Outliers & Interlopers
A proposal to the Assessor of the Highland & Western Isles Valuation Joint Board.
🔥 Hot off the Article 79 press…
PROPOSAL
9 February 2026
Highland & Western Isles Valuation Joint Board
Entry #: 01/14/045030/6
Description: Camping Sites
Address: [Redacted]
Proprietor: [Redacted]
Net Annual Value: £100
Rateable Value: £100
Effective Date: 01-APR-24
New/Improved Mark: Newly Built
SAA Practice Note: Licenced Touring Caravan & Camping Sites M17-23.
Link to Entry on SAA.gov.uk
Outcome Sought: Deletion of entry from the Valuation Roll
STATEMENT OF GROUNDS
SECTION 1 – Illegality, Procedural Impropriety & “Wednesbury” Irrationality
The entry is void ab initio as the decision is ultra vires due to, (1) unlawful processing of personal data, (2) the decision was unlawfully made or unduly influenced by the unauthorised or unwarranted dictate of another person or agent of a body corporate, (3) it is a procedural impropriety due to bias and malice, and (4) the decision is so irrational and unreasonable that no reasonable person (or independent Assessor) acting reasonably could have made it.
1. GROUND 1 – Unlawful Processing of Personal Data
1.1 The entry is based on unlawfully processed data of the appellant and is currently under consideration in Inverness Sheriff Court, INV-SM11-25. The Assessor of Highland & Western Isles Valuation Joint Board, Frank Finlayson is the 1st Respondent, the de jure data controller and The Highland Council is the 2nd Respondent, the purported processor or de facto data controller. The claim is an action under s.167 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) seeking a compliance order under Articles 15, 17(1)(d),19 including an interim order under Article 18 of the GDPR.
1.2 Claim INV-SM11-25 is a follow on claim from INV-SM2-24. INV-SM2-24 was a successful action by the appellant under s.167 of the DPA 2018 against The Highland Council. A s.167 compliance order was granted in favour of the appellant on 7 May 2025 under Articles 15, 16 and 18 GDPR. Further orders granted in favour of the proprietor was an extension of restriction of processing on 24 October 2025 and uncapped expenses under s.81(5)(a)(III) and (5)(b) of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 on 8 July 2025.
1.3 The genesis data was unlawfully obtained and further processed by the Assessor via (1) data obtained from third party sources by intrusive means wherein the Assessor has no legal mandate expressly laid down in law to obtain that data, (2) planning data unlawfully transferred to him by agents of the Highland Council and further processed by the Assessor that is under court ordered restriction and (3) data supplied to him by agents of the Highland Council that they obtained via unlawful surveillance of the appellant in violation of Article 8 ECHR.
1.4 The Assessor of the Highland & Western Isles Valuation Joint Board as a data controller is knowingly operating in systemic non-compliance with Chapter IV of the GDPR, infringing Articles 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30 and 32 undermining the lawfulness of the entirety of his statutory duties to compile and maintain the Valuation Roll and Council Tax List for the whole of the region.
2. GROUND 2 - Lack of Statutory Independence of the Assessor & Undue Influence by Agent of a Constituent Authority
2.1 Scheme of Delegation & Institutional Capture
2.1.1 The appellant made a formal complaint to the Assessor on 30 October 2025 highlighting serious governance matters relating to the Scheme of Reference & Delegation of the HWIVJB. On comparative analysis of the HWIVJB scheme to a sample of 5 other VJB’s around Scotland, the HWIVJB scheme is a notable outlier, delegating all authority over the Assessors’ legal affairs to a single officer of the Highland Council, Stewart Fraser, in his capacity as Chief Officer of Legal and Corporate Governance and Clerk to the HWIVJB. The monitoring officer(s) of the HWIVJB being subordinates to that officer in their roles at the Highland Council who also rely on that same officer for all legal advice and guidance in the performance of their duties as they are not themselves legally qualified. A clear departure from separation of powers required for a fit and lawful governance model.
2.1.2 The same officer, Stewart Fraser, is subject to an ongoing Scottish Legal Complaints Commission complaint lodged in March 2025 due to his role in the claim INV-SM2-24 and surrounding retaliatory and unreasonable behaviour during that claim and ongoing in his multiple roles at the Highland Council & HWIVJB. Summary of grounds of that complaint served on him 14 August 2025 are (1) breach of Rule B2.1.3 conflict of interest and related, (2) failing to prevent misuse of the appellants personal data, and (3) attempting to disadvantage a party litigant by retaliatory actions in the course of litigation.
