FERGUSON and VALUER GENERAL - [2025] WASAT 41

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: VALUATION OF LAND ACT 1978 (WA)
CITATION:   FERGUSON and VALUER GENERAL [2025] WASAT 41
MEMBER:   MS R PETRUCCI, MEMBER
HEARD:   2 APRIL 2025
DELIVERED          :   12 MAY 2025
FILE NO/S:   DR 144 of 2024
BETWEEN:   MYLES KENNETH FERGUSON
Applicant
AND
VALUER GENERAL
Respondent

Catchwords:

Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA) - Valuation of land - Date of valuation (DOV) - Residential property in suburban Perth - Methodology of valuation - Valuer's 'art' - Gross rental value (GRV) - Whether determination of GRV reasonably possible - Determination of GRV - Relevant principles - Use of comparable rental evidence - Expert assessment by valuer - Non-expert assessment by registered proprietor - Alleged anomalous increase in GRV from previous year - Alleged subjective assessment - Alleged failure to consider comparable nearby property - Comparability of rental evidence - Tribunal not 'third valuer' - Review jurisdiction of Tribunal - Correct and preferable decision

Legislation:

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 17(1), s 27(1), s 29(3), Pt IV
Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), s 4, s 6(2)(a), s 32, s 32(2)

Result:

Application for review dismissed
Decision under review affirmed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	N/A
Respondent	:	Mr D Dumas (Representative of Valuer General)

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	N/A
Respondent	:	N/A

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Citic Pacific Mining Management Pty Ltd and Valuer General [2016] WASAT 23
Duffy v The Minister for Planning [2003] WASCA 294
Hafez and Valuer General [2012] WASAT 103
Julians Lodge PL v Commissioner of State Revenue [2001] VCAT 1945
McKay v Commission of Main Roads [No 7] [2011] WASC 223

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

In 1953 Mr Ferguson's father purchased the block of land on which the family home was built. Later, in about 2000, the block became two strata lots (71 and 71a Gildercliffe Street, Scarborough) under the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA).
Mr Ferguson inherited Lot 1 on Strata Plan 37416, known as 71 Gildercliffe Street, Scarborough, which is approximately 14 kilometres from the Perth Central Business District and approximately two kilometres from the ocean (property).
In about 2016, Mr Ferguson set about extending and renovating the property. The works, according to Mr Ferguson, were done to suit his and his wife's requirements without any consideration of what other people may look for in a house. Mr Ferguson describes the property as a two storey house with a loft level in the roof space which has an office and studio, two bedrooms, one walk in robe, three bathrooms, two living areas, dining area, laundry, kitchen, deck with alfresco and spa, a small balcony, a lift and a double garage.[1] According to Mr Ferguson, the property has an area of 387 square metres (or half a block).
[1] Exhibit 1 (HB) at page 151.
Mr Ferguson challenges the gross rental value (GRV) of $34,320[2] for his property at 1 August 2021 (the date of valuation or DOV) as set out in the Principal Valuer, Valuation Services, Landgate letter dated 23 July 2024 which disallowed his objection.[3] The valuation was made by the Valuer General under the Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA) (VL Act) for rating purposes and is to be used by the relevant rating authorities from 1 July 2023.
[2] The Valuer General reduced the GRV of the property at the DOV from $37,440 to $34,320 on 23 July 2024 following Mr Ferguson's objection. In that objection Mr Ferguson was of the view that the GRV was $32,000 (HB at pages 75 to 84).
[3] HB at pages 5 to 6.
GRV is relevantly defined in s 4 of the VL Act as follows:
gross rental value of land means the gross annual rental that the land might reasonably be expected to realize if let on a tenancy from year to year upon condition that the landlord were liable for all rates, taxes and other charges thereon and the insurance and other outgoings necessary to maintain the value of the land, provided that -
(a)where the gross rental value of land cannot reasonably be determined on such basis, the gross rental value shall be the assessed value; and
…
The Valuer General's disallowance of Mr Ferguson's objection (see above at [4]) is a reviewable decision for the purposes of s 17(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SATAct) (decision). The role of the Valuer General, as set out in s 32(2) of the VL Act, is to refer Mr Ferguson's request of 20 September 2024[4] to the Tribunal, whereupon the referral is treated as an application by Mr Ferguson.
[4] HB at page 8.
It is not in dispute that Mr Ferguson is a 'person liable to pay any rate or tax assessed in respect of land who is dissatisfied with the valuation of such land' within the meaning of s 32 of the VL Act. Further, it is not in dispute that Mr Ferguson has properly objected to the valuation within the meaning in Pt IV of the VL Act and that the review of the decision has been properly brought under Pt IV of the VL Act.
At the final hearing on 2 April 2025, Mr Ferguson urged the Tribunal to utilise the GRV of 119a Grand Promenade, Doubleview, being the comparable property to his property, but with adjustment to allow for the four bedrooms that property has (as compared to two bedrooms that his property has) to give a GRV of $26,520 for his property at the DOV.[5]
[5] Mr Ferguson's position has changed over time. On 1 December 2024, in a written statement filed with the Tribunal (HB at page 130) he claimed the GRV of his property at the date of valuation is $17,250. In his written statement filed with the Tribunal on 18 February 2025, Mr Ferguson asserted that the GRV for his property was $20,966. Then, on 6 March 2025, Mr Ferguson in a written statement filed with the Tribunal he set out three alternative options for the GRV: first $22,308, second $26,520 and third using the 'assessed value' of the land. Ultimately, at the final hearing, Mr Ferguson only pursued the second option, that is a GRV at the DOV for his property of $26,520.
On the other hand, the Valuer General submits that a GRV of $34,320 for the property, at the DOV, is correct.
The contest between the parties is whether the GRV of Mr Ferguson's property is $26,520 or $34,320. Therefore, the sole issue to be determined in this proceeding is, what is the GRV of the property at the DOV?
The hearing before the Tribunal is a hearing de novo which means that the Tribunal is not confined to the materials that were before the Valuer General at the time when the decision was made. In accordance with s 27(1) of the SAT Act, the Tribunal must produce the correct and preferable decision in accordance with the functions and discretions corresponding to those exercisable by the original decision‑maker, the Valuer General. Therefore, the Tribunal, as provided for in s 29(3) of the SAT Act, may:
•affirm the decision; or
•vary the decision; or
•set aside the decision and in doing so substitute it with its own decision; or
•send the decision back to the Valuer General to reconsider it in accordance with any directions that may be appropriate and, in any case, make any other order the Tribunal considers appropriate.
In the following reasons, I explain why Mr Ferguson's application for review of the GRV for his property at the DOV is unsuccessful. This means that the decision under review is affirmed.

