THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL FOR ENGLAND

Summary of Decision: council tax banding appeal; increase in banding due to original list error, all evidence admissible, no evidence Trust sales were not arm’s length transactions or not at market value, Listing Officer evidence not comparable, appeal allowed.

Re: Kerris Vean Farmhouse, Kerris Vean, Paul, Penzance TR19 6NT

APPEAL NO: 0840801117/176CAD

BETWEEN: Michael Dannhauser (Appellant)

and

Dal Virk (Respondent)

(Listing Officer)

BEFORE: Mr G Garland (President of the Tribunal)

SITTING AT: Truro Business Space Chiltern House City Road Truro TR1 2JL

ON: Wednesday 13 February 2019

APPEARANCES:

The Appellant appeared in person.

The Respondent Listing Officer was represented by Mr S Hickman of the Valuation Office Agency as advocate and Mr E Doran as expert witness.

1. The appeal was allowed as the best and most compelling evidence was a sale on the appeal dwelling in 1996 which was an arm’s length transaction on the open market.

2. The band was amended to band C with effect from 30 October 2016.

Introduction

3. This decision document is not and does not purport to be a full verbatim record of proceedings. However, the parties can be assured that I gave all the evidence and arguments put forward due judicial consideration.

4. This was a council tax valuation appeal. Council tax was introduced by the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and replaced the much criticised Community Charge (or Poll Tax). It is a tax based on the value of a dwelling placed in one of a number of Valuation Lists, with discounts and exemptions granted by the local authority where the liable person meets the relevant statutory criteria. The person responsible for entering properties into the Valuation List is known as the Listing Officer (LO) and is a member of the Valuation Office Agency (VOA).

5. Sections 1 and 2 of the Act introduce council tax in respect of dwellings (properties) and the concept of liability. Section 3 sets out the definition of a dwelling. Section 5 (2) sets out the bandings and values from A to H which dwellings in England must be allocated to:

Range of values

Valuation band

Values not exceeding £40,000 A

Values exceeding £40,000 but not exceeding £52,000 B

Values exceeding £52,000 but not exceeding £68,000 C Values exceeding £68,000 but not exceeding £88,000 D

Values exceeding £88,000 but not exceeding £120,000 E

Values exceeding £120,000 but not exceeding £160,000 F

Values exceeding £160,000 but not exceeding £320,000 G

Values exceeding £320,000 H

6. The valuation of each dwelling is calculated in accordance with the Council Tax (Situation and Valuation of Dwellings) Regulations 1992:

6 Valuation of dwellings: general

(1) Subject to regulation 7, for the purposes of valuations under section 21 (valuations for purposes of lists) of the Act, the value of any dwelling shall be taken to be the amount which, on the assumptions mentioned in paragraphs (2) and (3) below; the dwelling might reasonably have been expected to realise if it had been sold in the open market by a willing vendor on 1st April 1991.

(2) The assumptions are—

(a) that the sale was with vacant possession;

(b) that the interest sold was the freehold or, in the case of a flat, a lease for 99 years at a nominal rent;

(c) that the dwelling was sold free from any rent charge or other incumbrance;

(d) except in a case to which paragraph (3) or (3A) applies, that the size, layout and character of the dwelling, and the physical state of its locality, were the same as at the relevant date; (e) that the dwelling was in a state of reasonable repair;

(f) in the case of a dwelling the owner or occupier of which is entitled to use common parts, that those parts were in a like state of repair and the purchaser would be liable to contribute towards the cost of keeping them in such a state;

(g) in the case of a dwelling which contains fixtures to which this sub-paragraph applies, that the fixtures were not included in the dwelling;

(h) that the use of the dwelling would be permanently restricted to use as a private dwelling; and

(i) that the dwelling had no development value other than value attributable to permitted development.

7. There is one other matter which is important for this appeal and that relates to the issue of reasonable repair. The regulation states:

(6) In determining what is reasonable repair in relation to a dwelling for the purposes of paragraph (2), the age and character of the dwelling and its locality shall be taken into account (my emphasis).

