FIFTH FLOOR BLUE FIN BUILDING, 110 SOUTHWARK STREET, SE1 0SU
Offices and premises Decided 6 January 2025 CHG100731900 Altus Group - Oakland - Manchester
Figures are as stated in the decision; a dash means the document does not state that figure. This decision covers 2 properties; the figures shown are for the first listed.
What was argued and what the tribunal found
The appellants argued the Valuation Officer's tone of value of £490 per m² for main space was not justified and sought a reduction to £460 per m². The tribunal found the respondent had applied a blanket tone inconsistently across properties in the building of varying sizes, with some larger units also assessed at £490 per m² despite the claimed size-based rationale. The tribunal concluded the tone of value should be reduced to £460 per m² in line with the VO's own agreed reduction for a comparable floor in the same building, resulting in revised RVs of £440,000 and £262,500 for the fifth and twelfth floors respectively.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Confirmit Ltd, represented.
Grounds argued
- Comparable assessments (tone) · decisive
- Evidence
- Rents, Settled assessments
- Cases cited
- Lotus and Delta Ltd v Culverwell; Denton v TH White Ltd
- Hearing
- 12 December 2024
Similar decisions
- GND FL 96-108, GREAT SUFFOLK STREET,, SE1 0BE — Allowed, 25 Nov 2025
- 2 ND FL 96-108, GREAT SUFFOLK STREET,, SE1 0BE — Allowed, 25 Nov 2025
- The Salvation Army, 101 Newington Causeway, SE1 6BN — Allowed, 12 Nov 2025
- Lotus Group Ltd, 37-39 Queen Elizabeth Street, SE1 2BT — Dismissed, 30 Oct 2025
All decisions in London Borough of Southwark · 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 propertyThe tribunal’s decision in full
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.