Valuation by the Valuer General

It is accepted by the Valuer General that not all housing in the Perth metropolitan area is homogenous and that there are different designs and customised homes such as Mr Ferguson's property. However, while evidence may be harder to find, it is the position of the Valuer General that it is appropriate to assess the GRV for the property by the direct comparison method.
Further, the Valuer General explained that due to the large volume of properties, or about 900,000 properties throughout Western Australia that the Valuer General is required to value, computer-assisted mass appraisal models are used in undertaking the valuations. These models include 'mandatory' fields, such as the construction type and number of effective rooms, which impacts on the GRV and 'descriptive' fields such as the number of lounge rooms which are taken into consideration but do not impact on the GRV.[6] However, when a valuation is objected to, and also when the objection to a valuation is referred to the Tribunal, the valuer undertakes a review of the valuation.[7]
[6] HB at page 77.
[7] ts 53 to 54, 2 April 2025.
In this case, the GRV assessment was undertaken for the Valuer General by Mr Wayne Culverwell, Principal Valuer, Valuation Services, Landgate.
I had the benefit of affirmed oral evidence from Mr Culverwell at the final hearing on 2 April 2025. Mr Culverwell is a licensed valuer with over 44 years of experience in valuations of a broad range of property types. Mr Culverwell filed with the Tribunal his witness statement dated 21 February 2025 which he confirmed at the final hearing.[8]
[8] HB at pages 195 to 199.
It is Mr Culverwell's view that in this case there is sufficient rental evidence to determine the GRV of the property and therefore the appropriate valuation methodology is by direct comparison. When asked to set out his reasoning process in determining the GRV for the property, Mr Culverwell gave the following explanation:[9]
[I] looked at the evidence that was available for what I felt were properties that had, in many circumstances, similar attributes to the subject [the property] but made the comparisons to those and adjustments to the subject [the property] to what I felt was a comparison to the subject [the property].
[9] ts 17, 2 April 2025.
Mr Culverwell explained that he had to work from the plans and photographs provided as Mr Ferguson did not allow a full internal inspection of the property to be carried out. It was explained by Mr Culverwell that:[10]
[I]t - like with any valuation, you - you get a much better feel for a property by getting in, having a look, you know, see what the property looks like and align that with the set of plans, because I was working only off a set of plans that has been submitted. … I don't know if those plans match exactly. I'm looking at some of the photos. You can sort of get a - sort of an idea where you are, but it's a lot easier when you can get in and have a look.
[10] ts 59, 2 April 2025.
To arrive at the GRV of $34,320, or $660 per week, Mr Culverwell considered the features and design of the following eight rental properties to compare to Mr Ferguson's property at the DOV:[11]
[11] HB at pages 198 to 199.