8. In this appeal, the relevant date for consideration of the physical state of the dwelling and its locality is the date the property had originally been entered into the Valuation List, namely 1 April 1993. The valuation is undertaken with reference to sale values at 1 April 1991 (known as the Antecedent Valuation Date).

9. The appeal has travelled a long and varied path. The subject property entered the List as a band C dwelling with effect from the introduction of council tax on 1 April 1993. After a perceived relevant transaction and review for potential alterations and improvements the banding was increased by the LO to band E, with effect from 30 October 2016. However, after receiving a proposal from the Appellant the LO subsequently discovered that no alterations or improvements had taken place at the property since its introduction into council tax. At that point the LO agreed that the banding should not be increased to band E. On reflection, the LO then considered that an error / mistake had occurred when the appeal property was originally placed into the list and decided that the banding should be increased to band D, with effect from 30 October 2016.

10. A proposal was served on the LO dated 20 April 2017 by Mr Dannhauser. He disputed the increased assessment from band C to band D. The LO determined that the proposal was not well founded and issued a decision notice to that effect on 14 June 2017. Mr Dannhauser subsequently made an appeal to this tribunal against the decision notice.

11. The panel that heard the case issued a decision on 7 December 2017 allowing the appeal of Mr Michael Dannhauser against the decision of the Listing Officer dated 14 June 2017 and ordered that the council tax band applicable to Kerris Vean Farmhouse, Kerris Vean, Paul, Penzance TR19 6NT be reduced from band D to band C.

12. That decision was appealed by the LO to the High Court on a point of law. The point was whether the Tribunal applied the correct legal test to determine Mr Dannhauser’s appeal. The High Court’s decision ([2018] EWHC 3162 (Admin)) sets out the test that the panel undertook, and I don’t intend to repeat it in this decision. The outcome of the appeal was that the panel applied the wrong test. I have summarised the mains points as follows:

a. The reason as to why an error was made in the original valuation is not a matter for consideration (para. 53); and

b. The Listing Officer can rely on any evidence in determining the applicable banding for the appeal dwelling including ‘tone of the list’ and sales after the original valuation (para. 68).

13. There are potential difficulties with panels accepting all evidence and following the ‘tone of the list’ which I will address below, however, panels are well equipped to consider each case on its individual facts and give what weight they feel is appropriate. Therefore, the best evidence available will usually be sales closest to the AVD followed by appeal decisions and settled appeals. Such sales are in the possession of the LO. Tone can be a far more complicated matter than may appear in the words of the learned judge and though it can be relied upon, it must be scrutinised with vigour as the wrong answer may be arrived at (see later).

14. I will now look at three issues that panels will need to address in their consideration of cases:

a. Actual sales;

b. Tone of the list;

c. Burden of proof.

Actual Sales

15. Actual sales are extremely helpful in valuing dwellings although it is a band that needs to be ascribed to a dwelling, not a specific value. This evidence is usually a mix of sales on the appeal dwelling and comparable dwellings. Murray J rightly states the further away from the AVD and the more adjustments that need to be undertaken, the less weight that should be given to them. Murray J considers the LO would be looking at later sales on the basis that the earlier, and usually most relevant sales, were not available to them (para.71). It seems to me the learned judge must not have been made aware that this evidence was, and still is, in the possession of the LO.

16. The Appellant is the one disadvantaged in that these sales are not available to them unless on the appeal dwelling. Some sales evidence can be found on the internet but certainly not back to 1991. Parliament recognised the difficulties that taxpayers faced with the LO holding all the sales evidence and implemented regulation 17 of The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009. This regulation placed an evidential requirement on the LO to provide notice when such evidence is submitted at least two weeks before the hearing and for the Appellant to be able to seek a similar number of sales from the LO’s ‘pot’ of all the sales. 17. Can I turn now to the issue of later sales? The appeal dwelling has to be valued in accordance with the legislation which requires, in layman’s terms, a consideration of its sale value at 1 April 1991 on the basis of the dwelling as it existed at 1 April 1993 and its locality (relevant date). There are variations to the relevant date where a dwelling has been improved and a relevant transaction has taken place, or it didn’t exist at 1 April 1993.

