Tribunals · Rushmoor Borough Council

Atm Princes Mead, GU14 6YA

Decided 24 May 2022 27353731 Cluttons

OutcomeDismissed — nobody attended for the ratepayerThe appeal failed and the rateable value was left unchanged.
Original RV—
Ratepayer sought—
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided—

Figures are as stated in the decision; a dash means the document does not state that figure.

What was argued and what the tribunal found

This was one of several hundred ATM-related appeals stayed pending the Supreme Court's Cardtronics judgment. Following the judgment, the tribunal lifted the stay and the Valuation Officer undertook list maintenance. Multiple appeals had been lodged against the same list entries, and after review and discussion, this appeal was considered redundant by the respondent. The appellant did not attend, was not represented, and provided no evidence of an arguable case, leading to dismissal.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was the ratepayer.

Grounds argued

  • Other
Evidence
None from the ratepayer
Cases cited
Cardtronics UK Ltd and Others v Sykes (VO) and Others

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.