Figures are as stated in the decision, and are values in the 2017 list; a dash means the document does not state that figure.
What was argued and what the tribunal found
The appellant disputed the VO's contention that the proposal was invalid because the appellant had not correctly identified the property and was not an interested person in the property specified by the Billing Authority reference number. The tribunal examined both the VO's maps and the appellant's Land Registry documentation and concluded that both parties had identified the same property as being occupied by the appellant's company, albeit under different addresses due to address anomalies in the rating records. The tribunal found that the appellant had made his intention clear as to which property he wished to appeal against, and accordingly determined the proposal to be validly made against the property actually occupied.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was Gilcrest Manufacturing Ltd, represented.
Grounds argued
- Validity of the proposal
- Evidence
- None from the ratepayer
- Hearing
- 19 February 2021
Similar decisions
- Unit 1A Mendalgief Retail Park, Docks Way, Newport NP20 2NY — Allowed in part, 5 Mar 2025
- Shop and Premises, 27 High Street, Newport, NP20 1GH — Dismissed, 5 Mar 2020
- Shop and Premises, 138 Commercial Street, Newport, NP20 2PH — Dismissed, 5 Mar 2020
- Shop and Premises, 138 Commercial Street, Newport, NP20 2PH — Dismissed, 5 Mar 2020
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 of the Valuation Tribunal for Wales, published at valuationtribunalwales.net and reproduced unaltered. This site does not index the names of private individuals that appear in decisions. Information, not advice.