Tribunals · Birmingham City Council · 2023 rating list

UNIT 2A, FORT SHOPPING PARK, FORT PARKWAY, FORT PARKWAY, B24 9FP

Retail warehouse and premises Decided 7 July 2026 CHG101256702 Ryan Property Tax Services UK Limited

OutcomeAllowedThe tribunal reduced the rateable value.
Original RV£36,250£400/m²
Ratepayer sought£18,250
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided£18,250£200/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 an RV of £36,250 (£400/m²) on a retail warehouse, arguing for £18,250 (£200/m²). The tribunal found the appellant's comparable property evidence from the West Midlands, derived from actual leases close to the antecedent valuation date, more persuasive than the VO's limited comparables from Fort Shopping Centre. The tribunal noted the VO had not demonstrated that a £400/m² tone applied consistently to all properties under 100m² and found that percentage decreases in comparable properties between rating lists supported a lower tone. The tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the current assessment unreasonable and adopting a tone of £200/m².

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

Grounds argued

  • Comparable assessments (tone) · decisive
  • Rental evidence
Evidence
Rents, Settled assessments
Cases cited
Lotus and Delta v Culverwell; Lamb v Minards; Lamb v Go Outdoors; Gardiner and Theobald v Jackson
Hearing
8 June 2026

Similar decisions

All decisions in Birmingham City Council · Shops 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.