Tribunals · Liverpool City Council · 2017 rating list

Kays Medical, 1 Windward Drive, L24 8QR

Warehouse and Premises Decided 6 April 2021 CHG100140508 Colliers International - Sophie Attwood

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed and the rateable value was left unchanged.
Original RV£228,000£45/m²
Ratepayer sought£176,000
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided£228,000£45/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 contended the rateable value of £228,000 (£45/m²) was excessive and should be reduced to £176,000 (£40/m²), arguing for a reduction due to high office content and comparable evidence. The tribunal examined rental evidence from comparable properties in the same locality, finding the Valuation Officer's comparable properties were more reliable as they were in close proximity to the subject property and of similar age and construction. The tribunal concluded the £45/m² rate was not excessive, found no substantive evidence warranting an allowance for high office content, and dismissed the appeal, placing the burden of proof on the appellant to demonstrate a reduction was warranted.

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

Grounds argued

  • Comparable assessments (tone) · decisive
  • Quantum or end allowance
Evidence
Rents, Settled assessments
Cases cited
Lotus and Delta v Culverwell; Denton v TH White Ltd
Hearing
10 March 2021

Similar decisions

All decisions in Liverpool City Council · Industrial and warehouses 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.