Tribunals · London Borough of Richmond upon Thames · 2017 rating list

Scope A T Ltd, 97-99 Kew Road, TW9 2PN

Office and premises Decided 20 December 2024 CHG100694776 Hampton Lovett - Alexander Stevenson

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed, leaving the value at the figure the Valuation Officer had already conceded.
Original RV£60,000£300/m²
Ratepayer sought£43,500
VO conceded first£57,500−4% before the hearing
Tribunal decided£57,500£300/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, a company, argued that the base rate should be reduced from £300/m² to £255/m² citing three comparable properties from the same scheme and CoStar rental data, whilst challenging the quality of the property and its location relative to Richmond Station. The tribunal found the VO's comparable properties more persuasive, particularly those close to Richmond Station which analysed to considerably higher rates (£363.1/m² to £390.13/m²), and concluded there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate the rateable value was unreasonable. The appeal was dismissed with the RV confirmed at £57,500 (which had already been reduced from the original £60,000 due to area corrections).

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Scope AT Ltd, unrepresented.

Grounds argued

  • Comparable assessments (tone)
  • Rental evidence
Evidence
Rents, Settled assessments
Cases cited
Lotus and Delta v Culverwell
Hearing
26 November 2024

Similar decisions

All decisions in London Borough of Richmond upon Thames · 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.