Free news & data alerts
Log in
Tribunals · Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

Unit 4 Metroplex, 230 Red Lion Road, KT6 7QB

Industrial units with offices above Decided 23 February 2025 VT00025548 MUA Property Services

OutcomeAllowed in partThe tribunal reduced the rateable value, but by less than the ratepayer sought.
Original RV—
Ratepayer sought—
VO conceded first—
Tribunal decided—from 1 Nov 2024

Figures are as stated in the decision; a dash means the document does not state that figure. This judgement decided 9 properties together; the figures above are for this appeal's property (Unit 4 Metroplex, 230 Red Lion Road, Surbiton KT6 7QB). Every property is listed below.

The 9 properties in this decision

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

The properties covered by this tribunal decision, with the figures it states for each
PropertyOriginal RVSoughtTribunal decidedOutcome
Unit 1 Metroplex, 230 Red Lion Road, Surbiton KT6 7QB———Allowed in part
Unit 2 Metroplex, 230 Red Lion Road, Surbiton KT6 7QB———Allowed in part
Unit 3 Metroplex, 230 Red Lion Road, Surbiton KT6 7QB———Allowed in part
Unit 4 Metroplex, 230 Red Lion Road, Surbiton KT6 7QBThis appeal———Allowed in part
Unit 5 Metroplex, 230 Red Lion Road, Surbiton KT6 7QB———Allowed in part
Unit 6 Metroplex, 230 Red Lion Road, Surbiton KT6 7QB———Allowed in part
Unit 7 Metroplex, 230 Red Lion Road, Surbiton KT6 7QB———Allowed in part
Unit 8 Metroplex, 230 Red Lion Road, Surbiton KT6 7QB———Allowed in part
Unit 9 Metroplex, 230 Red Lion Road, Surbiton KT6 7QB———Allowed in part

What was argued and what the tribunal found

The appellant company appealed against completion notices served on 1 August 2024 with completion dates of 12 August 2024. The appellant contended that the subject properties (nine industrial units) could not reasonably be completed within eleven days as significant works including lighting, communications, racking, partitions, heating and facilities were outstanding. The tribunal found the properties were not complete when the notices were served and, considering evidence of similar properties and the practical time required for completion works, determined that a reasonable completion date was 1 November 2024—three months from the date of service—rather than the 12 August 2024 originally proposed.

Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was CB Tolworth Investments LLB, represented.

Grounds argued

  • Validity of the proposal
Evidence
Photographs, Expert report
Cases cited
London Borough of Newham v Rad Phase 1 Type B Property Company No.1 Ltd [2020] UKUT203 (LC); Aviva Investors Property Developments Ltd v Whitby (VO) [2013] UKUT 0430 (LC)
Hearing
24 January 2025

Similar decisions

All decisions in Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames · Industrial and warehouses 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.