Non-domestic rates proposal-lodging deadline extension: survey analysis

Findings

1. What impact did the announcement of the extension to the proposal-lodging deadline from 31 July to 31 August 2023 have for you?

All 19 respondents answered this question.

11 of 19 respondents chose the option: ‘The extension allowed me to lodge proposals in August that I otherwise would not have been able to.’ Five respondents chose the option: ‘The extension allowed me to provide additional information in proposals that I was planning to lodge by 31 July’. One chose: ‘The extension allowed me to provide additional info, and lodge proposals that I otherwise would not have been able to’. Under ‘Other’, one respondent stated : ‘The extension meant that the overall proposal situation was not known until a month later than planned with potential impact on planning the disposal programme’; while one respondent stated they did not submit proposals. No respondents chose: ‘No impact - I lodged my proposal(s) by 31 July as originally planned’.

2. When do you think the proposal-lodging deadline for future revaluation appeals should be?

All 19 respondents answered this question.

Eight of 19 respondents chose the option: ‘Whichever is later: 31 August the year of revaluation, or four months after the notice is received.’ One respondent chose the option: ‘31 July the year of revaluation, or four months after the notice is received.’ The remainder (10) chose ‘Other’ and all of these mentioned 30 September, with some of these stating that the date should be the later of 30 September, or six months after a valuation notice is received.

3. Do you have any other comments, questions or suggestions related to the deadlines to lodge proposals?

16 respondents provided responses to this question.

Several respondents critiqued the current deadline, describing the amount of detailed information ratepayers are expected to provide with their proposals and the time it takes to gather this information. It was also noted by some that the current deadline puts undue administrative pressure on both rating agents and assessors.

One respondent welcomed the extension of the deadline from 31 July 2023 to 31 August 2023 and several others spoke in favour of a (further) extension, adding that they believed this would a) help to alleviate the pressures outlined above and b) lead to better quality proposals.

One respondent commented that a proposal-lodging deadline of 31 July in a revaluation year better supports a three-yearly revaluation cycle, adding that the extension places additional strain on meeting the revaluation proposal disposal deadline of 30 September 2025. It was also noted that a draft Valuation Roll is published on the 30 November in the year prior to a revaluation, providing a total period of eight months to consider a valuation and submit a proposal by 31 July in a revaluation year.

4. Do you have any other comments, questions or suggestions on the two-stage appeals system introduced on 1 April 2023?

18 respondents provided responses to this question.

While a few respondents expressed (mild) support for the two-stage appeals system, and one commented that it was perhaps too early to offer a proper evaluation, others were less positive. One of the less positive respondents said that the previous one-stage appeals system had only needed minor amendments, with the new system, in their view, including more restrictions around the provision of information after a proposal has been submitted and leading to a greater number of appeals. Another respondent stated that assessors were taking too long to consider proposals received prior to 31 August 2023, with very few of these resolved prior to 31 December 2023.

There was agreement among several respondents on the significant amount of work that is involved in preparing proposals and appealing decisions in the current system, echoing responses to other questions in the survey. Similarly, several respondents commented on the apparent imbalance between the amount of detail proposers are expected to provide, and the amount of detail assessors provide in their written statements in response to proposals. Encouraging a more consistent and standardised approach across Scotland would, they believed, help improve the system.

Several respondents expressed frustration with the current limitation on the presentation of new evidence after a proposal is made, with some comments indicating that those submitting proposals often do not understand what is allowed and assessors seem to apply this rule differently. It was also considered unfair among some respondents that assessors are able to consider new evidence they have secured, while refusing to consider additional information from a proposer.

One respondent said that they would like to see opportunities to challenge the decision of an assessor on whether to allow the consideration of additional evidence, while another called for an approach whereby all available evidence should be taken into consideration. One respondent suggested that to ensure fairness, the ratepayer should be able to provide additional evidence up to a date between 70 days before the Proposal Determination Date (PDD) and the PDD itself, with perhaps additional consultation to establish a suitable date agreeable to both sides.

One respondent suggested that a longer tone date (18 months instead of the current 12) may allow assessors and ratepayers to have a greater degree of pre-revaluation discussions, or time to collate and analyse rental/cost, etc. information for greater consideration and robustness of issued assessments.

Several respondents commented on the need for greater opportunities for collaboration between ratepayers, ratepayer representatives, and assessors, with one respondent explaining that the previous system had allowed for this type collaboration and discussion. Increasing such opportunities and allowing more time for the collation and analysis of information, would, these respondents believed, lead to more considered and robust assessments.

Improved communications was another area where several respondents agreed on the need for change. One respondent thought that the two-stage appeals process was reasonable but noted the need for improved communication with assessors and a standardised approach across assessor offices regarding the type of information that is provided by the assessor (particularly regarding written statements). Another respondent commented that the first stage relies on contact with assessors and that there is inconsistency across Scotland in respect of this. Similarly, one respondent explained that they supported early information-sharing, and opportunities for amicable settlement, before the Scottish Tribunals become involved (where an appeal is lodged).

One respondent stated that it was unjustified for assessors to not have to issue notification of the proposal decision and called for assessors to be duty-bound to do so.

It was again noted that any changes in the process or system should not lead to additional administrative burden for proposers.

One respondent noted that the appellant should not be required to e-mail both the Scottish Tribunals and the assessor in cases where they withdraw their appeal as this is time-consuming; the assessor should do this instead if an appeal is withdrawn or settled.

5. Is there anything else you would like to feed back to us about the two-stage appeals process?

14 respondents provided responses to this question.

Echoing responses to other questions, respondents spoke of the time and effort involved in putting together proposals, noting how the administrative processes mean assessors are unable to discuss proposals as early in the process as they would like. One respondent commented that this administrative burden did not exist under the previous system and added that this could be alleviated somewhat with an extension to the proposal-lodging deadline.

A small number of respondents offered comments on the length of time offered to appellants to lodge an appeal, with one noting that the current period of 28 days from the date of an assessor’s decision is too restrictive. Frustration was also expressed with the pace of the new system, noting that ratepayers often have to wait months or years for their proposals/appeals to be dealt with. One respondent called for a more coordinated approach in general.

The right to provide additional evidence following the submission of a proposal was again called for, with comments suggesting that assessors apply different criteria as to what is and is not allowed after a proposal is submitted. Some respondents also again commented on the lack of consistency in the content/detail of written statements issued by assessors.

One respondent commented that assessors are now publishing comparable rented property lists on the Portal and these lists often contain properties that are not relevant to the valuation in question. They believed that efforts should be made to have these properties removed in future revaluations and that only properties that the assessor has used to derive the valuation rate should be shown. One respondent stated that these lists, without the provision of rental information for these properties as well, were unhelpful.

One respondent requested additional help for small businesses in the case of additional changes being introduced, to help guide them through transitions.