Tribunals · City of London Corporation · 2017 rating list

OFFICE D 2ND FLR, 100 LIVERPOOL STREET, EC2M 2AT

Office and premises Decided 26 March 2025 CHG101058580 Knight Frank - Bjorn Bowles

OutcomeAllowed in partThe tribunal reduced the rateable value, but by less than the ratepayer sought.
Original RV—£600/m²
Ratepayer sought—
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided£299,000£550/m²

Figures are as stated in the decision; a dash means the document does not state that figure. This decision covers 14 properties; the figures shown are for the first listed.

What was argued and what the tribunal found

The appellant challenged the 2017 rating list valuation of offices at 100 Liverpool Street London, arguing the basis of value should be reduced from £600/m² to £515/m². The tribunal found the VO's valuation at £600/m² was excessive, particularly when compared with comparable properties including 5 Broadgate (£515/m²) and 20 Gresham Street (£535/m²), and reduced the basis of value to £550/m². For the Part 1st Floor space (CHG101058665), which lacked natural light and had poor access, the tribunal granted a 15% allowance for lack of natural light and 5% allowance for access, finding it should not be valued the same as main office space.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was British Land T/A Storey, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Comparable assessments (tone) · decisive
  • Rental evidence
Evidence
Rents, Settled assessments, Expert report
Cases cited
Lotus and Delta v Culverwell
Hearing
3 March 2025

Similar decisions

All decisions in City of London Corporation · 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.