Northern Ireland Valuation Tribunal the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (As Amended) and the Valuation Tribunal Rules (Northern Ireland) 2007 (As Amended)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
NORTHERN IRELAND VALUATION TRIBUNAL THE RATES (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1977 (AS AMENDED) AND THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL RULES (NORTHERN IRELAND) 2007 (AS AMENDED) CASE REFERENCE NUMBER: 11/19 JAMES FITZPATRICK – APPELLANT AND COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND – RESPONDENT Northern Ireland Valuation Tribunal Chairman: Mr Charles O’Neill Members: Mr Hugh McCormick MRICS and Ms Noreen Wright Date of hearing: 4 December 2019, Belfast DECISION The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the Decision of the Commissioner of Valuation for Northern Ireland upheld and the appellant’s appeal is not allowed. REASONS Introduction 1. This is a reference under Article 54 of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 as amended (“the 1977 Order”). Both parties were content that the matter be dealt with on the basis of written representations. 2. The appellant by Notice of Appeal appealed against the decision of the Commissioner dated 18 June 2019. 3. This appeal is in respect of the valuation of a hereditament situated at 7 Ballynahinch Road, Carryduff, Belfast, BT8 8DN (‘the subject property”). 1 The law 4. The statutory provisions are to be found in the 1977 Order as amended by the Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 (“the 2006 Order”). The tribunal does not intend in this decision to set out the statutory provisions of article 8 of the 2006 Order, which amended article 39 of the 1977 Order as regards the basis of valuation, as these provisions have been fully set out in earlier decisions of this tribunal. All relevant statutory provisions were fully considered by the tribunal in arriving at its decision in this matter. The evidence 5. The tribunal had before it the following documents: (a) The Commissioners Decision dated 18 June 2019; (b) The appellants’ Notice of Appeal received by the tribunal office on 22 July 2019; (c) Order of the tribunal dated 6 August 2019 extending time for appeal to the tribunal; (d) A document entitled ‘Presentation of Evidence’ dated 28 August 2019 and prepared on behalf of the respondent Commissioner by Mr Steven Jeffrey and submitted to the tribunal for the purposes of the hearing; (e) Response to submissions from Land & Property Services NI and supporting evidence from the appellant; (f) Correspondence between the tribunal and the parties. The facts (1) The subject property consists of an inter-war detached bungalow situated at 7 Ballynahinch Road, Carryduff, County Down BT8 8DN (‘the subject property’). The property has a garage. The property was built around 1930. It has one storey with a gross external area (GEA) of 95m2 and a garage of 16m2. (2) On 1 October 2018 a decision of no change to the valuation of £175,000 was made. 2 (3) On 28 March 2019 an appeal against the District Valuer’s decision was made. The capital valuation was amended from £175,000 to £165,000. The appellant subsequently appealed to this tribunal. The respondent’s submissions in relation to comparable properties 6. The Commissioner’s Presentation of Evidence to the tribunal is that in deciding the capital value of the property regard was had to capital values in the valuation list of comparable hereditaments in the same state and circumstances. Details of these comparable properties were set out in a schedule to the Presentation of Evidence, with further particulars of same, including photographs of the comparable properties. Seven comparables were referred to in total. These were capital value assessments, the details of which are as follows: (a) The first comparable referred to was 688 Saintfield Road, Carryduff, County Down. This is a detached bungalow, built 1946-1965. It has a gross external area (GEA) of 94m2 and a garage of 19m2. The assessed Capital Value is £165,000. (b) The second comparable referred to was 8 Ballynahinch Road, Carryduff, County Down. This is a detached bungalow, built inter-war. It has a gross external area (GEA) of 119m2 and a garage of 22m2. The assessed Capital Value is £195,000. (c) The third comparable referred to was 25 Ballynahinch Road, Carryduff, County Down. This is a detached bungalow, built inter-war. It has a gross external area (GEA) of 102m2 and a garage of 13m2. The assessed Capital Value is £145,000. It was admitted in the evidence submitted that this capital value is awaiting reassessment following an extension having been carried out to the property. (d) The fourth comparable referred to was 34 Ballynahinch Road, Carryduff, County Down. This is a detached bungalow, built inter-war. It has a gross 3 external area (GEA) of 91m2 and a garage of 16m2. The assessed