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
The appellant failed to file statements of case and did not attend or send a representative to the hearing. The Valuation Officer argued there was no case to answer. The tribunal, finding a serious failure to comply with directions and no substantive argument disputing the rateable value, dismissed the appeal and upheld the entry in the 2010 non-domestic rating list.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was the ratepayer, unrepresented.
Grounds argued
- Other
- Evidence
- None from the ratepayer
Similar decisions
- CAR PARKING SPACES (19) OPP, Wigan Metropolitan Development Co Ltd, WN3 5BA — Dismissed, 28 May 2025
- Martland 100, Martland Park,, Challenge Way,, Challenge Way,, WN5 0LD — Allowed in part, 8 May 2025
- Savers, 6 Leigh Arcade, WN1 1AJ — Allowed in part, 21 Jun 2024
- Centre For Dentistry At Sainsburys, Parsonage Retail Park Parsonage Way, WN7 5SJ — Dismissed, 3 Mar 2023
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 propertyThe tribunal’s decision in full
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.