Image from Google Jackets

Voyle v Ashby (VO)

Language: English Series: Rating & Valuation Reporter ; (1991) 31 RVR 101-102(2)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: LT 5 April 1991. An appeal by the occupier V of a shop in a city centre against the decision of a valuation and community charge tribunal reducing their assessment from £9,555 rv to £7,409. The sole issue was the amount by which the assessment should be reduced due to building works connected with construction of a new shopping centre . A claimed £5,100 gv. A had occupied the hereditament temporarily while developers were finishing the permanent alternative accommodation . The disruption from building works included the boarding up of display windows to protect customers, the collapse of a basement wall and flooding, drains blocked by concrete, lack of access to rear of building, cutting off of mains water and electricity on occasions and the pavement being subject to excavations. The VO held that A had not suffered as badly as other people over the demolition work and supported a 12.5% allowance which was consistent with that allowed to other shops. LT held that 12.5% was not a big
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS44762 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 48956-1001

LT 5 April 1991. An appeal by the occupier V of a shop in a city centre against the decision of a valuation and community charge tribunal reducing their assessment from £9,555 rv to £7,409. The sole issue was the amount by which the assessment should be reduced due to building works connected with construction of a new shopping centre . A claimed £5,100 gv. A had occupied the hereditament temporarily while developers were finishing the permanent alternative accommodation . The disruption from building works included the boarding up of display windows to protect customers, the collapse of a basement wall and flooding, drains blocked by concrete, lack of access to rear of building, cutting off of mains water and electricity on occasions and the pavement being subject to excavations. The VO held that A had not suffered as badly as other people over the demolition work and supported a 12.5% allowance which was consistent with that allowed to other shops. LT held that 12.5% was not a big