Case notes for rating valuation - Revision history

Designing Buildings at 16:02, 3 October 2022

2022-10-03T16:02:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:02, 3 October 2022
Line 25:		Line 25:
	This article was created by --[[User:University_College_of_Estate_Management_(UCEM)\|University College of Estate Management (UCEM)]] 17:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)		This article was created by --[[User:University_College_of_Estate_Management_(UCEM)\|University College of Estate Management (UCEM)]] 17:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

−	~~= Find out more =~~	+	= Related articles on Designing Buildings =
−		+
−	=== Related articles on Designing Buildings ~~Wiki ==~~=	+

	* Choice of method for rating valuation.		* Choice of method for rating valuation.

Designing Buildings at 08:53, 6 November 2020

2020-11-06T08:53:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:53, 6 November 2020
Line 37:		Line 37:
	* Rental method of rating valuation.		* Rental method of rating valuation.

−	[[Category:~~Case_law~~]] [[Category:~~DCN_Case_Law~~]] [[Category:Property_law]] [[Category:Taxation]] [[Category:Property_development]]	+	[[Category:DCN_Case_Law]] [[Category:DCN_Commentary]] [[Category:DCN_Definition]] [[Category:DCN_Guidance]] [[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Property_law]] [[Category:Taxation]] [[Category:Property_development]]

Designing Buildings at 14:56, 25 May 2017

2017-05-25T14:56:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:56, 25 May 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	Garton v Hunter (1969) - the method of valuation

−	~~'''Garton v Hunter (1969)~~ - ~~the method of valuation'''~~	+	-----
−		+
−	----	+
−		+
	A caravan site, 33.7 acres, with a ‘Martello Tower’ (an ancient defensive structure) and buildings and services ancillary to the 775 mobile caravans parked on the land. Situated at Walton-on-the-Naze, a coastal resort town in north Essex.		A caravan site, 33.7 acres, with a ‘Martello Tower’ (an ancient defensive structure) and buildings and services ancillary to the 775 mobile caravans parked on the land. Situated at Walton-on-the-Naze, a coastal resort town in north Essex.

Line 9:		Line 7:

	The ratepayer’s proposal dated 1 April 1963 fixed the date of valuation:		The ratepayer’s proposal dated 1 April 1963 fixed the date of valuation:
−	*Local Valuation Court (pre-VT) assess at RV £8,700 on 6 May 1965.	+
−	*Ratepayer’s appeal led to LT decision 12 October 1967.	+	* Local Valuation Court (pre-VT) assess at RV £8,700 on 6 May 1965.
−	*Case remitted following statement of case to Court of Appeal.	+	* Ratepayer’s appeal led to LT decision 12 October 1967.
		+	* Case remitted following statement of case to Court of Appeal.

	At the first LT hearing, the ratepayers argued for a contractor’s test and supported it with the rent paid. The VO argued for a profits test. The LT, following Robinson Bros v Houghton and Chester-le-Street AC, felt bound to allow only the rent paid, which was adjusted for the surrender to £5,700.		At the first LT hearing, the ratepayers argued for a contractor’s test and supported it with the rent paid. The VO argued for a profits test. The LT, following Robinson Bros v Houghton and Chester-le-Street AC, felt bound to allow only the rent paid, which was adjusted for the surrender to £5,700.
Line 23:		Line 22:
	Of the three valuations, the LT favoured the last, ie the profits test, since it offered the least margin of error in this case. The rent paid was not a rack rent, freely negotiated, but was substantially affected by the tenant’s existing interest including improvements. The property was not of a type suited to the contractor’s test.		Of the three valuations, the LT favoured the last, ie the profits test, since it offered the least margin of error in this case. The rent paid was not a rack rent, freely negotiated, but was substantially affected by the tenant’s existing interest including improvements. The property was not of a type suited to the contractor’s test.

