Jerry Jezierski v Dennis Patrick Osbourne (Valuations Officer) [electronic resource]
Jerry Jezierski v Dennis Patrick Osbourne (Valuations Officer) [electronic resource]
- 2007
[2006] EWLands RA_27_2006, 14 December 2006. An appeal by the ratepayer, Mr Jerry Jezierski, against the decision of the London South East Valuation Tribunal, confirming the assessment in the 2000 rating list of a shop. Mr Jezierski had no objection in principle to the value of £7,700. However as the result of subsequent events, he wished to pursue his appeal against the Valuation Tribunal's determination and seek a lower valuation. A surveyor approached Mr Jezierski, suggesting that the rates payable on his property were too high and promised to secure a substantial reduction if he were instructed to lodge a proposal. Mr Jezierski was visited by a representative of the Valuation Officer, who wished to re-measure the premises. Subsequently, the Valuation Officer made a proposal to increase the assessment of the appeal hereditament to RV £8,300 based on fact that the re-calculated floor area was greater than that on which the compiled list assessment had been based. Mr Jezierski's argument was that the Valuation Officer has not valued the property having regard to the way the floor space is actually used in connection with his business in alternative medicine. "Held": the appeal hereditament falls to be based on rental evidence and not other rating assessments. The judge found that the rateable value of £7,700 in the list was not excessive.
FUTURES LONDON V STRATFORD
WILLIAM V SCOTTISH AND NEWCASTLE RETAIL
JEZIERSKI V VALUATION OFFICER
LONDON
[2006] EWLands RA_27_2006, 14 December 2006. An appeal by the ratepayer, Mr Jerry Jezierski, against the decision of the London South East Valuation Tribunal, confirming the assessment in the 2000 rating list of a shop. Mr Jezierski had no objection in principle to the value of £7,700. However as the result of subsequent events, he wished to pursue his appeal against the Valuation Tribunal's determination and seek a lower valuation. A surveyor approached Mr Jezierski, suggesting that the rates payable on his property were too high and promised to secure a substantial reduction if he were instructed to lodge a proposal. Mr Jezierski was visited by a representative of the Valuation Officer, who wished to re-measure the premises. Subsequently, the Valuation Officer made a proposal to increase the assessment of the appeal hereditament to RV £8,300 based on fact that the re-calculated floor area was greater than that on which the compiled list assessment had been based. Mr Jezierski's argument was that the Valuation Officer has not valued the property having regard to the way the floor space is actually used in connection with his business in alternative medicine. "Held": the appeal hereditament falls to be based on rental evidence and not other rating assessments. The judge found that the rateable value of £7,700 in the list was not excessive.
FUTURES LONDON V STRATFORD
WILLIAM V SCOTTISH AND NEWCASTLE RETAIL
JEZIERSKI V VALUATION OFFICER
LONDON