Address

Transaction

Description

Comments

Comparison

71 Gildercliffe St, Scarborough

GRV: $34,320/$660 per week Date of Valuation 1/8/2021

Steel framed and metal deck constructed, 3 level house effectively built in 2016 comprising 2 bedrooms, 3 living rooms, kitchen, kitchenette, scullery, dining, studio, study, 3 bathrooms, walk in robe with all levels of the home serviced by a lift. The house has a triple garage and measures a total area of 388m2.

Subject land is a street front survey strata lot having a land area of 387m². The lot enjoys an elevated position which affords the home uninterrupted, panoramic views of the surrounding area out to the ocean. Other features of the residence include a spa/plunge pool and a decked entertainment area.

Subject

Trethowan Lane, Scarborough

Rented for $820 per week on 13/10/21

GRV: $26,000/$500 per week

B/Ven 2 storey house built in 2018 comprising 2 bedrooms, lounge, kitchen, dining, family, study, 2 bathrooms, 3 toilets, 2 carports and an area of 136m².

A similar aged, stand-alone, 2 bedroom home located in Trethowan Lane on a small, street front survey strata lot (land area approx. 200m²). The home is approximately a third the size of the subject, does not provide many of the grand features of the subject but like the subject, it has a small plunge pool. Although located less than a kilometre from the subject the property, it does not obtain any views. Overall deemed a considerably inferior property to the subject.

Considerably inferior

Westview Street, Scarborough

Rented for $710 per week on 21/5/21

GRV: $27,040/$520 per week

B/Metal deck 1½ storey house built in 2008 comprising 2 bedrooms, lounge, kitchen, dining, 2 bathrooms, retreat, walk in robe and a store. The home has a pool and measures an area of 165m².

A stand-alone, 2 bedroom home located in Westview St on a small, street front survey strata lot (land area approx. 300m²). This home is 8 years older than the subject and although located less than half a kilometre from the subject, the property does not obtain any views. The home is less than half the size of the subject and features a below ground pool however does not provide many of the grand features of the subject. Overall deemed a considerably inferior property to the subject.

Considerably inferior

Herbert Street, Doubleview

Rented for $710 per week on 21/6/21

GRV: $28,080/$540 per week

B/Tile 2 storey house built in 2003 comprising 3 bedrooms, lounge, kitchen, dining and 2 bathrooms. Car covers include a double garage under the main roof. The home measures an area of 150m².

A stand-alone, 3 bedroom home located in Herbert St on a small, street front strata lot (land area approx. 280m²). This home is 13 years older than the subject and although having an additional bedroom, it is a litter over a third the floor area. Located less than a kilometre from the subject, the property does not obtain any views and does not provide many of the grand features of the subject. Overall deemed a considerably inferior property to the subject.

Considerably inferior

Newborough Street, Scarborough

Rented for $695 per week on 27/10/21

GRV: 22,100/ $425 per week

B/Tile 2 storey house built in 1992 comprising 2 bedrooms, lounge, kitchen, dining, and 2 bathrooms. Car covers include a detached garage and carport. The home measures an area of 114m².

A stand-alone 2‑bedroom home located in Newborough St, on a small, street front strata lot (approx. 400m²). This home is 24 years older than the subject and although located less than a kilometre from the subject, the property does not obtain any views. Overall considered a significantly inferior property to the subject.

Significantly inferior

95 Duke Street, Scarborough

Rented for $500 per week on 26/5/2021

GRV: $20,280 /$390 per week

B/I upstairs single level home built in 2015 comprising 2 bedrooms, lounge, kitchen, meals and 2 bathrooms. Car cover is single carport. The unit measures 72m².

The property is one of 12 strata titled homes units located less than a kilometre from the subject but does not obtain any views from its location. The unit is less than a 5^th the size of the subject and provides none of the additional features of the subject. Although this property is significantly inferior to the subject and not directly comparable, it demonstrates a tenant is prepared to pay $500/week for a 2-bedroom home unit in group housing.