18. The housing market has fluctuated since 1991 making it difficult to value back in financial terms. However, that it is not the only factor that can affect value. I can think of no better example to demonstrate some of the difficulties that can be encountered than considering the area around Broad Street, Birmingham as it is one I am familiar with. Meaning no disrespect to the good folk who have lived there for many years, the area was not the sought-after location it is today following all the excellent improvements. Those buying properties today are not just paying the price that dwellings have increased by since 1991 but also an inflated price to reflect the improvements in the area. If one was to analyse recent sales, you could come to the conclusion that similar dwellings that existed in April 1993 were incorrectly banded. This would be wrong as any banding increase would reflect improvements in the locality which the legislation doesn’t allow for and therefore to do so would be no more than creating a stealth tax. Furthermore, newly built dwellings in the area will be valued back to April 1991 but reflect the improved area on the basis that the relevant date for the locality is after the improvements. Because of this they may well end up being in a higher band. I should add that rating does not operate in the same way and all properties can have their rateable values increased when improvements take place.

19. Furthermore, dwellings values can fluctuate due to hidden factors. A classic example are schools and catchment areas. A school that receives an excellent Ofsted report will see demand outstrip places. How do parents who want their child to attend such a school ensure it happens? The answer as everyone knows is to buy a dwelling in the catchment area. Suddenly house prices increase much quicker than they would otherwise. If looking at the later sales one could surmise that the original bands were incorrect, which would be wrong. I mentioned schools but there is a long list of factors that can improve property values such as employment prospects, transport improvements, opening of additional local facilities or indeed fashion such as a change in people’s lifestyles. For example, in the early 90’s offspring tended to leave the family nest quite young but recent reports have indicated they are staying for longer. This may well result in people needing much larger properties than they did, so demand and therefore value of large properties exceeds the expected local figure. But for council tax what we are valuing is not demand as at today but the demand for dwellings and different types at April 1991.

20. As I mentioned earlier, the sales evidence around the AVD is in the possession of the Listing Officer. Later sales can reflect factors which should not be taken in to consideration and indeed can give rise to a stealth increase in taxation which Parliament didn’t intend. If there is any doubt about what the legislation states, then regulation 3:

“Restrictions on alteration of valuation bands

(1) No alteration shall be made of a valuation band shown in a list as applicable to any dwelling unless –

(a) since the valuation band was first shown in the list as applicable to the dwelling –

(i) … there has been a material increase in the value of the dwelling and a relevant transaction has been subsequently carried out in relation to the whole or any part of it;

(ii) subject to paragraph (2), there has been a material reduction in the value of the dwelling; or

(ii) …

(b) the LO is satisfied that: - …

(i) a different valuation should have been determined by the LO as applicable to the dwelling; or …

(note a material reduction includes a change in the locality)

21. There is nothing in law which allows a band to be increased, even if a relevant transaction has taken place, due to improvements in the locality. However, a proposal can be made, and the list altered where a change in the locality has a detrimental effect on value.

Tone of the List

22. Murray J sets this out in his judgment as follows:

“36. Ryde on Rating and the Council Tax at para 483 defines the term “tone of the list”, in the context of non-domestic rating, as follows:

“Since all rateable values in a rating list must be assessed at a common valuation date, the ‘tone of the list’ for a particular category of hereditament is the general level of value for that type of hereditament at that date. Assessments under appeal will carry less weight than assessments which are settled in the absence of an appeal or following determination of an appeal. The weight to be attached to comparable assessments increases over time.” 37. The tone of the list is therefore something that is established over time. In Jafton Properties Limited v Prisk (Valuation Officer) [1997] RA 137, 166-167, in a case dealing with non-domestic rating, the Lands Tribunal said:

“”[I]t is settled law that assessments of comparable hereditaments are admissible as evidence of value … and there are three stages leading to the establishment of tone of the list. At first, when the list is put on deposit, the assessments carry little weight: they are opinions of value by the valuation officer, as yet unchallenged and untested by negotiation and determination. As time passes more and more assessments are agreed or determined by valuation tribunals or this tribunal. Finally, a stage is reached when enough assessments have been settled or are unchallenged to establish a pattern of established values, a ‘tone of the list’.”

