[2025] UKUT 00324 (LC)

We consider that the FTT could quite reasonably have determined a value for the property of £950 psf or above, giving most weight to the top three pieces of evidence which require the least adjustment. That would have produced an extended lease value of £1,367,050 and a FHVP value of £1,380,859. As a cross-check, that would have reflected a relativity of 76.31% with the determined existing lease value of £1,053,709.

However, before we could allow this appeal we would have to be satisfied that the FTT had wrongly applied relevant principles of valuation practice or erred in its appreciation of the valuation evidence. We do not consider that we can go that far. We have not had the advantage of hearing the expert witnesses explain their views, or comment on the weighting of the evidence or whether it would be appropriate. The FTT did not adopt an approach all of its own. Both experts had undertaken an adjustment exercise followed by an averaging exercise, and the FTT did the same, adopting Mr Cooper’s preferred evidence but using its own more cautious adjustments. There was clearly a consensus in favour of this relatively crude approach which may have been the product of discussions between the experts to which we are not privy. We recognise the comfort that can be derived from averaging disparate prices and values, but professional valuers have the skills and experience which should enable them to avoid that shortcut and to adopt a more considered approach. We commend that more considered approach to witnesses and tribunals, especially where the end figure looks inconsistent with other aspects of the valuation.

Although we feel uneasy with the result in this case, we do not feel able to say that the FTT’s approach was wrong in principle. The appeal is therefore dismissed.