More misery for Store First investors as Store First tells them they are liable for business rates

Store First offered investors the opportunity to invest in storage pods with the promise of an 8% “guaranteed” return in the early years.

In a number of cases these guaranteed returns however quickly dried up; an investor has told us that they received the promised “guaranteed” returns for 12 months but these payments then stopped. Store First pods have been seen on Rightmove being offered for as little as £3,940 (almost certainly considerably less than the seller paid for them). Whether these pods were actually sold is not known.

On top of this, Store First has recently written to investors to tell them that they are liable to pay business rates to Barnsley Council (and not, as the Valuation Office had previously argued, Store First itself).


Business rates are calculated based on the “rateable value” of a property – in this case the storage pod.

Store First’s letter says “Store First has been in negotiations with the Valuation Office to agree the best possible price for rates applied to individual storage units within the centre and we can confirm we have secured a low rate on behalf of investors”.

By “best possible price” Store First means the lowest possible price as the lower the value of a property, the less tax the business owner is liable for. So essentially Store First have been spending their time trying to persuade the Valuation Office that Store First pods are worth as little as possible.

Sadly for investors, the Valuation Office has apparently not taken the view that the storage pods are near-worthless, as otherwise no business rates would be charged.

Future developments

In 2017 the Secretary of State for Business lodged a petition in the High Court to wind up Store First and various associated companies. The petitions were adjourned in July 2017. At time of writing, a court date has still not been set.

Also in July 2017, Store First Limited extended its accounting period by six months, giving it another six months to publish its 2017 accounts. The accounts are now due to be filed with Companies House within the next month, by the end of March 2018. (Store First cannot extend the accounting period again as the period for the 2017 accounts is already the maximum eighteen months, plus you can only do this once every five years.)

Next steps

By being asked to pay business rates, investors who have lost money on Store First pods are effectively being forced by the Government to throw good money after bad. Among the owners of Store First pods are victims of the Henley Retirement Benefit Scheme and Capita Oak Pension Scheme, which means that yet again the taxman has gone after the holders of unsuitable investments rather than the people who have their money – reminiscent of HMRC’s bills for unauthorised payment charges sent to the victims of pension liberation fraud.

Unfortunately for investors, the rateable value determined by the Valuation Office is somewhat theoretical and based on the rent that the property could have been let for in 2015, based on its size, location and the nature of the property. The VO may have taken the view that it is not their problem that some Store First investors are unable to realise any rent from their property.

Nonetheless, it would seem well-advised for individual Store First investors to contact Barnsley Council and the Valuations Office as a matter of urgency and appeal the rateable value of their investment that Store First has “negotiated” on their behalf, on the basis that the market value of the property is considerably less. We are not able to say whether this has any chance of success, but it is surely worth trying. Details of how to challenge a rateable value can be found on

There is another obvious way out of this mess. Investors in Store First were told they had a “buy back option” after five years. A Store First investor has told us that when they applied to exercise the buy back option, they were told it is optional, and that Store First has another five years in which to decide whether to buy the investment back.

The solution is for Store First to offer to buy the investors’ pods back immediately at the rateable value they “negotiated” with the Valuations Office. If Store First has negotiated this value with the Valuations Office, they must surely believe it represents fair value.

While this would likely result in investors writing off a significant loss, it would free them from having to pay further money to Barnsley Council on top of what they paid for the storage pod. Store First, in exchange, would get their storage pod at a value they believe is fair, along with the yield from future storage customers.

10 thoughts on “More misery for Store First investors as Store First tells them they are liable for business rates

  1. Are the store pods in essence worthless and eligible for deduction from a property capital gain. I have received no demand for either business rates, ground rent or maintenance charges for a year or more and wonder whether I will receive same at some point. I would be happy to pass on my interest for free to rid me of this matter.

  2. You are thinking of a negligible value claim. The difficulty is that HMRC may not take the same view as to their value as you and I do. At least one other branch of the Government, the Valuation Office, thinks they are worth something.

    The alternative is, as you mentioned, to dispose of them at nil value. It would need to be an “arms length” transaction to a person who is not personally connected to you, otherwise the transfer is deemed to take place at market value (which means we have the same problem as with a negligible value claim).

    The problem for anyone who took them off you is that they would then take on any liability for business rates, ground rent, etc etc. Even if Store First isn’t claiming the latter, they or a future owner of the freehold may do in the future. Because of this open-ended and unknown liability, I am afraid you will struggle to find someone who would take them off your hands even if you paid them.

    My inclination would be to wait until the pods have been liquidated one way or the other and are no longer in your hands. Unless the CGT bill is so big that you are prepared to fight HMRC at the Tribunals over it. As long as you will have gains at some point to set against, there is very little benefit in claiming losses now rather than later.

    Did you try my (admittedly mildly facetious) suggestion of offering to sell the pods back to Store First at the value they negotiated with the Valuation Office that Store First Director Ruth Almond refers to in the letter above?

  3. When my husband died in 2016 my then solicitor dealing with probate of his estate, asked Storefirst to give a valuation of what his two pods bought in 2013 were worth, and asked for them to be transferred into my name. Storefirst were “not forthcoming” and did nor reply to the solicitor’s letter or calls. She said she thought that in any case there was little chance of getting the money back which my husband had paid for them, and so I accepted the fact that my husband had been scammed and never pursued further trying to get the pods transferred into my name. Did I do the right thing?

    Just recently I received a demand for ground rent, but as the pods are not in my name I shall ignore it unless there is a good reason for doing otherwise. I don’t want to throw good money after bad, and solicitor’s advice is so expensive.

  4. This blog does not offer legal advice. That said:

    If they were never transferred into your name or anyone elses that suggests they are still in the name of your husband’s estate. And your husband’s estate is liable for ongoing ground rent.

    If the estate has no assets to pay the ground rent because they’ve been transferred into your name then someone has a problem. The question is whether that’s your solicitor, or you.

    Who was the executor of his estate? You, or the solicitor? Because the executor of an estate becomes personally liable to an estate’s creditors if they don’t distribute the estate correctly, not the beneficiary.

    It is worth noting that a winding up petition will be heard against Store First and related companies on 15 April 2019 – so six weeks away. It is a possibility that the outcome of that hearing may remove the problem, but we will have to wait and see.

  5. I have been contacted by a firm GRL offering me 1.5% of what I paid.
    I am usuming this is another scam.
    Has ayone else been contacted by someone with this offer.
    I am sceptical.
    John Wilson

  6. I have been contacted by a firm GRL offering me 1.5% of what I paid.
    I am usuming this is another scam.
    Has ayone else been contacted by someone with this offer.
    I am sceptical.
    John Wilson

  7. First instincts say a scam but 1.5% of what you paid is a lousy bait. I can’t help but wonder why you would even bother running the risk of getting scammed for 1.5%.

    What is the full name of the company?

  8. A poster on Moneysavingexpert invested in Park First says GRL are offering them £71k for two parking spaces. Did you mean 150% or 1.5x of what you paid rather than 1.5%?

    If they are offering 150% of what you paid it’s definitely a scam. Walk away and change your phone number.

  9. I have had them ring on both my home phone and mobile 7 times in 2 days! I would nt normally have answered but I have health problems and the hospital I am under rings on the Private Number so its a worry not to answer in case. I ve told them I have a Barrister working for me and am not interested. I have passed their details on to the authorities.

  10. I’ve invested 60000 pounds in pods and got a ground rent bill for 1.500 pounds I was told by Jackson Frances I was investing in santadare I have 6000 pounds in my pot how long will this last I would love to get hold of Kevin Flemming who lied to me he should be in court

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.