38.It is clear that this concept also applies to council tax valuation lists, for the same reasons, as was confirmed in relation to council tax in the case of Domblides v Listing Officer [2008] EWHC 3271 (Admin), [34]-[36].

23. As mentioned earlier rating and council tax are not the same. In rating, proposals (appeals) can be made at any time whereas for council tax the taxpayers were restricted to the first eight months of the list coming in to force or six months of becoming a new taxpayer. Outside of those constraints the only person who can alter the list is the LO. However, when council tax was introduced a considerable number of challenges (proposals) were made. By around 1996 all challenges were resolved and either the Lists were altered by way of agreements or Tribunal decisions or the original entries confirmed by way of withdrawal of the appeals or Tribunal decisions. The learned judge considered that:

“…Evidence of the tone of the list improves over time, as already discussed. Its use is amply justified in light of the policy in favour of accuracy.”

24. I agree that “Tone” can be important but in my view it is not and cannot of itself be conclusive as in this case (and many others). By 1996 all the initial appeals were resolved and that evidence must have significant weight where supported by Tribunal decisions and appeal settlements. But after the initial period only one party, the Listing Officer, could alter the list unless of course a new taxpayer appeared in the area. If the Tribunal is not careful on this point, then there is a significant risk that the list becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for the LO.

25. Furthermore, as mentioned above, in the case of an area were there have been improvements and new builds there will be two or more tones, one for those valued with reference to the locality when council tax was introduced and those where the values correctly reflect improvements on new dwellings.

26. Can the LO rely on the ’tone of the list’? The answer must be yes, as given by this Tribunal in the decision in Domblides where there was evidence of Tribunal decisions and settlements, provided the comparable properties are truly comparable but any differences reflected if they are band significant. Furthermore, where there are significant numbers of comparable dwellings in a higher band valued at the same relevant date and no challenges have been made, panels could rely on those bandings as establishing a tone. But panels must always be mindful of the time constraints placed on taxpayers. The LO has a remedy in law to address his error, a taxpayer who failed to appeal doesn’t. Any tone is not that which is prevalent in rating.

27. Therefore, the best evidence, where available, will always, in my view, be sales which the LO is able to provide as the official with access to a vast range of information. By providing them he gives a transparency to the process and also allows the taxpayer to seek a similar number of sales from the Listing Officer’s ‘bucket’. This then leads me on to the burden of proof.

Burden of proof

28. Pre-1990 when the concept of ‘tone of the list’ was introduced by the courts and Lands Tribunal, a Valuation Officer wishing to alter a list had to serve a proposal on the ratepayer and the burden was on him to produce the evidence to substantiate the reasons for the change. Since 1990 that has changed. However, in council tax it is only the LO who can alter the List where an error occurs (outside of any initial challenge of the compiled Lists). Furthermore, the LO holds all the sales evidence available from around the AVD. Is it reasonable to place the burden on the taxpayer where it is the LO who is correcting his error in the List? As Murray J says the LO doesn’t need to explain the error but there must, in my opinion, be an evidential burden on him to produce the evidence which gave rise to the alteration. Similarly, the taxpayer must do his best, with limited evidence available, to justify his position.

29. I am satisfied that in recognising the duty of the LO to maintain an accurate list Murray J must have had in his mind that the mere fact of error is something that the LO can assert, however any subsequent alteration will be evidenced and explained by reference to the comparison one would make with all the available evidence.

The Appeal Dwelling

30. Kerris Vean is a rural hamlet located between the villages of Sheffield and Lamorna. It is situated approximately four miles from Penzance, Kerris Vean Farm House is accessed via a long-shared access track which leads to a cluster of houses in an elevated position.

31. According to the Appellant the track is a rough single-track bridleway in poor condition. Temporary repairs to fill pot holes have been carried out by residents (who are not responsible for the maintenance of the access) to ensure Royal Mail doesn’t suspend deliveries. The final 300 yards of the bridleway was a rough dirt track, sometimes only negotiable in a 4x4 vehicle or tractor during spells of bad weather, until it was surfaced at a personal cost of £25,000 by the owner of The Barns, Kerris Vean in order to encourage a sale of their property. This work was carried out many years after 1993 (the relevant date for this appeal).

