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 challenged the rateable value of £8,100, arguing that the property's location at the tail end of the commercial street and marketing difficulties since November 2016 justified a reduction to £4,200. The appellant submitted historical rental evidence (£350–£750 per month) and a letter from the letting agent confirming the property's poor commercial positioning. The tribunal found that the statutory definition of rateable value requires the property to be valued as vacant and to let, and that an individual occupier's trading circumstances cannot be considered. The tribunal was persuaded by the Valuation Officer's evidence of a zone A rate of £125/m2 (reflecting the property's poorer location compared to £140/m2 for better-located properties) and by the passing rent of £9,000 per annum achieved in July 2015, which exceeded the rateable value. The appeal was dismissed.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was an individual ratepayer, unrepresented.
Grounds argued
- Rental evidence
- Comparable assessments (tone) · decisive
- Evidence
- Rents, Expert report
- Cases cited
- Lotus and Delta v Culverwell; Vines Limited v de Mauny
- Hearing
- 15 March 2019
Similar decisions
- Shop and Premises, 15 Lion Street, Brecon LD3 7HY — Dismissed, 17 Mar 2020
- Shop & Premises, 10 Market Street, Newtown SY16 2PQ — Dismissed, 19 Nov 2019
- Shop & Premises, 5 Penrallt Street, Machynlleth SY20 8AG — Dismissed, 19 Nov 2019
- Shop & Premises, 8 Broad Street, Newtown SY16 1LU — Dismissed, 19 Nov 2019
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.