Q&A: ForeView’s latest Tribunal win and what it’s like to appear at a Valuation Tribunal
ForeView recently secured a significant Valuation Tribunal decision involving the deletion of office space from the 2023 Rating List. In this Q&A, Edward Searle speaks to Sam Walters about the case, the key principles behind “incapable of beneficial occupation”, and what it really takes to present a successful appeal at Tribunal.
Edward Searle: Sam, can you start by explaining what this case was about?
Sam Walters: “This was a Valuation Tribunal appeal concerning whether a set of office floors in Hatton Garden should remain in the 2023 Rating List. The core issue was whether the property was still capable of beneficial occupation — and therefore liable for business rates — given the extent of works that had been carried out.”
Edward Searle: And what was the nature of the property itself?
Sam Walters: “It comprised several office floors within a multi-storey building, assessed as a single hereditament in the 2023 Rating List with a rateable value of £226,000. We were acting on behalf of the Owner of the building in seeking deletion of that entry.”
Edward Searle: What was the key legal question the Tribunal had to answer?
Sam Walters: “The Tribunal needed to decide whether the works to the property amounted to repair or something more fundamental. If it’s repair, the property generally remains rateable. But if the works constitute refurbishment or redevelopment and the property is no longer capable of occupation, there may be grounds for deletion.”
Edward Searle: What condition was the building actually in at the relevant date?
Sam Walters: “By 5 June 2023, the floors had been stripped back to the point where they no longer had any of the key elements required for occupation — no lighting, no power or data, no floor coverings, no partitioning and no kitchen facilities. In practical terms, it was not capable of being used as office space.”
Edward Searle: And how did the Valuation Officer approach that?
Sam Walters: “The argument was that these works were essentially end of lease repairs, and that because the offices formed part of a wider building, they shouldn’t qualify for deletion. It’s a position we see quite frequently.”
Edward Searle: So what did the Tribunal ultimately decide?
Sam Walters: “The Tribunal agreed with us. They found that the works went beyond repair and formed part of a more substantial refurbishment scheme. Crucially, they concluded the property was incapable of beneficial occupation, which justified deletion from the rating list.”
Edward Searle: Did the fact this was part of a multi-let building affect the outcome?
Sam Walters: “No — and that’s a key point. The Tribunal rejected the idea that only whole buildings can qualify and confirmed that individual floors can meet the test where the facts support it.”
Edward Searle: What was the practical outcome for the client?
Sam Walters: “The Tribunal ordered that the original assessment be deleted from 5 June 2023, and that the later split assessments were also removed. That meant there was no rates liability for the period in question.”
Edward Searle: You appeared in this case yourself. How common is that for you?
Sam Walters: “Yes, I acted as both advocate and expert witness here. Over the course of my career, I’ve appeared at the Valuation Tribunal well over a hundred times — probably somewhere in the region of 100 to 200 hearings. It’s a really important part of what we do, particularly in more complex cases.”
Edward Searle: What’s it actually like appearing at a Valuation Tribunal hearing?
Sam Walters: “It’s a very evidence-driven process. You’re not just setting out legal arguments — you’re walking the Tribunal through the facts in detail and helping them understand exactly what’s happened to the property, including its condition and the nature of the works. There is also the opportunity for cross examination and therefore an ability to test the other sides approach and thought process.”
Edward Searle: And how important is preparation going into a hearing like this?
Sam Walters: “It’s absolutely critical. The burden of proof ultimately sits with the appellant, so you have to be able to satisfy the panel beyond doubt of your case or valuation. The outcome often comes down to how clearly and convincingly the evidence is presented. That means getting into the detail in advance, in this particular case it meant understanding the timeline, the scope of works and the physical state of the property and making sure it all forms a clear and consistent narrative. If that preparation isn’t there, even a strong case can struggle to succeed.”
Edward Searle: Finally, what do you think this decision means more broadly?
Sam Walters: “It reinforces that the test for “incapable of beneficial occupation” is ultimately a factual one, and that redevelopment or refurbishment can be clearly distinguished from repair where the evidence supports it. It also confirms that parts of larger buildings can qualify.
More broadly, it underlines the importance of pairing technical expertise with strong evidential preparation. That’s what drives outcomes in cases like this.”
Get in touch
If you are undertaking refurbishment works, holding vacant space, or dealing with complex rating issues, there may be an opportunity to reduce or eliminate business rates liability.
At ForeView, we regularly act for clients in navigating these scenarios — from early-stage advice through to Tribunal representation.
Similar articles
ForeView Secures Landmark Valuation Tribunal Win on Industrial Properties Undergoing Works