Capital Value is £145,000. (e) The fifth comparable referred to was 42 Ballynahinch Road, Carryduff, County Down. This is a detached bungalow, built 1946-1965. It has a gross external area (GEA) of 95m2 and a garage of 23m2. The assessed Capital Value is £155,000. (f) The sixth comparable referred to was 44 Ballynahinch Road, Carryduff, County Down. This is a detached bungalow, built 1946-1965. It has a gross external area (GEA) of 113m2. The assessed Capital Value is £160,000. (g) The seventh comparable referred to was 2 Annavale Avenue, Carryduff, County Down. This is a detached 1.5 storey chalet, built 1946-1965. It has a gross external area (GEA) of 94m2. The assessed Capital Value is £150,000. It was admitted in the evidence that the capital value of this property is currently awaited following an extension having been carried out to the property. The appellant’s submissions 7. The appellant submits that the capital valuation of the property is incorrect. He considers that the capital value of the subject property should be £145,000. He relies on several grounds to assert this as outlined in the paragraphs below. It will be noted that the evidence submitted by the appellant was very detailed and therefore it is only possible to provide a summary of the arguments placed before the tribunal by the appellant. The appellant may rest assured that all his submissions were considered by the tribunal in full. 8. The appellant has submitted in evidence a copy of the appeal valuer’s report dated 12 June 2019 in relation to the subject property. This was the report that formed the basis of the respondent amending the capital valuation of the subject property from £175,000 to £165,000. In the comparables mentioned in this report 4 reference is made to 8 Ballynahinch Road, Carryduff as having habitable space of 119m2, a garage of 22m2 and outbuilding of 81m2. There is a note “unable to locate outbuilding and not annotated on survey.” 9. The appellant also enclosed a copy letter from the respondent dated 5 September 2019 in which it (among other things) states: “The survey for 8 Ballynahinch Road includes property data for an outbuilding which cannot be identified via either aerial photography or from an on the ground inspection. It has either been removed or is the result of a data error. The impact in terms of this valuation is de minimis and was highlighted only in the interest of clarity and correctness. This remains one of the two most comparable properties.” 10. This letter dated 5 September 2019 further indicated that the respondent has surveys for 688 Ballynahinch Road, 8 Ballynahinch Road and 42 and 44 Ballynahinch Road. The remaining referred to in Appendix 1 either have property data only or are currently being reassessed due to alterations. 11. The appellant also referred to the fact that the respondent has assumed that the subject property is freehold. He confirms that it is in fact leasehold and that the appellant pays a ground rent in respect of the property. The letter from the respondent dated 5 September 2019 referred to the fact that tenure is not a relevant factor in assessing domestic rating in that one of the assumptions is that the property is sold with a freehold. Therefore, the assumption is that the property is freehold. 12. The appellant also submitted in evidence a letter from the respondent confirming that in relation to 8 Ballynahinch Road, a roadside inspection was carried out. The existing property data and sketch have been considered and aerial photography have been examined. 13. Reference was also made in the appellants’ evidence to the fact that the respondent has not been able to carry out an inspection of the subject property. 5 Various reasons are given for this and the tribunal does not propose to go into detail into the reasons for this. It is sufficient to say that an internal inspection of the subject property has not been carried out. 14. The appellant states that his house is 95m2 with a garage and central heating. In comparison, 25 Ballynahinch Road is 102m2 and has a capital valuation of £145,000. 15. The appellant states that his house has been advertised for sale at £135,000 and no work has been carried out to house which would affect what would have been a balanced valuation or would change the specifications on the list. 16. The appellant also refers to the following properties: (a) 2 Annavale Drive, Carryduff which is valued at £175,000 for capital valuation yet 2 Annavale Avenue is 94m2 is valued at £150,000. (b) 7 Knockbracken Crescent (referred to in the initial report by the respondent) is on a different road and is 0.7 miles from the subject property (c) 8 Edgar Avenue, Carryduff has similar comparative issues. (d) 25 Ballynahinch Road, Carryduff is 102m2 and has a capital valuation of £145,000. This property was relatively recently on the market for sale and it achieved a sale price of £135,000.