Free news & data alerts
Log in
Tribunals · London Borough of Hackney · 2017 rating list

Ground Floor North, 40 Clifton Street, EC2A 4DX

Offices and premises Decided 30 April 2026 CHG101248455 Knight Frank

OutcomeAllowed in partThe tribunal reduced the rateable value, but by less than the ratepayer sought.
Original RV · 2017 list£43,250
Ratepayer sought£34,250
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided—from 1 Jun 2021

Figures are as stated in the decision, and are values in the 2017 list; a dash means the document does not state that figure. This judgement decided 7 properties together; the figures above are for this appeal's property (GND FLR NORTH 40, CLIFTON STREET, LONDON, EC2A 4DX). Every property is listed below.

The 7 properties in this decision

One judgement covered all of these appeals. Each property’s figures as the judgement states them (2017 list); this appeal’s property is highlighted.

The properties covered by this tribunal decision, with the figures it states for each
PropertyOriginal RVSoughtTribunal decidedOutcome
BST NORTH & SOUTH 40, CLIFTON STREET, LONDON, EC2A 4DX£69,500—£69,500Dismissed
GND FLR NORTH 40, CLIFTON STREET, LONDON, EC2A 4DXThis appeal£43,250£34,250—Allowed in part
GND FLR SOUTH 40, CLIFTON STREET, LONDON, EC2A 4DX£114,000£95,500—Allowed in part
1ST FLR NORTH 40, CLIFTON STREET, LONDON, EC2A 4DX£70,500£59,500—Allowed in part
2ND FLR NORTH 40, CLIFTON STREET, LONDON, EC2A 4DX£74,000£66,000—Allowed in part
3RD FLR NORTH 40, CLIFTON STREET, LONDON, EC2A 4DX£75,500£70,500£75,500Dismissed
4TH FLR 40, CLIFTON STREET, LONDON, EC2A 4DX£162,000£155,000£162,000Dismissed

What was argued and what the tribunal found

The appellant sought end allowances for disturbance caused by a street market opening directly in front of the property, claiming 15% for ground floor, 11.5% for first floor and 6.5% for second floor, plus 1.5% amenity loss. The tribunal found the market had a negative impact on the property, affecting lettability and requiring increased pest control, and awarded 5% allowance for ground floors (as most affected), 3% for first floor and 2% for second floor. The tribunal rejected the appellant's requested allowances as too severe and did not accept the 1.5% amenity allowance for loss of parking spaces as the property had its own basement parking.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was LAUREL BROOK II LTD, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Change of circumstances · decisive
  • Quantum or end allowance
Change of circumstances
street market disturbance
Evidence
Expert report, Photographs, Settled assessments
Cases cited
Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson (VO) [2018] UKUT 0253 (LC); Simpsons Malt Ltd and Other v Jones (VO) UKUT [2017] 460; Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] 1 WLR 3926; Garton v Hunter [1968]
Hearing
31 March 2026

Similar decisions

All decisions in London Borough of Hackney · 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.