Robert Dyas Holdings Limited v J Moore

In rating valuation, the actual rent of the hereditament is ordinarily the proper starting point where it was agreed close to the antecedent valuation date and reflects the statutory hypothesis. Comparable rents and assessments must nevertheless be assessed according to their reliability and comparability.

Rental concessions require a fact-sensitive analysis. Time reasonably needed for fitting out is not necessarily an incentive, and any remaining incentive should be amortised over the period justified by the evidence. A purported tone of the list cannot displace reliable rental evidence merely because assessments have remained unchallenged under the check, challenge and appeal regime.

Robert Dyas Holdings Limited appealed against a decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England dated 30 August 2024. The tribunal had reduced the 2017 rating-list assessment of its Hemel Hempstead distribution warehouse from £880,000 to £875,000.

The appellant relied principally on the 2014 letting of the property and a comparable letting to Amazon. The valuation officer contended that the actual rent was affected by concessions and that a settled tone of comparable assessments should prevail. The central issues were the weighting and analysis of rental evidence, rental growth, the existence of a tone of the list, and the appropriate end allowance.

1. Appeal allowed. The assessment was determined at a rateable value of £825,000.

2. The statutory valuation hypothesis in Local Government Finance Act 1988, Schedule 6 required the tribunal to begin with rental evidence available to the hypothetical tenant at the antecedent valuation date. The actual rent was a particularly important starting point. Comparable rents could confirm or qualify it, while comparable assessments were relevant but did not automatically prevail. The tribunal applied the guidance in Lotus and Delta Limited v Culverwell (VO) and Leicester City Council [1976] RA 141 flexibly and with focus on the statutory hypothesis.

3. Only the property rent and the Amazon letting supplied useful evidence. The tribunal excluded or gave no weight to other transactions because they were too remote from the valuation date, materially different, inadequately evidenced, or affected by a review mechanism that did not reveal market rent.

4. The rental concessions were not wholly incentives. The evidence supported a three-month fitting-out period at both properties. The remaining concession on the property rent should be spread over the ten-year term, rather than an arbitrary shorter period. This produced an analysed property rent of £57.43 per square metre, compared with £65.71 per square metre for Amazon.

5. There was insufficient evidence that rents had grown between the two lettings and the antecedent valuation date. The appropriate main-space rate was therefore £65.75 per square metre. The introduction of check, challenge and appeal had also made the stages by which a tone of the list becomes established less clear-cut. The apparent pattern of assessments could not outweigh the reliable rental evidence.

6. The Amazon unit was an appropriate superior baseline. The 12.6% difference between the analysed rents represented the property’s disadvantages and was adopted as the end allowance. Applying that allowance, then adding plant and machinery, produced £827,118, rounded to £825,000.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): allowed the appeal and determined the assessment at £825,000: [2025] UKUT 163 (LC).
• Valuation Tribunal for England: on 30 August 2024 reduced the assessment from £880,000 to £875,000.