−	----	+	-----
−		+	This article was created by --[[User:University_College_of_Estate_Management_(UCEM)\|University College of Estate Management (UCEM)]] 17:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
−	This article was created by --[[User~~%3AThe%20College%20of%20Estate%20Management~~\|~~The~~ College of Estate Management]] 17:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)	+

	= Find out more =		= Find out more =

	=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===		=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===
−	*Choice of method for rating valuation.
−	*Contractor’s basis for rating valuation.
−	*Licensing.
−	*Profits method of rating valuation.
−	*Rating valuation.
−	*Statutory formulae for rating valuation.
−	*Rental method of rating valuation.

−	[[Category:Case_law]]	+	* Choice of method for rating valuation.
−	[[Category:Property_law]]	+	* Contractor’s basis for rating valuation.
−	[[Category:Taxation]]	+	* Licensing.
−	[[Category:Property_development]]	+	* Profits method of rating valuation.
		+	* Rating valuation.
		+	* Statutory formulae for rating valuation.
		+	* Rental method of rating valuation.
		+
		+	[[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:DCN_Case_Law]] [[Category:Property_law]] [[Category:Taxation]] [[Category:Property_development]]

Designing Buildings at 06:58, 30 July 2014

2014-07-30T06:58:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:58, 30 July 2014
Line 39:		Line 39:

	[[Category:Case_law]]		[[Category:Case_law]]
−	~~[[Category:Other_legislation]]~~
	[[Category:Property_law]]		[[Category:Property_law]]
	[[Category:Taxation]]		[[Category:Taxation]]
	[[Category:Property_development]]		[[Category:Property_development]]

86.147.217.40 at 06:43, 21 July 2014

2014-07-21T06:43:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:43, 21 July 2014
Line 42:		Line 42:
	[[Category:Property_law]]		[[Category:Property_law]]
	[[Category:Taxation]]		[[Category:Taxation]]
		+	[[Category:Property_development]]

Designing Buildings at 07:16, 13 April 2013

2013-04-13T07:16:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:16, 13 April 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:

−	Garton v Hunter (1969) - the method of valuation	+	'''Garton v Hunter (1969) - the method of valuation'''
		+
		+	----

	A caravan site, 33.7 acres, with a ‘Martello Tower’ (an ancient defensive structure) and buildings and services ancillary to the 775 mobile caravans parked on the land. Situated at Walton-on-the-Naze, a coastal resort town in north Essex.		A caravan site, 33.7 acres, with a ‘Martello Tower’ (an ancient defensive structure) and buildings and services ancillary to the 775 mobile caravans parked on the land. Situated at Walton-on-the-Naze, a coastal resort town in north Essex.
Line 27:		Line 29:
	= Find out more =		= Find out more =

−	=== ~~'''~~Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki~~'''~~ ===	+	=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===
−	*~~Rating valuation.~~	+	*Choice of method for rating valuation.
−	*Rental method of rating valuation.	+
	*Contractor’s basis for rating valuation.		*Contractor’s basis for rating valuation.
		+	*Licensing.
	*Profits method of rating valuation.		*Profits method of rating valuation.
		+	*Rating valuation.
	*Statutory formulae for rating valuation.		*Statutory formulae for rating valuation.
−	*~~Choice of~~ method ~~for~~ rating valuation.	+	*Rental method of rating valuation.

	[[Category:Case_law]]		[[Category:Case_law]]

Designing Buildings at 10:40, 7 December 2012

2012-12-07T10:40:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:40, 7 December 2012
Line 23:		Line 23:
	----		----

−	This article was created by --[[User~~:The College of Estate Management~~\|The College of Estate Management]] 17:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)	+	This article was created by --[[User%3AThe%20College%20of%20Estate%20Management\|The College of Estate Management]] 17:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

	= Find out more =		= Find out more =
Line 36:		Line 36:

	[[Category:Case_law]]		[[Category:Case_law]]
		+	[[Category:Other_legislation]]
		+	[[Category:Property_law]]
		+	[[Category:Taxation]]

The College of Estate Management at 17:06, 6 December 2012

2012-12-06T17:06:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:06, 6 December 2012
Line 20:		Line 20:

