Image from Google Jackets

Turner v Coleman (VO)

Language: English Series: Rating Appeals ; 1992 RA 228-234(4)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: LT 14 July 1992. The property in question was a mooring and land with frontage to a river and access from the rear. On the land there was a timber chalet and garden shed which were used for storage. The land was used as a garden, lawn, flowers beds and vegetable patch. The property was used by the owners for picnics and leisure in the summer. The property was included in the local non-domestic rating list as mooring, land and premises assessed, pursuant to a decision of the VCCT, at £800 rateable value. The appellant claimed that the hereditament should be deleted from the list because it was a domestic property and that the valuation should be reduced to £500. The valuation officer conceeded that the chalet was domestic propert as articles of domestic equipment were stored in it but that the remainder of the site was non-domestic. The appeal was held in favour of the VO, although the description was changed to `mooring, land and premises (part)`, on the grounds that the property was
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS47352 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 61712-1001

LT 14 July 1992. The property in question was a mooring and land with frontage to a river and access from the rear. On the land there was a timber chalet and garden shed which were used for storage. The land was used as a garden, lawn, flowers beds and vegetable patch. The property was used by the owners for picnics and leisure in the summer. The property was included in the local non-domestic rating list as mooring, land and premises assessed, pursuant to a decision of the VCCT, at £800 rateable value. The appellant claimed that the hereditament should be deleted from the list because it was a domestic property and that the valuation should be reduced to £500. The valuation officer conceeded that the chalet was domestic propert as articles of domestic equipment were stored in it but that the remainder of the site was non-domestic. The appeal was held in favour of the VO, although the description was changed to `mooring, land and premises (part)`, on the grounds that the property was