Menu
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has confirmed the assessment of Rateable Value £68,000 determined by the Valuation Tribunal for England in respect of a First Floor office suite at 10 Ely Place in Holborn, central London. The ratepayer’s appeal against the VTE’s determination in the case of ELS International Lawyers LLP v Prekopp (VO) (2016) UKUT 0423 (LC) was dismissed.
The appellant ratepayer contended that the value of the offices should be valued at £270 per square metre based upon the rents and rating assessments of other offices in Ely Place and on comparisons with rents of other offices in surrounding streets. Allowing an addition of 5% for the comfort cooling installed in the offices, the ratepayer contended that the assessment should be reduced from RV £68,000 to RV £56,000.
The respondent Valuation Officer contended that the value should be increased from RV £68,000 to RV £74,500 based on a value of £360 per square metre, again with a 5% addition for comfort cooling. To support this figure the Valuation Officer referred to rents and assessments of a number of other offices in Ely Place.
The Tribunal’s decision reviewed all the comparisons referred to by the parties but declined to attribute any significant weight to the rent of the appeal property because the letting occurred more than three and a half years after the relevant valuation date. The Tribunal considered that the evidence showed that, other things being equal, rents for offices in Ely Place were higher than those for offices in other, nearby, streets referred to in evidence by the parties. The Tribunal found little assistance from the rating assessments of other offices referred to by the parties.
The ratepayer’s evidence did not support the view that the assessment determined by the VTE was excessive and, as the onus was on the appellant to show that the original decision was incorrect, the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal did not accept the Valuation Officer’s view that the assessment should be increased and was “not convinced that he has shown that the ratepayers on his schedule actually agreed or withdrew appeals on the basis of £360 per square metre”.
The Tribunal also expressed concern about the Forms of Return relied upon by the Valuation Officer and the summary valuations shown on the VOA website, finding that the wording of the forms of return “invited ambiguity” and that the valuations shown on the VOA website “lacked transparency”. This had the effect of disadvantaging ratepayers and might well lead to fruitless appeals.
Whilst the valuation issues concerned in this decision are of purely local interest, many valuers will share the Tribunal’s concern that evidence from forms of return should not be relied upon unconditionally, and that the valuations shown on the VOA website are in many cases opaque – even to experienced rating valuers. The Tribunal expressed a hope that the new “Check, Challenge, Appeal” regime, to be introduced next year, might help remedy these problems. Our concern about these new proposals, which we have set out in these news pages, is that they are likely to make the matters complained of by the Tribunal worse, rather than better.
