deprive the magistrates’ court of jurisdiction.
- Any disputed rates liability should be the subject of a summons for non-payment issued by the billing authority under the rates collection legislation.
- The magistrates’ court could then determine whether and when a property was occupied or unoccupied and any consequent liability for non-domestic rates.
- The unsuccessful party would then have a right of appeal to the Administrative Court, by case stated, with full findings of fact.
- A party refusing to follow the procedures set out in this protocol might be subject to costs sanctions imposed by the magistrates’ court or any other court.
- A party claiming restitution of non-domestic rates wrongly paid should sue in the ordinary courts and might not necessarily recover its costs, even if successful (Annex B).
IMPORTANT NOTE; The protocol says that a recipient of a disputed demand should NOT pay it with a view to claiming it back later as that deprives the magistrates’ court of jurisdiction to determine the dispute.
Social Media cookies collect information about you sharing information from our website via social media tools, or analytics to understand your browsing between social media tools or our Social Media campaigns and our own websites. We do this to optimise the mix of channels to provide you with our content. Details concerning the tools in use are in our privacy policy.