Menu
The decision of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) in Saintta Global Lawyers (UK) Ltd v Ricketts (VO) [2021] UKUT 0242 (LC) concerned a small first floor office suite in Chinatown, London and was an appeal against the decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England (VTE), which had dismissed the appellant’s appeal and confirmed the assessment at the compiled 2017 list figure of RV £23,000.
The appellant sought a reduction to RV £14,000. The decision notes that, while the Valuation Officer (VO) declined to alter the complied list assessment of £23,000 during the check and challenge steps under the 2017 List regulations, and successfully defended that figure before the VTE, before the Upper Tribunal the VO accepted that the compiled list assessment was slightly high. In his opinion the correct level of assessment was RV £21,750.
The appellant said that the appeal property was held on a lease of five years which ended in June 2019 at a rent of £21,000, plus a service charge and insurance contribution. There had been a previous lease from June 2011 at a rent of £16,800. Both leases were contracted out of the security of tenure provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Neither side could produce a copy of the lease and, whilst the evidence was slightly at odds with the rent return form submitted by the ratepayer, the VO did not dispute what was said.
The assessment was based on a rate of £500 per square metre and the appellant sought a reduction to £300 per square metre, based on the assessments of other offices in the locality. In support of his valuation of £21,750 (based on £475 per square metre), the VO relied upon the rent passing on the appeal property, together with evidence of rents on 17 comparable office properties. In his view, a tone of this rating list had not yet been established, and therefore he did not place weight on other rating assessments as evidence.
The Upper Tribunal preferred the approach taken by the VO and considered his adjustments of the rental evidence for first floor against second floor, and for central heating and air-conditioning, were reasonable ones. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the VO’s assessment at £475 per sqm was reasonable, and not inconsistent with the actual rent on the appeal property of £431 per sqm set ten months before the antecedent valuation date in a rising market.
The UTLC allowed the appeal to the extent that the assessment was reduced, as the VO had sought, from RV 23,000 to RV 21,750.
Whilst this was a straightforward case, concerning a relatively low rateable value and was dealt with under the Tribunal’s simplified procedure, the decision does emphasise the importance of having regard to appropriate rental evidence, particularly when dealing with a hereditament situated in an area that shows significantly different rental levels depending on location.
