Tribunals · Colchester Borough Council · 2017 rating list

118, High Street, CO1 1SZ

Offices and premises Decided 24 May 2022 CHG100457231 Altus Group - Oakland - Manchester

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed and the rateable value was left unchanged.
Original RV£145,000
Ratepayer sought—
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided£145,000

Figures are as stated in the decision; a dash means the document does not state that figure. This decision covers 26 properties; the figures shown are for the first listed.

What was argued and what the tribunal found

The appellants sought a 65% reduction in rateable value for office premises, claiming a material change of circumstances arising from Covid-19 restrictions and their effects on office use and locality. The tribunal dismissed all 26 related appeals, holding that section 1(4) of the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021 clearly prohibited taking account of any matter directly or indirectly attributable to coronavirus. The tribunal found that the Act achieved its intended effect and the statutory exceptions in section 1(5) did not apply to these cases.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Vistra International Expansion Ltd and others, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Change of circumstances · decisive
Change of circumstances
covid
Evidence
Expert report
Cases cited
Clement v Addis Ltd; Chilton-Merryweather v Hunt; Pavlou (Valuation Officer); Financial Conduct Authority v Arch; John Burvill and Gareth David Jones (Valuation Officer); Kendrick (Valuation Officer)
Hearing
18 May 2022

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.