12th Floor, Aviva Building, St Helen's 1, St Helen's 1, EC3A 8EE
Office Decided 12 November 2020 CHG100031223 Savills - London
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 challenged the rateable value of its occupied office space, arguing for a rate of £425/m2 based on rental analysis of a new lease, citing comparisons with other City towers. The Respondent had reduced the original rate from £500/m2 to £460/m2 at challenge stage. The tribunal found that while the appellant's analysis of the new letting on the 13th floor was sound, the best evidence came from the new letting on the 4th floor (analysed by the VO at £431/m2), and concluded that £435/m2 was appropriate, being lower than the VO's £460/m2 but higher than the appellant's £425/m2, reflecting the prime location and building quality.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Munich Re UK Services Limited, represented.
Grounds argued
- Comparable assessments (tone)
- Rental evidence
- Evidence
- Rents
- Cases cited
- Lotus & Delta Ltd v Culverwell
- Hearing
- 19 October 2020
Similar decisions
- 5 TH FLR 1, BARTHOLOMEW LANE, EC2N 2AX — Dismissed, 10 Sept 2026
- Petronas Energy Trading Ltd, Petronas Energy Trading Ltd, EC4M 7AW — Dismissed, 20 Jul 2026
- Equistone Partners Europe Limited, PT 6TH FLR 60 Ludgate Hill, EC4M 7AW — Dismissed, 20 Jul 2026
- Ropes & Gray International Llp, 5th Floor South, EC4M 7AW — Dismissed, 20 Jul 2026
All decisions in City of London Corporation · Offices 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 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.