32. The appeal dwelling is a five bedroom end terraced house. It was built pre- 1900 and measures 272m2 RCA (reduced covered area which includes external wall thickness).

33. The accommodation consists of a kitchen, three reception rooms, utility, five bedrooms, two bathrooms and a conservatory. The Respondent drew to my attention that at the time of inspection (16th October 2017) the en-suite shower room was not usable as it was not connected to the septic tank. This I understood was as a result of DIY works by the previous owner which were not to a standard which meant it could be properly used.

34. According to the Appellant’s evidence at the relevant date the kitchen had been in existence since the 1980’s and had in it a sixty-year old Aga which wasn’t working. The property suffered from damp, the windows were in poor condition, with a couple of them over 100 years old and the external woodwork was also in poor condition. Photographs produced by the Listing Officer using the estate agent’s details appeared to suggest a presentable property with an impressive kitchen, whereas the Appellant’s photographs and witness statement suggest a property in need of maintenance and modernisation.

35. The property has good size gardens, located in a countryside setting with rural views. The garage was dated and in poor condition needing repairs.

36. The property was bought by the current owners on 30th September 2016 for £365,000. An earlier sale of the subject property was brought to the LO’s attention by Mr Dannhauser and only very recently confirmed (as it was mistakenly attached to a different address) for £57,000 on the 13th June 1996. That sale was one that on the face of it was a market transaction at arm’s length for a market price. Issue

37. The issue was quite a simple one, having regard to all the evidence should the appeal dwelling be placed in band C or band D?

Decision and Reasons

38. As mentioned much earlier I am required to place the appeal dwelling in a band based on a regulation 6 valuation in accordance with the Council Tax (Situation and Valuation of Dwellings) Regulations 1992. The AVD is the 1 April 1991 and the relevant date 1 April 1993.

39. The best starting point is always going to be sales evidence on the appeal dwelling. The closer any sales are to meeting the regulation 6 valuation the greater the weight they will have. Any such evidence will also need to be tested against comparable dwellings.

40. The appeal property was sold to the previous owner on 13 June 1996 for £57,000. The Listing Officer questions the sale on four points:

a. It was not an arm’s length transaction;

b. It was one of three sales at the time in the locality which may have reflected the market;

c. The property may have been tenanted at the time of sale;

d. The dwelling was not in a reasonable state of repair.

41. Mr Dannhauser provided within the bundle the following information to demonstrate that the sales were arm’s length transactions:

“Thomas Bedford Bolitho died on 22/5/1915, and the entirety of his residuary estate, including Kerris Vean Frarmhouse, eventually was held in trust for his daughter, Mrs F Williams, for her own use and benefit absolutely.

By a conveyance dated 25/3/1963, the Will Trustees (E. Bolitho, P Williams, Mrs F Williams) at the request and direction of Mrs Williams conveyed all the ‘settled lands’ to Barclays Bank Ltd to hold upon and subject to the trusts powers and provisions. The proceeds of any sales were to be for permanent benefit of the Trust. The power of appointing a new trustee or trustees was vested in Mrs Williams. Mrs Williams died in 1977.

On 1/1/1970 Barclays Bank Trust Company Ltd became a successor trustee in place of Barclays Bank Ltd.

The trustees effected sales and conveyed away properties for the benefit of the Trust on the following dates: 17/6/1969, 20/3/1970, 22/5/1972, 8/1/1973, 24/9/1974, 21/4/1981, 31/7/1991, 16/8/1994, 13/1/1995, 28/3/1995. East Cottage, Kerris Vean on 15/9/1995 for £35,950 to Mr H and Mrs C. West Cottage, Kerris Vean on 22/9/1995 for £29,000 to Ms G. We can provide the names of the parties to all the transactions if required.

Barclays Bank Trust Ltd by now was the sole trustee and retired on 19/12/1995 when it appointed Messrs Bolitho, Coode and Buxton as the new trustees in its place. On 13/6/1996 the new trustees sold Kerris Vean Farmhouse on the open market in a reasonable state of repair to Mr S Campbell for £57,000.

