Lay My Hat

Good afternoon all,
I wondered if anyone knew if we pay two sets of business rates on two flats which are in the same property? Each is on its own title but it is a house that was split in two. I wasn't sure if it is counted as one business?
Thanks,

Our single property in England is split into three. We live in one part and the other two are holiday lets. We are rated (but don't pay because they are rated below £15K) for business rates one the lets.

Jonathan

Thank you for responding, this gives me hope. Are the properties on a single title?

warby002 wrote:Thank you for responding, this gives me hope. Are the properties on a single title?

They each have a separate name but share the rest of our address. If you are referring to the land registry off-hand I don't know. The building was divided into three in 1950, long before we bought it.

Because it is one building we also benefit from an hotel TV licence that covers all three for the cost of a standard licence. We even got a refund from them when I discovered that it covers our domestic use as well as the lets. Over £500 - not many people get money back from them!

Jonathan

That is very helpful thank you Jonathan.

We bought No11 in 2017 (?) and are steadily converting it to apartments 11a, 11b and 11c - the latter is incomplete.

In our 18 month battle with VOA to get it rated they firstly rated a and b as two separate premises so they could claw the domestic rates back off us as we needed the 70 days qualification, then they decided to amalgamate the two as "Holiday lets at No11" so that we could only claim one 10K grant!!!

The reasoning being that the two were contiguous apartments.

Detail here if you can be bothered to digest it ....

The first element to any valuation is determining what the hereditament is, for the self-catering properties that are known as 11a and 11b this in my opinion is straight forward, it is the two apartments which were converted from the former Victoria Hotel (11c is still under redevelopment)

They form one hereditament. From the plan they are situated in the same building on separate floors. This is the first consideration when determining what forms the hereditament.

They are contiguous as they are within the same curtilage, however by nature of self-contained holiday lets I appreciate that there is no inter-connection between the two units.

Rating is a tax on property arising from the occupation of land and property and the identification of the hereditament is inextricably bound up with the concept of rateable occupation,

The concept of rateable occupation was developed to determine whether an occupier of a property was liable to pay rates as a consequence of that occupation. This was considered in LCC v Wilkins (VO) (CA) [1957] and having regard to earlier cases set out the four necessary ingredients for rateable occupation.

‘First, there must be an actual occupation;

Secondly, that it must be exclusive for the purposes of the possessor;

Thirdly, that the possession must be of some value or benefit to the possessor; and

Fourthly, the possession must be for not to transient a period’

In my opinion the rateable occupier is yourself, you own the two apartments with the sole purpose of achieving an income by letting on a short term holiday basis. With regards to the test noted above, as I appreciate that you do not physically occupy the apartments, you do occupy for the purpose of letting to achieve an income. You won and occupy for the exclusive purpose of letting the apartments to achieve an income which is the third test of benefit, your occupation is not short term or transient in period.

That's a useful insight, thank you.