Free news & data alerts
Log in
Tribunals · London Borough of Camden · 2017 rating list

2nd Floor, 120 Holborn, EC1N 2TD

Office and premises Decided 1 July 2026 CHG100112253 Cluttons

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed, leaving the value at the figure the Valuation Officer had already conceded.
Original RV · 2017 list£881,500
Ratepayer sought£827,500
VO conceded first£880,000−0% before the hearing
Tribunal decided£881,500from 1 Apr 2017

Figures are as stated in the decision, and are values in the 2017 list; a dash means the document does not state that figure. This judgement decided 2 properties together; the figures above are for this appeal's property (2ND FLOOR, 120 HOLBORN, LONDON EC1N 2TD). Every property is listed below.

The 2 properties in this decision

One judgement covered all of these appeals. Each property’s figures as the judgement states them (2017 list); this appeal’s property is highlighted.

The properties covered by this tribunal decision, with the figures it states for each
PropertyOriginal RVSoughtTribunal decidedOutcome
2ND FLOOR, 120 HOLBORN, LONDON EC1N 2TDThis appeal£881,500£827,500£881,500Dismissed
3RD FLOOR, 120 HOLBORN, LONDON EC1N 2TD£820,000£770,000£820,000Allowed in part

What was argued and what the tribunal found

The appellant challenged the rateable values of two office floors at 120 Holborn, originally proposing £827,500 and £770,000 based on £470/m² tone, arguing that 280 High Holborn established a comparable tone of value. The VO defended £881,500 and £820,000 based on £500/m² and post-AVD rents, as well as settled assessments for other floors. The tribunal dismissed appeal 1 (2nd Floor) finding the £500/m² tone was supported by settled agreements and withdrawn challenges for other floors in the building, but allowed appeal 2 (3rd Floor) in part, reducing it to £820,000 due to a revised floor area measurement of 1,641m².

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

Grounds argued

  • Comparable assessments (tone) · decisive
  • Rental evidence
Evidence
Rents, Settled assessments
Cases cited
Lotus and Delta v Culverwell; Futures (London) Ltd v Stratford (VO); Specialeyes Plc v Felgate (VO); Flight Centre (UK) limited v Ricketts (VO); Pointer v Norwich Assessment Committee
Hearing
5 June 2026

Similar decisions

All decisions in London Borough of Camden · 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.