J.P. Scrafton practises law in the areas of rating, compulsory purchase and property valuation, and has been involved in some landmark cases that define modern property taxation.
Further, as a qualified arbitrator and mediator, J.P. Scrafton seeks cost effective solutions to any dispute, maximising the benefit to clients.
VALUATION TRIBUNAL FOR ENGLAND PRACTICE STATEMENT A7.1 TO BE OVERHAULED - DRASTICALLY!
Following extensive consultations focused on the Valuation Tribunal Users' Group (of which J P Scrafton is a member), the President of the Valuation Tribunal for England has announced that there will be sweeping changes to this Practice Statement, which covers the disclosure and exchange of information in rating appeals.
Watch the presentation >>>
Understanding Rating Practice
HOW WILL YOU TAKE YOUR LAW, SIR? (Part 3)
Insight article, Scrafton's Law, April 2013
The time has come to wrap up this miniseries; and, while I do not claim any credit for having influenced thinking in any particular way, I notice a heightened interest in seeking answers. This means litigation, of course, in which I acknowledge a professional interest; but as no individual will be involved, usually, in more than a few cases on any particular issue, it indicates to me that people are having the courage of their convictions, and fighting for what they believe to be right. This is equally true of all parties.
Of course, there are those who bully, and those who give in, as well as those who come up with some less-than-convincing arguments, like this one from a recent magistrates’ court Council Tax hearing which I witnessed. The billing authority’s advocate demanded a liability order; but when pressed to give a reason for this, could reply only that he must have one and had to have it: there was nothing about Reg 34(6) of the Collection and Enforcement Regulations, as to the sum claimed becoming due and payable and remaining unpaid. There were other omissions, too. He did not get his order, I might say. As far as the bullying is concerned, there was the authority which, very recently, tried to claim that the ratepayer was under a duty to inform the Council of changes in occupation (which they were not!), going on to say, somewhat forcefully, that, for this reason, the abatement sought would not be granted and it served the ratepayer jolly well right.
