Question 1
How do you believe the Government should strike the balance in the 2023 transitional arrangements between supporting ratepayers facing increases to their bills and allowing the effect of the revaluation to flow through into bills?
- As we said in our response to the 2017 consultation, we see the need for a transition scheme to help businesses adjust to new bills. At that time we did not express a view on either of the schemes on which the Government consulted.
- We note that on this occasion the Government is consulting on the principles of a scheme rather than on any specific scheme. We understand that there is a balance to be struck but do not have any particular views on how this should be achieved.
Question 2
What format of transitional relief do you think should be provided for the 2023 revaluation?
Question 3
Do you think that we should continue to provide assurances through transitional relief that bills will not rise by more than a set percentage due to the revaluation?
Question 4
Do you think we should provide different caps for different sizes of properties?
- As stated above we do not have a view on the format of transitional relief. We can see the point of any scheme being simple. A scheme like that adopted in 2017 had the advantage that it was in a format familiar to ratepayers. However any scheme this time will have to take into account that the next revaluation is scheduled for 2026.
- Some ratepayers may find it more difficult than others to adjust to new bills and caps could take account of that.
Question 5
What are you views on how we should fund transitional relief within the requirement for the Government to have regard to the object of securing (so far as practicable) that the scheme is revenue neutral over its life?
Question 6
Do you have any other views on the format of the transitional arrangements for the 2023 revaluation?
- We do not have a view on how transitional relief should be funded. We note that the arrangements adopted in 2017 provided for higher caps on downward reductions for smaller businesses and relatively lower caps for reductions for medium sized and larger businesses, with the result that the latter took more time to reach their new bills.
- We note that with the three-year revaluation the chances of those subject to downward caps not reaching their substantive rateable value during the currency of the list are higher, so that the alternative discussed, of a supplement on business rates, might be attractive, but it is up to the Government to take a view on this; we will not express a specific preference.
- We would also expect that, in common with previous schemes, that councils should be fully compensated for the effect of revaluation and transitional relief and that any administrative costs for local government of either the main scheme or any supplementary schemes should be fully covered under the New Burdens doctrine.
- Finally we would reiterate the point that any relief, whether the statutory transitional relief scheme or any reliefs as in 2017, should all be announced at the same time when the provisional draft list and the draft multiplier are announced.