Rateable Value on ‘Unlettable’ Properties

How is the rateable value on unoccupied property calculated when the property is unlettable and there is no real prospect of finding willing tenants at a positive rent?

Business rates are calculated based on the rateable open market value of the property. A reduction may be applied if the property is eligible for business rates relief. Exempted properties do not attract business rates, such as properties which have been empty for three months. Extended empty property relief is also available on, for example, industrial premises which are empty for another three months.

In some cases, there is an exemption from business rates but strict conditions apply for an exemption to be granted.

If extended relief on empty business premises is not available, the full business rates are payable after three months. But what if you are a commercial landlord who cannot find a willing tenant for the property after the three month-period – even if the premises are not in fact ‘lettable’?

Bad news for landlords

A recent ruling has brought unwelcome news for many landlords owning commercial premises which remain empty and unlettable because a tenant cannot be secured. The Supreme Court has ruled that commercial property may still be given a rateable value that assumes a willing tenant can be found, even if it is ‘unlettable’.

In Telereal Trillium v Hewitt [2019] UKSC 23, the government had used a substantial three-storey office block in Blackpool continually since 1972. The property had been vacant since March 2009. The date on which the non-domestic rating list for Blackpool first came into force under section 41(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 was April 2010. When a valuation was made for the purposes of the new rating list the rateable value had to be determined by reference to the “antecedent valuation date” two years earlier. This was initially entered by the valuation officer as at April 2010 as £490,000, reflecting his view that similar office buildings were being rented by public sector tenants.

The Valuation Tribunal for England reduced the rateable value to £1 and the valuation officer appealed. The Supreme Court confirmed that the underlying principle is not in doubt: the valuation must be based on an estimate of the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. Essentially, the valuer must imagine a hypothetical negotiation between a willing landlord and a willing tenant and arrive at the rent which best represents the resulting compromise.

The court relied on very old authority1 that “You must assume a landlord willing to let, and a tenant willing to take by the year; and having done so, you must get in the best way you can at the rent which, under an agreement brought about by the compromise of the conflicting interests of the man who wants to receive as much as he can and the man who wants to pay as little as he can, would be arrived at under such circumstances”.

The question for the court in this case was: how are these principles to be applied in a case where there is no evidence of actual demand for the particular property?

The main issue in the appeal was narrowly constrained by the “limited” terms of the parties’ Joint Position Statement in which they both agreed nobody in the real world would be prepared to occupy the property or to pay or bid a positive price; but that the “rating hypothesis” requires “the existence of a hypothetical tenant to be assumed”. The question was whether the same hypothesis requires the rateable value to be assessed by reference to the ‘general demand’ shown by the occupation of similar office properties. If so, the correct rateable value was £370,000; and if not, then it was £1.

What was the outcome?

The Supreme Court allowed the valuation officer’s appeal. Giving the lead judgment, Lord Carnwath said whether or not the building is occupied or an actual tenant identified at the relevant date is not critical. Even in a saturated market, the rating hypothesis assumes a willing tenant who is sufficiently interested to enter negotiations to agree a rent on the statutory basis.

He said the parties’ agreement that no-one would be prepared to rent the property for a positive price says nothing about the reasons for that position. He noted that the valuation officer’s view was that the lack of demand was simply down to “all public sector demands” being met by other properties. There was no reason why, without other material evidence, the level of that rent should not be assessed by reference to “general demand” derived from “occupation of other office properties with similar characteristics”.

So even if the property is unlettable and the market saturated it should be valued assuming a willing tenant can be found. The rateable value was ordered to be set at £370,000.

What are the implications?

The result is that even in circumstances where a landlord has very little prospect of finding a tenant because the property is unlettable, the rateable value could still be set by reference to rents paid for other, similar properties in the area.

While the ruling does not reflect the commercial realities for many commercial landlords and for businesses needing to rent premises which are suitable and fit for purpose at a positive price – it at least gives a measure of clarity as to how the law is being applied in practice. Unfortunately, the reality is that hypotheticals do not always reflect the real world.

There could be alternatives to trying to find a willing tenant for unlettable commercial premises, perhaps repairing or refurbishing the property to attract tenants or selling the property. If the alternatives cannot be explored, or they are unsuccessful, there could be an argument that the premises have become genuinely obsolete because, for example, they are unsafe – in which case they may qualify for an exemption from business rates.

1Smith v The Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Birmingham (1888) 22 QBD 211



Back to the SOLICITORS group News

Media Centre

“The Solicitors Group online directory is an established and respected channel for legal professionals, meaning I can talk to my existing and future customers about products and services both quickly and easily.”

Carole Hatton
Marketing Manager
Landmark Information Group

“Reaching our niche market can sometimes be challenging, however we find promoting our legal training courses on www.thesolicitorsgroup.co.uk an excellent way of contacting both existing and new customers. The service we receive from The Solicitors Group is both professional and relevant to our core activities and we would recommend their services to others.”


“I must say that to date we have been very pleased with the referrals we are getting from your site.”

Paul West
Orchid Cellmark

“The Newsdesk feature on www.thesolicitorsgroup.co.uk is ideal for us. Its prominent location on the site provides a great platform to communicate key messages to existing and potential clients.”

Neil Phillips
Marketing Manager
Countrywide Legal Indemnities

"We are very happy with the referrals we are getting from The Solicitors Group web-site."

C.A. Bishop
Technical Director
Wickham Laboratories Ltd

“We received 419 click-throughs to our site from advertising with www.thesolicitorsgroup.co.uk”

Legal Prospects

“Putting myself in my potential client's shoes, I consider www.thesolicitorsgroup.co.uk to offer perhaps the clearest and most user-friendly listing of expert witnesses, especially in its choice of index terms.”

Ivan Vince
ASK Consultants

“The banner ad looks great”

Samantha Dawson
The Bundle Business Limited

“The Solicitors Group has been fantastic in helping us to raise awareness about bowel cancer, which kills 16,000 people every year in the UK. Bowel Cancer UK aims to save lives by raising awareness of bowel cancer, campaigning for best treatment and care and providing practical support and advice. Without the support of organisations such as the Solicitors Group we would be unable to carry out this vital work. We are very grateful to the team at the Solicitors Group for their support and assistance.”

Tamara Matthews
Legacy Officer
Bowel Cancer UK

“As a result of Law London, we have registered 208 new companies/firms to the website, generating £20,797 GWP to date, as well as reinforcing our presence in this very profitable marketplace.”


“The event was well put together and executed, and the traffic of potential customers for us was high. We had a number of enquiries regarding our services after the event and we feel our attendance there was important to our overall brand exposure. We feel a Law event of this size without Euromoney Legal Training present could potentially be hurtful to us as a business. We would recommend you to attend and shall ourselves be there again in 2008.”


“Many thanks for the prompt service.”

Martin Gibbs MBE
Director / Investigator
Griffin Forensics Ltd

“A targeted email to key customers is an invaluable method of communication, endorse this with the Solicitors Group branding, relevant editorial content and you have created a winning combination! We look forward to reading the next edition.”

Carole Hatton
Marketing Manager
Landmark Information Group

“Talking directly to Property Lawyers is critical to us as they are key customers or potentially could be for all of our products, The Solicitors Group offer a perfect solution to get our messages right to the right people”

Carole Hatton
Marketing Manager
Landmark Information Group

“Thank you for having a useful and informative site, it is good to see a comprehensive and friendly portal.”

Stefan Fann
UK Probate Services

“Cadogans aims to keep its brand image in front of lawyers who may be looking for engineering experts. A check on Google analytics showed that referrals to our website from The Solicitors Group website were above average.”

Daphne Wassermann
Technical Director