5 TH FLR 1, BARTHOLOMEW LANE, EC2N 2AX
Office and premises Decided 10 September 2026 CHG101322773 Ryan Property Tax Services UK Limited
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 contended the rateable value of £390,000 (based on a main space price of £550/m²) was excessive and proposed £355,000 (£469.20/m²), arguing there should be no allowance for fit out costs. The tribunal found the VO's evidence more reliable, accepting that a refresh of the property added value justifying an additional £50/m² for fit out. The tribunal was satisfied that a tone of £550/m² had been established for the office block, supported by comparable rental evidence from the Third Floor at the same property, and dismissed the appeal.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was NPLUS SINGER ADVISORY LLP, represented.
Grounds argued
- Rental evidence
- Comparable assessments (tone) · decisive
- Valuation method
- Evidence
- Rents, Settled assessments
- Cases cited
- Lotus and Delta v Culverwell; Dawn Bunyan (VO) v Acenden Limited; Hitchings (VO) v Shoosmiths LLP and another company; Gardiner & Theobald LLP v David Jackson (VO)
- Hearing
- 20 August 2026
Similar decisions
- Ropes & Gray International Llp, 5th Floor South, EC4M 7AW — Dismissed, 20 Jul 2026
- Petronas Energy Trading Ltd, Petronas Energy Trading Ltd, EC4M 7AW — Dismissed, 20 Jul 2026
- Equistone Partners Europe Limited, PT 6TH FLR 60 Ludgate Hill, EC4M 7AW — Dismissed, 20 Jul 2026
- Ropes & Gray International Llp, 4th Floor, EC4M 7AW — Dismissed, 20 Jul 2026
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 propertyThe tribunal’s decision in full
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.