Hammond Associates Ltd

04/09/2026

04/09/2026

Last couple of days we've had a great time at the IRRV Scottish Conference. In a few weeks we are at the Annual Conference in Telford - find us there on Stand No 59.
Pic of Jayne Smith Paul Hammond Kelda Ralston warming up for the many conversations about regenerating urban areas through meanwhile use.

01/09/2026

01/09/2026

So, today is Hammond Associates Golf Day at Gleneagles. We have 5 teams out there today. Good luck to all. Hope the weather holds!

01/09/2026

Ooh! Interesting

27/08/2026

Please help support Pyramid of Arts

Help artists like Alfie continue creating for years to come at Pyramid!

27/08/2026

Lovely idea!

An award-winning sculpture park has transformed a vacant high street shop into an art gallery for young people

26/08/2026

Calling Stoke Creatives!
We have empty space for artists and creative people to use in Stoke Potteries Shopping Centre. We have a range of sizes of space. This is a great opportunity to access free or cheap to use space for a few months or a few years.

Contact us (we are working with arts charities) and let us know what you want to do in the space. Studio, exhibition, rehearsal or maybe you have some other creative use in mind.
email,ann@hammondassociates or send us a dm.

.scotland

16/08/2026

Important case law decision. This should make a difference for property owners considering their options for making beneficial to the community use of empty space. Paul Hammond Jayne Smith

There is clearly a chance that POLL will get permission to appeal to the Supreme Court but for now the judgment is the decisive statement of the correct legal position.

The key conclusion is at [83]:
“In conclusion, I would allow the appeal and overrule POLL v Trafford. Section 45(1) of the 1988 Act and regulations 4(a) and (b) and 5 of the 2008 Regulations do not have the effect that the placement of items in an otherwise unoccupied hereditament amounts to occupation where the sole aim of doing so is to generate occupation for the purposes of those provisions, there is no commercial or business purpose save for rate mitigation, and the putative occupation is “beneficial” only due to the claimed rate mitigation benefits”

This means that all future box shifting schemes with redundant contents can no longer receive any reset under reg 5 for reg 4a purposes. Lady Justice Falk also gave a clear steer on other avoidance schemes at [82]:

“What I have said so far relates to what I have termed a pure rate mitigation occupation scheme. That is what this case relates to, and Mr Forsdick rightly made it clear that CoL are not seeking to challenge other forms of box shifting scheme in this litigation, such as those considered in Makro and PHE v Harlow. As to that I will confine myself to one comment, which is this. It is a well-established part of the Ramsay principle that a commercially irrelevant contingency or condition included in a scheme in order to secure a fiscal advantage can be ignored: see Inland Revenue Comrs v Scottish Provident Institution [2004] UKHL 52, [2004] 1 WLR 3172 at [23] (referred to in Rossendale at [12]) and UBS at [85]. The potential application of this aspect of Ramsay outside a tax context will need to be considered in due course”

It also seems that Bluetooth schemes etc. should no longer be effective.
Interesting times!