Tribunals · Leicester City Council · 2017 rating list

GND & 1ST FLR 1, COLTON SQUARE, LE1 1QH

Office and premises Decided 13 January 2025 CHG101067751 Altus Group - Oakland - Manchester

OutcomeAllowed in partThe tribunal reduced the rateable value, but by less than the ratepayer sought.
Original RV£231,000£120/m²
Ratepayer sought£212,000
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided£221,000£115/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 challenged the rateable value of £231,000 for an office property, arguing it should be valued at £212,000 with a main space price of £110/m2 rather than the original £120/m2, citing a quantum allowance for larger properties. The tribunal found that comparable evidence, particularly two offices in Arnhem House differing by £10/m2 despite the larger one being larger in size, supported the appellant's argument for a quantum allowance. However, the tribunal determined the main space price should be £115/m2 rather than the £110/m2 sought, as the appellant had not sufficiently proved the full reduction was purely attributable to quantum allowance, resulting in a tribunal RV of £221,000.

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

Grounds argued

  • Comparable assessments (tone)
  • Quantum or end allowance
Evidence
Rents, Settled assessments
Cases cited
Lotus and Delta v Culverwell; Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson
Hearing
6 January 2025

Similar decisions

All decisions in Leicester City Council · 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.