11.Under the legislation in force until 1990, there was a distinction drawn between industrial and other property for the purposes of valuation. For non-industrial property, valuation was on the assumption that the hypothetical landlord rather than the tenant was responsible for keeping rateable property in repair.
12.Under the pre-1990 case law, there was an established exception to the assumption that the physical characteristics of a property were to be taken as at the time applicable to the valuation. This exception was that, whatever the actual state of repair of the property, the landlord under the hypothetical tenancy was to be deemed to have put the property in a state of reasonable repair. Thus general disrepair actually in evidence on the property was disregarded. However, although the exception was widely believed to be equally applicable whether the landlord or the tenant was assumed to be responsible for repair under the hypothetical tenancy, the cases which established this were, like the leading case of Wexler v Playle (VO), [1960] 1 Q.B. 217, decided in relation to non-industrial property.
13.Under the present legislation, which came into force on 1st April 1990, it is assumed for the purposes of estimating the rent  that the hypothetical tenant under the assumed tenancy would be responsible for meeting the cost of repairs, and of any other outgoings required to maintain the property (paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 6 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988). It is normal practice for leases of non-domestic property to impose responsibility for repairs on the tenant. Such leases provide the evidence of market rentals which are used for estimating rateable values. When the present legislation was enacted, it was widely assumed that the previous case law in relation to the assumed state of the property would continue to be applicable. The valuation provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 were constructed on this assumption.
14.In the case of  Benjamin v Anston Properties Ltd. mentioned in paragraph 4 above, it was however held by the Lands Tribunal that because the exception mentioned in paragraph 12 above depended on an assumption that it was the hypothetical landlord who had put the property into repair, it was only applicable in cases where the hypothetical landlord was deemed to be responsible for such repair. Thus though the exception had been understood to apply in relation to non-industrial property under the legislation applicable before 1990,  it can on the basis of the decision have no application under the present legislation as all rateable property falls to be valued on the basis that the tenant is responsible for repair.
15.The rating lists compiled in 1990 and 1995 have, however, as under the system that applied before 1990, been compiled on the assumption that the exception applied.
Background Responsibility for repair under the hypothetical tenancy