Greater transparency will be critical to the success of future business rate revaluations

Right now, there are seismic changes underway to the £25 billion tax that seek to modernise the business rates system in England. The Non-Domestic Rating bill – a reform which aims to better align property values with more current economic conditions and redistribute the relative burden of the tax more often – will shift revaluations from every five years to three years - a key ask of ratepayers.

But when looking at the reforms as they currently stand, Altus Group experts are concerned that a potential lack of meaningful transparency could undermine the Government’s overall attempt to make future valuations fairer, more open and more trustworthy. With these concerns in mind, we have filed our formal response to the Government’s consultation seeking greater transparency which is fit for purpose including what the disclosure of information on future business rates valuations should look like and when that should take place.

From a starting point, we fully accept that more frequent revaluations will require trade-offs. Overall, the reward for more transparent and accurate lists which are revalued more frequently, with a swifter appeals system so that incorrect assessments are resolved quicker than it currently takes, is certainly worth the administrative burden that the new reporting duties will place upon ratepayers moving forward.

From the start of the 2026 compiled rating list, a ratepayer’s right to Challenge will be radically limited from what it is now and has been in previous lists. Ratepayers historically had the duration of a list to lodge an ‘appeal’ against their rateable value. But this is moving to a six-month cut off window, and then curtailed even further to just three-months from 2029.

The Government’s commitment to greater transparency is one of the centre pieces to the reforms – and yet, the Government has not (at this stage) clearly set out their preferred approach as to what information and when that information will be given to ratepayers to fully understand and analyse how future rateable values have been set. If information and the release of data pertaining to business rates valuations becomes watered down and/or does not become available in time for the 2026 revaluation, this bill will inadvertently undermine confidence in the system and potentially lead to meritorious Challenges effectively being statute barred.

The time-limit makes sense with a much shorter condensed cycle, as it may help to ensure that Challenges are resolved within the life of each list, rather than overrunning into subsequent lists, as is currently the case. But Challenges will need to be prepared and submitted in a very short space of time. Therefore, to meet that very tight deadline, greater transparency is a critical and vital component. Without it, the objectives of the reforms won’t be met. Such transparency must have, at its core, the data obtained from occupiers and owners rather than the conclusions simply drawn by the Valuation Office Agency as previously envisaged and stated in Government policy.

In simple terms, it is imperative that ratepayers can access information and data on how their rateable values have been set as early as possible. There can be no selective disclosure. Ratepayers must be able to understand the analysis and evidence upon which future rateable values are based as well as see the valuation schemes.

Yet, as things stand, there is no statutory clarity on these points. To be precise, the current wording in the bill amounts only to a mere aspiration to communicate such information. As the Government previously said transparency will be developed and embedded when possible, adding “the Government does, however, aspire to make greater transparency available at future draft lists stage and will explore the feasibility of doing so.”

It goes without saying that this is a vague and a rather lacklustre assurance when considering the overall basket of reforms. What is clear to Altus is that the reforms cannot fall short of creating an equitable system in time for the 2026 Challenge window. It cannot be fair to limit the right of an ‘appeal’ without the commitment – enshrined in law – to provide the ratepayer with the information and data that will help them to fully understand if an ‘appeal’ is appropriate or not.

With this in mind, the Government must set the date for releasing all transparency information and data alongside publication of the draft lists is no later than 31st of the December of the preceding year to future revaluations coming into effect (or earlier if the draft list is released prior). This will give ratepayers – and their advisors – a few extra months to fully understand how their new rateable values have been arrived at and to determine if an ‘appeal’ is appropriate or not. After all, speculative Challenges are not good for either party involved in process and would weigh heavily on the dynamism of system. With this in mind, evidence needs to be both collated and analysed to give ratepayers time to make reasoned, intelligent decisions so that formal Challenges are rigorous, sensible and appropriately meritorious.

It's also worth adding that while transparency has been highlighted as part of the Government’s aims and objectives in these reforms, there is another weak point in the bill before Parliament. At present, when ratepayers request information, a (fairly ill-defined) clause in the bill states that it can be held back on the basis of data protection laws. This caveat is of particular concern because it could potentially be used as a smokescreen to justify the withholding of critical rental information. Moreover, if a Challenge proceeds to Appeal and ends up before a Tribunal, the VOA have to provide both the data and evidence it relies upon in an open, public hearing which is then published within a written judgment for all to see. If data protection isn’t a barrier to disclosure at that point, then it shouldn’t be at all in the earlier stages of the process. 

There is also no consequence for the Government in not providing information to ratepayers. These wider reforms have introduced sanctions – penalties, and worse – if a ratepayer fails to notify of changes to a property within 60 days of that event. But if it is possible to set deadlines in tablets or stone for ratepayers, it should be reasonable to expect everyone, including the Government, to make clear commitments to their own roles and responsibilities – directed by legislation – to establish a level playing field.