2.1.3 The same officer, as evidenced in a letter dated 10 October 2025 just prior to the entry having been made has exerted undue influence over the decision-making of the Assessor in relation to the entry under challenge and two other related entries in an effort to continue to harass the appellant and his family. That officer now acting to his own personal and his employer’s interest to the detriment of the Assessors’ interests, given that the Assessors' authority over his own legal affairs having been improperly delegated by the Board to an interloper usurping the independence of the Assessors’ statutory office.
3. GROUND 3 - Procedural Impropriety: Motivated by Bias and Malice
3.1 Background
3.1.1 It is important to point out that the Appellant has a long history with the Council and that includes numerous false allegations amounting to harassment of the Appellant over an 18 year period. The claim INV-SM2-24 against the Highland Council began after they failed to respond to Appellants subject access request of 15 March 2023. Planning officer, Aidan Brennan wrote the Appellant a letter alleging an “unauthorised business” was being run from the property in January 2023. However, the Council refused to state the nature of any alleged “unauthorised business”. The Council’s solicitor later admitted on 10 January 2025 in court in INV-SM2-24 that the Council did not know the nature of any business and were still “investigating”. After court orders were granted in that action and further personal data disclosed in June 2025, it came to light that the alleged unauthorised business that was reported by a neighbour occurred in October of 2021. No camping at the property even took place at the property until late 2022 therefore, the nature of any unauthorised business still remains a mystery. Evidence supplied.
3.1.2 Appellant submits that the Council were not pleased firstly, that the Appellant raised a court action against them in March 2024 over data rights issues and secondly, that the Council’s deception over the alleged unauthorised business had been uncovered via court ordered disclosures of personal data. Their senior officer chose to retaliate by weaponising his control over the machinery of the Assessors’ office in the manner he has out of vindictiveness that has characterised Appellants entire experience with the Council throughout the years. The Council also have recent history involving retaliatory behaviour such as towards a whistleblower in conjunction with the McNicholas Employment Tribunal amongst others. Evidence supplied.
3.2 Recent Events Leading to the Entry onto the Valuation Roll
3.2.1 On 17 September 2025, appellant sent the Assessor a “letter before action” due to him having failed to comply with the appellants data rights under Article 15, 18, 21(1) GDPR via requests sent a year previous on 25 September 2024.
3.2.2 On 4 October 2025, the Depute Assessor, Roy Christie stated in correspondence disclosed via FOI to the Highland Council that there was a “high chance” of legal action being taken against the Assessor due in part to the lack of data processing agreement (Article 28(3) GDPR) between the Assessor and the Highland Council.
3.2.3 On 7 October 2025, the HWIVJB treasurer and Highland Council's Finance Officer, Brian Porter made a material misstatement on the HWIVJB’s Annual Governance Statement submitted to their external auditor stating he “disclosed all known instances of non-compliance or suspected non-compliance with laws and regulations whose effects should be considered when preparing financial statements” and that all known and potential legal claims had been disclosed.
3.2.4 On 10 October 2025, the 8 page letter was sent to the appellant, heavily relying on “legal advice” from Mr. Fraser stating they would continue to process the data despite it being under dispute. On 14 October 2025, the above entry along with two others onto the council tax list were made using the data under dispute.
3.2.5 Appellant raised the current claim, INV-SM11-25 against the Assessor and the Highland Council on 27 October 2025.
3.2.6 Appellant submits that the further processing of data in dispute and administrative decisions made to make those entries on the valuation roll and council tax were motivated by bias, malice and undue influence by Mr. Fraser.
3.2.7 A key piece of evidence of bias malice is in the character of the entry itself outlined below.
4. GROUND 4 - “Wednesbury” Unreasonableness
4.1 The Facts of the Property
4.1.1 Appellants land is a registered croft with mixed use of woodland and agriculture. The area pertaining to the entry is an unfenced, unimproved area of grass with no temporary or permanent structures with no facilities. The area is largely used by the Appellants wife for domestic and recreational purposes, tent camping herself there for many weeks out of each year.
4.1.2 In late 2022, the Appellants wife began allowing John O’ Groat trail walkers pitch a tent there on their passing through after the influx in tourism around the NC500 after Covid. She allows people to book ahead, a single tent pitch only on Airbnb or word of mouth. The most nights ever used as such in a single year was 19 nights, one year as few as 1 night. Campers must arrive with everything they need and take all their rubbish away – more akin to wild camping. This information was all provided in detail to the Assessor.
4.1.3 Within a 15 mile radius of the property, there are several crofters and community groups offering similar via sites such as PitchUp or money boxes and QR codes, many available and used all throughout the summer and none of these properties, quite rightly, are on the valuation roll. Evidence supplied.
