Tribunals · London Borough of Waltham Forest · 2010 rating list

Unit 6 Cork Tree Way Hall Lane, London, E4 8JA

Car Park and Premises Decided 24 March 2021 25030440 Autohouse Associates

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed and the rateable value was left unchanged.
Original RV£4,400
Ratepayer sought£225,000
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided£4,400

Figures are as stated in the decision; a dash means the document does not state that figure. This decision covers 3 properties; the figures shown are for the first listed.

What was argued and what the tribunal found

The appellant sought to merge three separately assessed hereditaments (car park, workshop/service centre, and showroom) into a single assessment at £225,000 RV, arguing strong functional connection and relying on the Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Act 2018. The tribunal found the three units were not contiguous as each was separated by service/public access roads with no internal access between them, failing both the geographic test established in Mazars and the statutory contiguity definition in section 64(3ZD). The appeals were dismissed and the separate assessments upheld.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Group 1 Automotive, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Split or merge the assessment · decisive
Evidence
rental_evidence, Earlier tribunal decisions
Cases cited
Woolway (VO) v Mazars LLP [2015] UKSC 53; J Evans (VO) v RLM Packaging Ltd [2003]
Hearing
25 February 2021

Similar decisions

All decisions in London Borough of Waltham Forest · Shops nationally

Is your own rateable value in line?

A free check compares a property with the assessments around it and says plainly whether there is anything worth pursuing.

Check a property

The tribunal’s decision in full

Download the PDF · Find it on valuationtribunal.gov.uk

Decision © Crown copyright, published by the Valuation Tribunal Service under the Open Government Licence v3.0 and reproduced unaltered. This site does not index the names of private individuals that appear in decisions. Information, not advice.