Tribunals · London Borough of Camden · 2017 rating list

3 -5 CAXTON WALK, WC2H 8HD

Restaurant and premises Decided 22 December 2021 CHG100100431 Altus Group - Oakland - Manchester

OutcomeAllowedThe tribunal reduced the rateable value.
Original RV£164,000£1250/m²
Ratepayer sought£85,000
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided£85,000£650/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 challenged the rateable value of a restaurant and premises on Caxton Walk, London, arguing that the valuation adopted too high a rate per square metre. The Valuation Officer had reduced the RV from £164,000 to £100,000 (at £765/m²) but the tribunal found the Appellant's proposed rate of £650/m² more appropriate, relying primarily on the passing rent of £82,500 per annum from the subject property itself, which was set at a 2014 rent review, as the best evidence available in the basket of comparables. The tribunal found that the Officer's sole comparable (24 Cambridge Circus) was significantly larger and in a different location, making it unreliable for comparison. The appeal was allowed and the RV was set at £85,000.

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

Grounds argued

  • Comparable assessments (tone) · decisive
  • Rental evidence
Evidence
Rents, tone_of_list_comparables
Cases cited
Gardiner & Theobald LLP v Jackson (VO) [2018] UKUT 0253 (LC)
Hearing
23 November 2021

Similar decisions

All decisions in London Borough of Camden · 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.