The above-mentioned transactions were conducted by a willing vendor (the trustees) and were open market and clean in terms of the parties involved in the transactions.

42. The Appellant advised me he had spoken to a neighbour and a member of the Bolitho family and also knew some information about the previous owner, Mr Campbell. Mr Dannhauser advised me that he didn’t believe Mr Campbell had any connection with the Trust or Trustees and bought the property on the open market. I put to the parties that it is common knowledge in law that Trustees are responsible for achieving the best value possible for the Trust (and any beneficiary thereof) and therefore on the face of it couldn’t accept that the transactions were not at arm’s length.

43. I questioned the Respondent about his assertion that the sale wasn’t an arm’s length transaction. Other than his comparable sales evidence he had no proof or could offer no evidence to counter what Mr Dannhauser was putting forward. I challenged him as to why he didn’t question the Trustees when he had this information in advance of the hearing. His response was along the lines of data protection issues. I said then and I maintain that I saw no reason why he couldn’t ask the question. Put simply, in my opinion Mr Dannhauser had produced evidence which in my view was compelling and discharged his burden of proving his case.

44. I made it clear at the hearing that I accepted the sales as being arm’s length transactions.

It was one of three sales at the time in the locality which may have reflected the market.

45. The Respondent considered that three properties on the market in close proximity could affect value. No evidence was put forward to support that view. Indeed, I don’t believe that when a new estate is built those properties are somehow worth less as a number will be for sale at the same time or even a road where two or three properties are put on the market at one time. The argument simply doesn’t get out of the starting blocks unless comparable sales suggest something different.

The property may have been tenanted at the time of sale

46. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest the appeal property was tenanted at the time of the sale and it would appear from the Appellant’s evidence the purchaser was not connected in any way with the Trust which one assumes includes being a tenant. However, what does the comparable evidence suggest?

47. Mr Dannhauser states that the dwelling was in a reasonable state of repair when purchased in 1996. However, Mr Dannhauser wasn’t the purchaser and can’t be certain. Photographs and evidence given by the Appellant indicated the dwelling suffered from damp, rotten windows, water ingress, other woodwork in a poor condition and water ingress when he purchased the dwelling. It was submitted by the Appellant that the lack of repair was down to Mr Campbell. 48. The appeal dwelling must be valued in a reasonable state of repair but having due regard to its age and character. The dwelling had a 1980’s kitchen, the property was rebuilt, in part, in the 1900’s and in part has not been modernised (certainly not to the extent of a recent barn conversion submitted in evidence by the Respondent). It is also accessed via a rough single-track bridleway in poor condition. At the relevant date the final 300 yards of the bridleway was a rough dirt track, sometimes only negotiable in a 4x4 vehicle or tractor during spells of bad weather. Therefore, certain issues that would affect value need to be adjusted.

49. I can’t be certain of the dwellings state of repair at the time of the 1996 purchase and suspect some small adjustment needed to be made to reflect those factors I needed to adjust for.

50. According to Mr Dannhauser the Respondent would adjust sales in 1996 by around 6% as it reflects values in 1991. This wasn’t contested by the Respondent at the hearing. Even if that figure is out there was enough width within band C to reflect a greater adjustment to reflect value at 1991 and any repairs issue that the sale needs adjusting for.

Do the sales reflect the open market value?

51. The only way to test this is to look at the comparable dwellings submitted in evidence. It did appear to me that all the evidence I had about the appeal dwelling and the sale of the two other smaller dwellings, East Cottage and West Cottage of 104 m2 would indicate open market value. However, East Cottage sold again on 30 April 1998 for £59,950. The Respondent thought that the second sale on the open market at £24,000 more than the 1995 sale and only around two and a half years later could (my emphasis) suggest the initial sale was below the market. Mr Dannhauser explained that through enquiries he had been advised that the 1995 purchaser undertook significant improvements to the dwelling before selling it on. Details were provided to me of how he had found out this information which I found credible.

