Tribunals · City of London Corporation · 2017 rating list

Vivat Bacchus, 47 Farringdon Street, EC4A 4LL

Restaurant and premises Decided 28 July 2021 CHG100093721 Conneely Tribe - Mr Paul Tribe

OutcomeAllowed in partThe tribunal reduced the rateable value, but by less than the ratepayer sought.
Original RV£109,000
Ratepayer sought£71,750
VO conceded first£85,000−22% before the hearing
Tribunal decided£85,000£182/m²

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 sought a rateable value of £71,750 including a 15% end allowance for quantum, multi-levels and shape, but the Valuation Officer contended that end allowances were no longer appropriate. The tribunal found that whilst previous end allowances reflected legitimate factors (shape, quality, size), the rental evidence from the property and comparable properties supported a value without additional end allowances, and that a further 15% reduction would be unrealistic given the actual use. The appeal was allowed in part, with the RV reduced to £85,000 at a tone of £182/m² for the ground floor.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Vivat Bacchus Ltd, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Rental evidence
  • Comparable assessments (tone)
  • Quantum or end allowance · decisive
Evidence
Rents, Settled assessments
Cases cited
Lotus and Delta v Culverwell (VO) and Leicester City Council [1976] RA 141
Hearing
19 July 2021

Similar decisions

All decisions in City of London Corporation · Pubs, hotels and leisure 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.