4.1.4 However, the unreasonableness is even more evident by examining what is on the valuation roll rather than what is not, which the Appellant summarises further below.
4.2 The Characteristics of the Entry
4.2.1 The entry is currently 1 of 129 total entries on the Valuation Roll in the category “Camping Sites” in “Leisure, Entertainment, Caravans & Holiday Sites” in all of Scotland.
4.2.2 Out of those 129 entries, the appellants entry currently has the lowest “rateable value” in all of Scotland in that category of RV £100.
4.2.3 The next lowest in rateable value in that category on the HWIVJB valuation list is RV £300 on the Isle of Canna, “Canna Campsite” that has 2 camping pods, a cabin, multiple tent pitches with full facilities, an 8 bed bunkhouse and 2 caravans which has the total capacity to generate £750 per night between all accommodations assuming 4 booked tent pitches.
4.2.4 The third lowest in rateable value in that category on the HWIVJB valuation list is RV £500 on the Isle of Barra, “Barra Sands Campsite” that has glamping pods, numerous pitches for tents, caravans, campervans and motorhomes with and without electric hook-ups with full facilities including a laundry and two blocks of showers and toilets.
4.2.5 Given the Appellants 28 day limit for total days they could book a single pitch at £20 if they wished per The T&C (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, it would total a potential £560 per year. The disparity between the Appellants property and the Canna or Barra properties and their “rateable value” and characteristics alone is stark.
4.2.6 The Appellants entry is the only entry in all of Scotland that has neither temporary nor permanent structures or facilities of any kind.
4.2.7 Appellants refer to the lists of all entries in that same category supplied. The appellants can demonstrate that the decision by the Assessor is irrational purely by the act of his attempting to create a “class of one”.
4.2.8 Every single entry on the HWIVJB valuation roll in that category that does not have structures such as a camping pods or other type of sheltered accommodation, is a typical camp site with permanent building(s) providing facilities such as toilets, showers or kitchen/laundry or dining facilities. This is also true for the rest of the entire valuation roll in that category throughout Scotland. The Appellants property is literally an area of unimproved grass on a crofting unit.
4.2.9 If any of the 13 other Assessors in Scotland thought it would be reasonable to make such an entry of this description onto the valuation roll, it would be very evident on the roll and is the ultimate evidence of the irrationality of this entry. The Appellants property currently stands as a total outlier in all of Scotland as a whole. The Appellant’s entry is not merely the lowest value in Scotland; it is a legal anomaly. The Assessor has not identified a rateable subject; he has fabricated a ‘class of one’ to facilitate the Highland Council’s targeted harassment of the Appellant.
SECTION 2 – Statutory Non-Rateability, Misdescription, and Failure of Valuation Merits
5. GROUND 5 - Statutory Exclusion: Agricultural Exemption & Lack of Permanence
5.1 Agricultural Character & Exemption
5.1.1 The subject is a small portion of an agricultural field. Under s.7 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956, agricultural lands and heritages are excluded from the valuation roll. The primary nature of the land remains agricultural; it is undeveloped, not serviced, and has no permanent structures. The temporary presence of a tent does not divest the land of its agricultural character.
5.2 Lack of Permanence and Change of Use
5.2.1 For a subject to be entered onto the valuation roll, it must exhibit a degree of permanence. The Appellant’s use of the land is transient and seasonal. There are no pitch markings, fences, enclosures, infrastructure, buildings, hard standings etc.
5.2.2 The use of the land for camping is limited to less than 3 weeks per year. Under the “de minimis” principle, such fleeting use is insufficient to trigger a “change of use” from agricultural to non-domestic.
5.2.3 Note the “New/Improved Mark” in the valuation roll entry stating “Newly Built”. There is nothing “built” nor “improved” at the property relating to the entry.
5.3 Absence of Commercial Entity
5.3.1 The entry is described under SAA Practice Note M17 (Licenced Touring Caravan & Camping Sites). This is a gross misdescription.
5.3.2 The subject is not “licenced” nor is it capable of being licenced under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, as it possesses zero facilities.
5.3.3 The Assessor has failed to identify any "commercial subject." A patch of grass without services is not a "site" in the context of the Valuation Roll; it is merely a field.
5.4 Lack of Uniformity & Targeted Enforcement
5.4.1 The appellant identified other locations nearby which operate active similar sites, of varying facilities and longer operating seasons, yet remain correctly excluded from the Roll as agricultural or domestic pertinents. The Appellant clearly highlights the disparity in the existing roll, that the Appellants property is being treated as a “class of one”. The entry of this specific patch of grass, the only one involved in active litigation against the Assessor, is a breach of the principle of fairness and uniformity in valuation.