	Of the three valuations, the LT favoured the last, ie the profits test, since it offered the least margin of error in this case. The rent paid was not a rack rent, freely negotiated, but was substantially affected by the tenant’s existing interest including improvements. The property was not of a type suited to the contractor’s test.		Of the three valuations, the LT favoured the last, ie the profits test, since it offered the least margin of error in this case. The rent paid was not a rack rent, freely negotiated, but was substantially affected by the tenant’s existing interest including improvements. The property was not of a type suited to the contractor’s test.
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	This article was created by --[[User:The College of Estate Management\|The College of Estate Management]] 17:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

	= Find out more =		= Find out more =

Designing Buildings at 17:04, 6 December 2012

2012-12-06T17:04:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:04, 6 December 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:

−	Garton v Hunter (1969) - the method of valuation	+	Garton v Hunter (1969) - the method of valuation

−	A caravan site, 33.7 acres, with a ‘Martello Tower’ (an ancient defensive structure) and buildings and services ancillary to the 775 mobile caravans parked on the land. Situated at Walton-on-the-Naze, a coastal resort town in north Essex.	+	A caravan site, 33.7 acres, with a ‘Martello Tower’ (an ancient defensive structure) and buildings and services ancillary to the 775 mobile caravans parked on the land. Situated at Walton-on-the-Naze, a coastal resort town in north Essex.

−	The property was subject to the 1960 Caravan Sites Act covering licensing etc. It was leased by the owners to Mr Garton for seven years from 1958 at a rent of £1000 rising to £3000 for the last four years. Mr Garton carried out substantial improvements, but, under a surrender and renewal in July 1962, the rent became £3000 for the first year and £5000 thereafter (7-year lease).	+	The property was subject to the 1960 Caravan Sites Act covering licensing etc. It was leased by the owners to Mr Garton for seven years from 1958 at a rent of £1000 rising to £3000 for the last four years. Mr Garton carried out substantial improvements, but, under a surrender and renewal in July 1962, the rent became £3000 for the first year and £5000 thereafter (7-year lease).

−	The ratepayer’s proposal dated 1 April 1963 fixed the date of valuation:	+	The ratepayer’s proposal dated 1 April 1963 fixed the date of valuation:
−	*Local Valuation Court (pre-VT) assess at RV £8,700 on 6 May 1965.	+	*Local Valuation Court (pre-VT) assess at RV £8,700 on 6 May 1965.
−	*Ratepayer’s appeal led to LT decision 12 October 1967.	+	*Ratepayer’s appeal led to LT decision 12 October 1967.
−	*Case remitted following statement of case to Court of Appeal.	+	*Case remitted following statement of case to Court of Appeal.

−	At the first LT hearing, the ratepayers argued for a contractor’s test and supported it with the rent paid. The VO argued for a profits test. The LT, following Robinson Bros v Houghton and Chester-le-Street AC, felt bound to allow only the rent paid, which was adjusted for the surrender to £5,700.	+	At the first LT hearing, the ratepayers argued for a contractor’s test and supported it with the rent paid. The VO argued for a profits test. The LT, following Robinson Bros v Houghton and Chester-le-Street AC, felt bound to allow only the rent paid, which was adjusted for the surrender to £5,700.

−	The Court of Appeal, however, rejected the restrictive view of the Lands Tribunal, holding that all evidence should have been considered. Although direct evidence of the rent paid was important, indirect evidence should also have been admitted. The fact that such evidence was indirect affected the weight of such evidence, but not its admissibility.	+	The Court of Appeal, however, rejected the restrictive view of the Lands Tribunal, holding that all evidence should have been considered. Although direct evidence of the rent paid was important, indirect evidence should also have been admitted. The fact that such evidence was indirect affected the weight of such evidence, but not its admissibility.

−	The Tribunal at the re-hearing considered all three approaches to valuation. The rental approach produced £8,040, being the actual rent of £5,000 adjusted for the surrender by the lessee of valuable rights under the former lease. The contractor’s approach produced £8,100. Both these valuations caused considerable arguments on their constituent parts.	+	The Tribunal at the re-hearing considered all three approaches to valuation. The rental approach produced £8,040, being the actual rent of £5,000 adjusted for the surrender by the lessee of valuable rights under the former lease. The contractor’s approach produced £8,100. Both these valuations caused considerable arguments on their constituent parts.

