When the rating authority discovered ratable premises, and issued claims going back in time the test was not whether they were unaware of them earlier, but whether they could have taken steps beforehand to discover the existence of the premises. A default by the council in taking the practicable steps available to them precluded any recovery. They had accordingly failed to establish a right to claim back rates.
David Pannick QC said: ‘I am therefore satisfied that the Magistrates failed to ask themselves the right question whether there were practicable steps which the billing authority could and should have taken at an earlier stage than November 1997 to locate the relevant premises. I am also satisfied that had the Magistrates asked themselves the right question, the only answer to which they could reasonably have come was to find that there had been a breach of paragraph 5(1)(a) of the regulations and so a liability order could not lawfully be made.
I should mention that the Magistrates noted that they did not need to decide whether the requirement imposed by Regulation 5(1) was mandatory. Counsel for the billing authority has not advanced any argument seeking to limit the consequences of there being a breach of Regulation 5(1). That does not surprise me. Regulation 5(1) contains a balance between the interests of the ratepayers and the practicalities of administration. Parliament must have intended that if the billing authority has not complied with the requirement it would be wrong in principle for the ratepayer to have an obligation thereafter to pay.’
David Pannick QC
Gazette 16-Jun-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 530, [1999] RA 382
Bailii
Non-Domestic (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989
England and Wales
Cited by:
Distinguished – Regentford Ltd v Thanet District Council Admn 18-Feb-2004
The council sought to enforce payment of arrears of council tax. The company responded that proceedings had not been begun in time. The company contended that time ran from the day when the council set the precept. The regulations said that time ran . .
Cited – JJB Sports Plc, Regina (On the Application of) v Telford and Wrekin Borough Council Admn 5-Nov-2008
The authority’s demand notice was served later than was practicable. The company now appealed against a liability order.
Held: The ratepayer’s appeal by way of Case Stated was dismissed. ‘demand notices must be served by the relevant authority . .
Cited – North Somerset District Council v Honda Motor Europe Ltd and Others QBD 2-Jul-2010
Deleayed Rates Claims Service made them Defective
The council claimed that the defendants were liable for business rates. The defendants said that the notices were defective in not having been served ‘as soon as practicable’, and further that they should not be enforced since the delay had created . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Rating, Local Government
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.139794
