Tribunals · London Borough of Camden · 2017 rating list

4TH & 5TH FLRS 27, GREVILLE STREET, EC1N 8SU

Offices and premises Decided 7 March 2025 CHG100869330 Altus Group - Oakland - Manchester

OutcomeDismissedThe appeal failed, leaving the value at the figure the Valuation Officer had already conceded.
Original RV£86,500£500/m²
Ratepayer sought£69,250
VO conceded first£82,500−5% before the hearing
Tribunal decided£82,500£475/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 that the rateable value was excessive, relying on comparables in converted industrial buildings on Greville Street and Saffron Hill, which supported a lower value. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's comparables may have been based on incorrect information and did not adequately reflect refurbishment. The tribunal placed greater weight on rental evidence from comparable properties close to the antecedent valuation date, particularly 5th Floor Diamond House at £534.02 per m², and on the tone of unchallenged valuations within the same building at £475 per m², concluding that the rateable value of £82,500 was not excessive.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Miller Rosenfalck LLP, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Rental evidence
  • Comparable assessments (tone)
Evidence
Rents, Settled assessments
Cases cited
Lotus and Delta v Culverwell; Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson
Hearing
19 February 2025

Similar decisions

All decisions in London Borough of Camden · 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.