−	The profits test produced by Mr Hunter, the VO, attracted relatively little criticism. The main income was the site rents of the caravans at £30,225; wages and expenses accounted for £11,050; with the balance going to rates, rent, and the tenant’s share. The final result, after some adjustment to the latter, was £8,017 RV.	+	The profits test produced by Mr Hunter, the VO, attracted relatively little criticism. The main income was the site rents of the caravans at £30,225; wages and expenses accounted for £11,050; with the balance going to rates, rent, and the tenant’s share. The final result, after some adjustment to the latter, was £8,017 RV.

	Of the three valuations, the LT favoured the last, ie the profits test, since it offered the least margin of error in this case. The rent paid was not a rack rent, freely negotiated, but was substantially affected by the tenant’s existing interest including improvements. The property was not of a type suited to the contractor’s test.		Of the three valuations, the LT favoured the last, ie the profits test, since it offered the least margin of error in this case. The rent paid was not a rack rent, freely negotiated, but was substantially affected by the tenant’s existing interest including improvements. The property was not of a type suited to the contractor’s test.
		+
		+	= Find out more =
		+
		+	=== '''Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki''' ===
		+	*Rating valuation.
		+	*Rental method of rating valuation.
		+	*Contractor’s basis for rating valuation.
		+	*Profits method of rating valuation.
		+	*Statutory formulae for rating valuation.
		+	*Choice of method for rating valuation.

	[[Category:Case_law]]		[[Category:Case_law]]

Designing Buildings: Created page with " Garton v Hunter (1969) - the method of valuation A caravan site, 33.7 acres, with a ‘Martello Tower’ (an ancient defensive structure) and buildings and services ancillary ..."

2012-12-06T16:53:04Z

Created page with " Garton v Hunter (1969) - the method of valuation A caravan site, 33.7 acres, with a ‘Martello Tower’ (an ancient defensive structure) and buildings and services ancillary ..."

New page

Garton v Hunter (1969) - the method of valuation

A caravan site, 33.7 acres, with a ‘Martello Tower’ (an ancient defensive structure) and buildings and services ancillary to the 775 mobile caravans parked on the land. Situated at Walton-on-the-Naze, a coastal resort town in north Essex.

The property was subject to the 1960 Caravan Sites Act covering licensing etc. It was leased by the owners to Mr Garton for seven years from 1958 at a rent of £1000 rising to £3000 for the last four years. Mr Garton carried out substantial improvements, but, under a surrender and renewal in July 1962, the rent became £3000 for the first year and £5000 thereafter (7-year lease).

The ratepayer’s proposal dated 1 April 1963 fixed the date of valuation:
*Local Valuation Court (pre-VT) assess at RV £8,700 on 6 May 1965.
*Ratepayer’s appeal led to LT decision 12 October 1967.
*Case remitted following statement of case to Court of Appeal.

At the first LT hearing, the ratepayers argued for a contractor’s test and supported it with the rent paid. The VO argued for a profits test. The LT, following Robinson Bros v Houghton and Chester-le-Street AC, felt bound to allow only the rent paid, which was adjusted for the surrender to £5,700.

The Court of Appeal, however, rejected the restrictive view of the Lands Tribunal, holding that all evidence should have been considered. Although direct evidence of the rent paid was important, indirect evidence should also have been admitted. The fact that such evidence was indirect affected the weight of such evidence, but not its admissibility.

The Tribunal at the re-hearing considered all three approaches to valuation. The rental approach produced £8,040, being the actual rent of £5,000 adjusted for the surrender by the lessee of valuable rights under the former lease. The contractor’s approach produced £8,100. Both these valuations caused considerable arguments on their constituent parts.

The profits test produced by Mr Hunter, the VO, attracted relatively little criticism. The main income was the site rents of the caravans at £30,225; wages and expenses accounted for £11,050; with the balance going to rates, rent, and the tenant’s share. The final result, after some adjustment to the latter, was £8,017 RV.

Of the three valuations, the LT favoured the last, ie the profits test, since it offered the least margin of error in this case. The rent paid was not a rack rent, freely negotiated, but was substantially affected by the tenant’s existing interest including improvements. The property was not of a type suited to the contractor’s test.

[[Category:Case_law]]