Tribunals · Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council · 2017 rating list

Unit Gf01, Resorts World, B40 1PU

Restaurant and premises Decided 11 May 2023 CHG100442499 Gerald Eve LLP - CCA

OutcomeAllowed in partThe tribunal reduced the rateable value, but by less than the ratepayer sought.
Original RV£119,000£315/m²
Ratepayer sought£58,500
VO conceded first£98,000−18% before the hearing
Tribunal decided£64,500£190/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 argued the rateable value should be reduced to £155/m² (£58,500) based on the actual rent passing on the property. The tribunal found that while the subject rent was the starting point per Lotus & Delta, it should not be the only evidence. The tribunal accepted the respondent's rental analysis of £190/m² but rejected the lower figure of £155/m² as unsupported. The tribunal was persuaded by the subject rent analysed at £190/m² rather than the tone of the list based on incomparable shop units. It upheld two agreed 5% allowances, resulting in a final RV of £64,500.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was The Big Table Group Limited, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Rental evidence · decisive
  • Comparable assessments (tone)
Evidence
Rents, tone_of_list_comparables
Cases cited
Lotus & Delta Ltd v Culverwell; K Shoe Shops Limited v Hardy; R F Williams v Scottish & Newcastle Retail Ltd
Hearing
28 February 2023

Similar decisions

All decisions in Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council · 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.