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 separately for each year. They can relate to more than one hereditament, but what have been conveniently described in this case as ‘multi-bills’, that is to say one bill demanding payment of the liability relating to more than one financial year, are not within the Regulations. The notices must contain prescribed details and if, by mistake, they do not, but the relevant amounts have nonetheless been demanded under Part II of the Collection Regulations, the validity of the notice is preserved by Regulation 4 of the 2003 Regulations, subject to the billing authority providing any permitted information as soon as practicable.’ and ‘It would, in my judgment, be highly unsatisfactory for the citizen’s liability to pay a tax, or not to pay it, to depend on the administrative details of the organisation of the rating authority in circumstances where the citizen himself cannot find out what the position is.’ However the appellant had suffered no prejudice by the failure. The appeal was dismissed.
Timothy Brennan QC
[2008] EWHC 2870 (Admin), [2009] RA 33, [2009] RA 33
Bailii
Non Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement)(Local Lists) Regulations 1989 4 5, Local Government Finance Act 1988
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – London and Clydeside Estates v Aberdeen District Council HL 8-Nov-1979
Identifying ‘maandatory’ and ‘regulatory’
The appellants had sought a Certificate of Alternative Development. The certificate provided was defective in that it did not notify the appellants, as required, of their right to appeal. Their appeal out of time was refused.
Held: The House . .
Cited – Regentford Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Shepway District Council Admn 25-Oct-2006
A breach of the statutory duty by the billing authority to serve the notice as soon as practicable does not operate in all cases as a windfall to the person otherwise liable, but the breach precludes a claim to payment and a duty to pay only where . .
Cited – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
Cited – Encon Insulation Ltd v Nottingham City Council Admn 9-Jun-1999
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 . .
Cited – Petch v Gurney (Inspector of Taxes) CA 8-Jun-1994
The thirty day time limit for the forwarding of a case stated is mandatory. The Court of Appeal has no discretion to extend the time limit. Millett LJ analysed the position by reference to the traditional dichotomy of directory or mandatory . .
Cited by:
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
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.343953
