What we found

The landlord’s headline comparable evidence had a fundamental problem. Two of the transactions cited involved tenancies with significant power provisions, a genuine premium that applied to those facilities but had no relevance to our client’s property. Including them inflated the apparent market rate in a way that simply wasn’t justified by the evidence.

The remaining issues compounded the position further. Local leasing conditions had been softening, a factor the landlord’s evidence didn’t acknowledge. Furthermore, the above-market outgoings our client
was already paying were not accounted for in the proposed net effective rent. Market incentives, standard practice in this precinct at this point in the cycle, were also absent from the landlord’s proposal entirely.

Left unchallenged, none of this would have been corrected.

As the only valuation firm working exclusively for the tenant, we identified this client through our own proactive outreach—they had no prior knowledge of what we do. We built a position grounded in the evidence the landlord’s proposal had ignored. Agreement was reached in 20 days.