[2000] EWLands RA_273_1996 (24 May 2000)	RA/272-273/1996
	
	LANDS TRIBUNAL ACT 1949
	
RATING - costs - appeal allowed by consent - appellants fully successful although reduction in rateable value small - valuation officer’s misunderstanding of facts - held no reason why appellants should not have their costs

IN THE MATTER OF  AN APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE
	SOMERSET VALUATION TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN	BURTON GROUP PLC	Appellant

	and
		
	TERENCE KENNETH EDMUND RAPPS 	Respondent
	(Valuation Officer)

	Re:	Shop and Premises
	14 Vicarage Walk
	The Quedam
	Yeovil
	Somerset 

	and	Shop and Premises
	15 Middle Street
	Yeovil
	Somerset  

	Before: The President

The following cases are referred to in this decision:

Jafton Properties Ltd v Prisk (VO [1997] RA 137
Hospital Plan Insurance Services Ltd v Persaud (VO) [1998] RA 230.

DECISION

1.	These consolidated appeals relate to two shop premises, 14 Vicarage Walk and 15 Middle Street, Yeovil.  They were entered in the rating list at rateable values of £63,800 and £38,300 respectively.  Appeals arising from proposals made by the appellants to reduce these assessments were heard by the Somerset Valuation Tribunal on 30 May 1996.  At that hearing the point at issue in each case was the ground advanced in the proposal - that the end- allowance which the valuation officer had given for air-conditioning was insufficient.  In their decision of 31 July 1996 the valuation tribunal upheld the values for which the valuation officer had contended at the hearing, that is to say £63,800 in the case of 14 Vicarage Walk and £37,500 in the case of 15 Middle Street.  
2.	In their statement of case in this Tribunal the appellants contended for reductions to £63,200 and £37,100.  The valuation officer now accepts that these are indeed the correct figures in view of the nature of the air-conditioning systems in the premises.  The sole issue between the parties is as to the costs of this appeal.  I have considered the written submissions made by each of them.  The appellants ask for their costs, on the basis that they have been fully successful in achieving the reductions.  The respondent argues that each party should bear its own costs.  Referring to the decisions of this Tribunal in Jafton Properties Ltd v Prisk (VO) [1997] RA 137 and Hospital Plan Insurance Services Ltd v Persaud (VO) [1998] RA 230, he says that the reductions that are now agreed are minimal - of the order of 1% below the VT decision.  Moreover, he says, the reductions that he now agrees are appropriate only because there has been a change in the facts as they were understood to be.  His understanding had been that the air-conditioning systems were “full” systems, but an inspection of the premises by his expert after these appeals had been brought revealed that at the material day they had been only “partial” systems.
3.	It does not seem to me that the change in the respondent’s understanding about the nature of the air-conditioning systems provides any basis for depriving the appellants of their costs if it would be otherwise appropriate that they should have them.  In their statement of case in relation to 14 Vicarage Walk, the appellants said at paragraph 10:
“The ground floor of the said shop unit has the benefit of air conditioning, of a type known as a ‘ducted’ system, with fans and compressor etc in a first floor plant room.  The first floor retail area has only ‘comfort cooling’ provided by a single Hitachi cassette unit fixed to the ceiling and with a heat pump in the plant room.”
In his reply the respondent said at paragraph 12:
“Paragraph 10 of the Statement of Case is admitted.  It is understood that the air conditioning system referred to was installed by the Appellant in 1989.”
The appellants’ statement of case in relation to 15 Middle Street said this at paragraph 10:
“The ground floor of the said shop unit has the benefit of a ‘comfort cooling’ system of air conditioning provided by two Hitachi cassette units fixed to the ceiling and with two heat pumps fixed to the exterior rear ground floor wall.”
In his reply the respondent said at paragraph 11:
“Paragraph 10 of the Statement of Case is admitted.  It is understood that the air conditioning system referred to was installed by the Appellant in 1988.”
4.	These descriptions of the air-conditioning systems were precisely the same as those that had been agreed between the parties for the purposes of the VT hearing.  There is no suggestion on the part of the respondent  that they are now to be regarded as wrong.  What he says is that he had understood that the systems were full and had valued them on that basis and that the appellants had never given any indication to the contrary.  The agreed descriptions, however, appear to me to be describing partial systems; but even if that were not the case, the fact is that the respondent had the opportunity at any time to inspect what was there and to make inquiries about what was there at the material date.  There is nothing before me to suggest that he was misled by the appellants in any way at all.
5.	While the amount of the reduction now agreed by the respondent is small it is the whole of the reduction for which the appellants contended.  I can see no reason to conclude that the appellants should not have appealed to this Tribunal but should have put up with assessments that were wrong.  They were justified in appealing and their appeals are fully successful.  The smallness of the amount at stake is no reason to deny them their costs, although, if there is an assessment, costs will only be allowed which are proportionate to the matters in issue.  The appeals are allowed and the rateable values in the list must be altered to £63,200 in the case of 14 Vicarage Walk and £37,100 in the case of 15 Middle Street.  The respondent will pay the appellant’s costs of the appeals.  Such costs, if not agreed, will be the subject of a detailed assessment on the standard basis by the Registrar of the Lands Tribunal in accordance with Rule 44.4 and 44.7 of the Civil Procedure Rules.  The procedure laid down in Rule 52 of the Lands Tribunal Rules 1996 will apply to such detailed assessment.
				
				Dated: 24 May 2000
				
				(Signed) George Bartlett QC, President