Teesside local ratepayer valuation forum – meeting

Held : 23July 2003

Meeting at Middlesbrough Football Club, Riverside Stadium, Middlesbrough.

The Following Members were present at the meeting.

Colin Snowball opened the meeting by welcoming and thanking those attending.

Apologies for absence were made by

Middleton Grange Shopping Centre (Cormac Hamilton) Stockton on Tees Borough Council (Richard Holland)

Riverside Business Forum (Maurice Dawson)

The following were raised in an initial discussion by the members:

Consideration was given to the breadth of representation of the forum and John Megson (Teesside Business Leaders Forum) suggested that it would be appropriate to have a representative of the rural agricultural sector, particularly as the Tees Valley covered a large rural area.

Colin Snowball explained that the current forum pilots are based in rural areas, but it had been difficult to assess the success of these forums due to the fragmented nature of business in such areas. It had consequently been decided to test the concept in a more densely developed urban environment. The Teesside conurbation had been chosen as one of the pilot schemes. This did not mean, however, that representatives from the rural sector should not be included.

Action Point - VOA to contact a representative from the rural sector for the next Forum meeting

Rob McMullen (North East Chamber of Commerce) reported an initial sceptical response from some of his members about the launch of the Forum, but others had indicated that better communication could only be a good thing. He himself saw the need to be open and transparent and considered that people in business often have problems with Revenue systems. He thus welcomed the exchange of dialogue and added that regular communication was achieved with his members via their own magazine. This magazine reached a good cross section of people and the NECC would be happy that the VOA used it as a means of communication. He did, however, hope that the agency understood it took time to communicate and get responses.

Action Point - VOA to organise the submission of an article in time for the next issue of the magazine.

This prompted a wider discussion on avenues of communication and John Megson asked if the VOA would assist members of the Forum in presenting any relevant communication to their members. He added that any help and advice on matters of concern to their members would be of great benefit and would be most welcome e.g. assistance in completion of Forms of Return or additional presentations to their membership. Colin Snowball confirmed that VOA staff would be happy to assist.

Colin Wills National Federation of Retail Newsagents raised the question of communication costs and whether the VOA had a budget for this. His organisation was non-profit making and his members would not wish to be burdened with the communication costs emanating from Forum meetings. Rob McMullen supported this viewpoint. Communication was a costly business and the NECC did not want to bear the costs of disseminating information on behalf of the VOA. Colin Snowball confirmed that he held a modest budget to run the forums and that may allow a small amount for communications as it was important the Forum achieved as wide an audience as possible. However, there was a separate communications department within the VOA’s Head Office which will have its own budget.

Action Point - Colin Snowball to discuss funding with communications section in CEO.

The following presentation was made

Powerpoint Presentation

Following these presentations the following matters were raised:

Non Professional Rating Advisors

Colin Wills stated that it was important to remember that all members around the table have one thing in common i.e. they want to know what they will pay at the end of the day. Some of his members had been the victims of ‘scams’ from so called “Cowboys” and had paid out money up front for help with their rating assessments. Many of those instructed had not been rating surveyors and his members had ended up with nothing.

It was considered by Forum Members that a more transparent system would certainly help in this matter. If ratepayers were better educated in rating matters they would be more aware and be more able to identify such unprofessional advisors. If the Forum succeeded in improving ratepayers’ knowledge of the system and how it works they would be in a better position to make an informed decision on whether their RV is correct. Ratepayers would therefore not need the services of such companies. Ratepayers are more likely to accept their rating payments if it is demonstrated that the rating system is administered fairly and that individual grievances are dealt with properly.

Colin Wills asked if the Agency had colleagues who investigated such people.

Philip Heppell ( RICS ) confirmed that his organisation had looked into these firms, but as they were not part of the RICS they had no control over their practices. Some had been prosecuted, but it was a long process and dependant on the victim going to court. Many people were not prepared to do this. One of the problems was that ratepayers do not understand the intricacies of transition when they receive their rates bill in April.

Transitional Relief

Members agreed that Transitional Relief remained a mystery to them. The point was made that if those who issued the bills had difficulty understanding the process, then how could forum members possibly do so. John Megson said the Government was supposed to be simplifying such matters but felt that the opposite was happening.

Andy Hallows suggested that this could be a topic for a future Forum agenda with perhaps a small discussion group being set up for those who had concerns. Tony Capp added that this was one area that could be discussed at the National forum and even taken up with the ODPM.

Revaluation

In response to a question about the cost of the Revaluation and the subsequent cost of dealing with appeals Colin Snowball replied that the cost of the 2005 Revaluation itself would be approximately £60 million. This money was an investment to produce acceptable first time valuations. Although many appeals were made, over half were withdrawn and the total loss in rateable value in this Group had been relatively modest. The financial and resource cost to deal with these appeals was enormous. The new initiative to provide ratepayers with a summary valuation to help them understand their rateable values would benefit all concerned and would hopefully reduce total costs.

During his presentation on the provision of rental evidence, Andy Hallows undertook to provide a summary of the options available to businesses.

Action Point – Andy Hallows to include with the forum minutes a guide to different ways ratepayers can provide rental information to the VOA.

Provision of Information

John Megson pointed out that small business people did not have a lot of time. They needed to know firstly what their RV was and secondly what the multiplier was. The question was then asked, if the RV goes up does the multiplier stay the same?

Tony Capp confirmed that the RV is based broadly on rental values. The purpose of a revaluation was to ensure that the rates burden was distributed fairly. Overall the total amount collected following the revaluation remained the same in real terms and, in simple terms, if the total rateable value in England increased at a revaluation, the multiplier would be adjusted to ensure that this was the case.

Fred Chapman stated, as he understood it, the Valuation Office were currently doing a ‘guesstimate’ of future rental levels for tax to give to the local authority. The aim of the forum should be to try and change the system.

Tony Capp responded by saying that the rating system was an efficient way to collect tax and that the Government had made it clear that it was satisfied with the rating system. The Forum could look at ways that system might be improved. Colin Snowball said that it was not the role of the forum to consider fundamental changes to the rating process, but to consider ways to improve understanding of what we have already. He also confirmed that the RV’s for the 2005 Revaluation were to be based on actual evidence based on a valuation date of 1^st April 2003 and were therefore not guesstimates of future values.

John Megson said that the only way small business would benefit is that if the RV went up the UBR would have to come down.

Philip Heppell asked that the Forum endorse his request that the Transitional Relief scheme, which is a big problem and needs to be better understood, be put forward as an item for the National Forum. This was agreed.

Any Other Business

None

Colin Snowball thanked everyone for their attendance and contributions to the discussions. The forum agreed that four main topics had been identified for discussion at future meetings. These were:

1.Transition

2.Communications

3.Summary Valuations and

4.Unprofessional agents

It was hoped that forum members would feedback the main messages from this meeting to their membership and following that, further key areas of concern could be identified. It was proposed that a feedback form be included with the minutes, this could be returned to the VOA to highlight these areas of concern. These would then feature on future forum agendas. In the meantime, it was intended that further discussions take place outside the forum to establish exactly what vehicles of communication exist within the organisations represented and therefore what potential this may have for the forum.

Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting will take place in October date to be confirmed.

(Arrangements have now been made to hold the next meeting at the Riverside Stadium Middlesbrough on Wednesday 15 October 2003)