Tribunals · Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council · 2017 rating list

ADVERTISING SITE 0403 0148 AT 92 HIGH STREET, Maltby, Maltby, S66 7BN

Advertising rights and premises - digital display bus shelter Decided 14 November 2024 CHG101096154 Montagu Evans - Richard Wackett

OutcomeAllowed in partThe tribunal reduced the rateable value, but by less than the ratepayer sought.
Original RV—
Ratepayer sought£1,035
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided£2,550from 20 Aug 2020

Figures are as stated in the decision; a dash means the document does not state that figure. This decision covers 21 properties; the figures shown are for the first listed.

What was argued and what the tribunal found

The appellant contended that digital advertising displays at bus shelters should be valued using the VOA scheme for static displays without uplift, arguing the digital mechanism was not rateable. The tribunal found that whilst a digital display warrants an uplift over static displays due to heightened exposure and effectiveness, the VO's multiplier of six was excessive and unsubstantiated. The tribunal determined a multiplier of three against the base rates was fair and reasonable.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Alight Bus Shelter Media Limited, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Valuation method · decisive
Evidence
Settled assessments, Expert report
Cases cited
Lotus and Delta v Culverwell; Fir Mill Ltd v Royton UD; J C Decaux UK Ltd ME v Valuation Officer; Alight Bus Shelter Media Limited v Valuation Officer
Hearing
31 October 2024

Similar decisions

All decisions in Rotherham Metropolitan 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.