Tribunals · Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council · 2017 rating list

MULTI­STOREY CAR PARK, THE SQUARE, HIGH STREET, ST5 1PT

Multistorey Car Park and premises Decided 11 March 2024 CHG100840000 Altus Group - Oakland - Manchester

OutcomeAllowedThe tribunal reduced the rateable value.
Original RV£166,000
Ratepayer sought£89,750
VO conceded first£150,000−10% before the hearing
Tribunal decided£89,750from 1 Apr 2017

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 challenged the VO's valuation of a 299-space multi-storey car park using a receipts and expenditure method. The VO had applied a 65% split of divisible balance while the appellant proposed 50%. The tribunal found the appellant's adopted figures for both gross receipts (£425,000) and expenses (£233,150) more reasonable, as they were closer to the actual accounts and better reflected the experienced operator's realistic costs. Following the BNPPDS precedent, the tribunal applied a 50/50 split of the £181,850 divisible balance, determining an RV of £89,750.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was KRNS Properties Limited, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Valuation method
  • Trading receipts (pubs, hotels) · decisive
Evidence
Trading accounts, Settled assessments
Cases cited
BNPPDS Limited & BNPPDS Limited (Jersey) as Trustees for Blackrock UK Property Fund [2022] UKUT 129 (LC); Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson (VO) [2018] UKUT 0253 (LC)
Hearing
14 February 2024

Similar decisions

All decisions in Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council ·

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.