Lamorna Valley – The Rod Meadow, The Cottage, Oakhill Cottage, Oakhill

52. The Respondent relied on four dwellings in the Lamorna Valley to support his contention that the market value of the appeal dwelling was higher than the figure achieved in 1996. The sales support that view but the critical issue was whether the locality was value different, even though it wasn’t many miles away. The Respondent’s expert stated that he would be surprised to see such a variation in value in Cornwall where dwellings were relatively close although he didn’t appear to have any specific knowledge of the area.

53. Mr Dannhauser advised me he had lived in the Lamorna Valley between 2001 and 2003. He knew from his experience that it was a considerably more expensive area. Mr Dannhauser referred to Zoopla average values for the Lamorna Valley being around £600k whereas the appeal property area was around £400k. The difficulty with the Zoopla figures, as stated by Mr Hickman, was that dwellings might be larger in the Lamona Valley or have more land. The Appellant was quite surprised that the Respondent challenged the point and explained that the Lamona Valley was world famous due to the artists (Post-Impressionist) that visited and painted scenes of the area.

54. Whilst I had no doubt that Mr Doran was an expert witness on values in Cornwall as a whole, I wasn’t convinced that his argument was correct in respect of the area in question. He appeared to have little specific knowledge of values in the Lamona Valley and was basing his argument on general knowledge for the County. The Appellant had raised this with the Respondent in advance of the hearing and rather than the Respondent seeking to disprove the argument, he relied on the Appellant being unable to substantiate his (the Appellant’s) view.

55. However, the Appellant had a level of knowledge from having lived in the area as well as his oral evidence on how much more valuable dwellings were as evidenced in local newspapers. Although, I didn’t accept his evidence in respect of the Zoopla figures as there are just too many unknowns. I found Mr Dannhauser a credible witness and his evidence more compelling and accepted that those dwellings cited by the Respondent in the Lamona Valley were more valuable and therefore the comparable properties situated there were not helpful.

Kerris Manor Cottage

56. According to the Appellant this property was situated in the historically significant Kerris Manor and has a triple garage. It is located down a private lane and therefore the Respondent was unable to produce a photograph. It was significantly smaller being only 149m2. It was however a detached house, whereas the appeal dwelling was an end terrace. It is difficult to compare a smaller detached house in a different location with the appeal dwelling.

The Barns, Kerris Vean

57. This dwelling was located in the same Hamlet as the appeal property. However, it was a detached barn conversion. It was much larger and of a different nature and therefore not comparable.

The Stable, Kerris Vean

58. This dwelling was also located in the same Hamlet and was a detached barn conversion. Described by the Listing Officer as “…not strictly comparable…”. Little more needed to be said.

Carn-A-Langa

59. This property was smaller at 198m2 but was detached and in a different location. It was of a similar age and banded E, which indicated that the Listing Officer considered it to be more valuable than the appeal dwelling. It sold for £134,950. The difficulty is that even at the top end of band D at £88,000 there is a significant value difference. I just do not find it helpful.

Conclusion

60. In conclusion, the arm’s length transaction sale of the appeal dwelling in 1996 when adjusted to reflect a value in 1991 in accordance with regulation 6 places the property in band C. The sales on East and West Cottage support band C. There was no evidence to suggest that any of the sales didn’t reflect the market value of the properties at the time they were sold. Mr Dannhauser was a credible witness who had taken some time to research his case and his explanations made sense to me.

61. I am sorry that this decision is of some length which reflects the difficult nature of the subject matter as it does try to apply law and procedure introduced in the 1990s to todays world. The difficulties for Appellants in trying to muster credible evidence can be immense and at the same time the job of the LO is made difficult having to access values and conditions of property which can be rightly categorised as historic.

62. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the parties for conducting the hearing professionally with pleasing politeness and candour. In particular, the LO’s representative did, in my view, take a professional and realistic approach to his case.

63. Being satisfied that Mr Dannhauser had the more persuasive evidence on the day I allow the appeal.

Order

As a result of this decision the Listing Officer is required to alter the Valuation List in respect of Kerris Vean Farmhouse, Kerris Vean, Paul, Penzance TR19 6NT within two weeks as follows:

Band C with effect from 30 October 2016

Mr G Garland

President

Mr J Bestow

Registrar

APPEAL NO: 0840801117/176CAD