Tribunals · City of Westminster · 2017 rating list

Bst-4th Flrs 22 Grafton Street, W1S 4EU

Offices and Premises Decided 7 July 2021 CHG100094960 Rupert David Ltd

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed and the rateable value was left unchanged.
Original RV£238,000
Ratepayer sought£236,000
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided£238,000£675/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 10% allowance (reducing RV to £236,000) for the lack of a lift to the 4th floor of the subject property at 22 Grafton Street, London. The tribunal found that the rent passing of £550,000 p.a. (analysed at £1,349/m² but adopted at £675/m²) supported the existing valuation, and that when the lease was signed in March 2015, both parties would have accounted for the absence of a lift to the 4th floor. The tribunal noted that comparable properties with similar unlifted characteristics or where lifts did not extend to upper floors attracted allowances, but the subject property had a lift to the third floor, and therefore no allowance was warranted. The appeal was dismissed.

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

Grounds argued

  • Rental evidence
  • Quantum or end allowance
Evidence
Rents, Settled assessments
Cases cited
Lotus and Delta v Culverwell; Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson; Simpson Malt Limited & Others v Mr Craig Jones & Others
Hearing
10 June 2021

Similar decisions

All decisions in City of Westminster · 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 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.