Significantly inferior

171 West Coast Highway, Scarborough

Rented for $1,200 per week on 3/9/2021

GRV $30,680/$590 per week

B/I 2 storey apartment comprising 2 bedrooms, 2 lounge rooms, kitchen, dining, 2 bathrooms and a storeroom. Car covers include a triple carport. The apartment measures 110m².

The apartment is one [in] a large development of approximately 100 apartments and therefore is not directly comparable to the subject. It has been included as evidence of a strong demand for 2‑bedroom accommodation in the Scarborough area.

Inferior

171 West Coast Highway, Scarborough

Rented for $1,150 per week on 1/12/2021

GRV $33,280/$640 per week

B/I 2 storey apartment comprising 2 bedrooms, 2 lounge rooms, kitchen, dining, 2 bathrooms and a storeroom. Car covers include a triple carport. The apartment measures 113m² and enjoys ocean views.

The apartment is one [in] a large development of approximately 100 apartments and therefore is not directly comparable to the subject. It has been included as evidence of a strong demand for 2‑bedroom accommodation in the Scarborough area. As with the subject this 2-level apartment enjoys ocean views.

Inferior

5 Reserve Street, Scarborough

Rented for $870 per week on 12/2/2021

GRV: $30,160/$580 per week

Conc/I 2nd floor apartment built in 2014 comprising 2 bedrooms, kitchen, meals, family room and 2 bathrooms. The apartment measures 92m² and has a double garage and enjoys ocean views.

The apartment is one a medium size development of approximately 40 apartments and therefore is not directly comparable to the subject. It has been included as evidence of a strong demand for 2-bedroom accommodation in the Scarborough area. As with the subject this apartment enjoys ocean views.

Considerably inferior

Mr Culverwell summarised his review of the above properties as follows:[12]
The first property in Trethowan Lane, … is a two-storey house, it's two bedroom, it was built at a similar time in 2018.
I know that the subject property wasn't built then, but it was extensively added to at that time, and that was rented for $820 a week. So I think that sets the underlying rent. It can't be less than that, in my opinion. So by looking at that, I think that it can't be less than $820 a week because, clearly, if let's say, the tenants didn't rent that property and Mr Ferguson's property was available, and they would pay at least $820, I consider more because there's other factors, and I can go through it, it might take a while to go through the - going down to the nuts and bolts of the comparison on each one and why my reasoning, but I have pretty well got to the bottom of each one saying that that's how I feel it compares to the subject [property].
…
I consider that the - going back to what I said as a direct comparison to those properties that are rented, that there are certain issues in each point that make the property more attractive, in my experience, and they might be factors, for instance, being a larger property it probably doesn't take much imagination to think that someone would pay more for a more substantial property. There's other features in each case that add to the attractiveness of the subject over and above those individual properties that were rented. So in my experience, they are factors that may just be quite obvious to the layman that they better, but in my opinion, having seen a lot of properties rented and spoken to a lot of real estate agents in my time of what does attract tenants, in my opinion, the property is superior in every one of these cases, and in my opinion, the $660 a week that the GRV represents would be more than achievable in the market at the date of valuation.
[12] ts 18 to 19, 2 April 2025.
In conclusion, Mr Culverwell stated that while there may not be a perfect 'mirror' or 'identical' property to that of Mr Ferguson's property that is rented, with the subjective art of valuation, in his extensive valuation experience, in his opinion, the evidence of the properties that he has put forward is fair and reasonable in terms of determining an adequate GRV for the property at the DOV.[13]
[13] ts 19, 2 April 2025.

Valuation by Mr Ferguson

I also had the benefit of Mr Ferguson's affirmed oral evidence at the final hearing on 2 April 2025. Mr Ferguson did not file a witness statement.
Mr Ferguson explained that he is a retired chief marine engineer and that he has experience in property which extends back to 1988 when he built up a property portfolio of 12 rental properties which he managed (rented out, placed advertisements and vetted prospective tenants[14]) for about 15 years up to 2015. It is this experience, which Mr Ferguson says, gives him a first-hand experience of how 'tenants access a property to live in.'[15]
[14] ts 75, 2 April 2025.
[15] HB at page 201.

Mr Ferguson's position at the final hearing on 2 April 2025 is that utilising 119a Grand Promenade, Doubleview, as a comparable property to his property but with an adjustment of 15% to allow for the four bedrooms of that property, the GRV for his property is $26,520 at the DOV, or in other words the GRV for his property should be reduced from $660 per week to $510 per week at the DOV.

Objection to GRV by Mr Ferguson

Mr Ferguson maintains his objection to the GRV of $34,320 at the DOV on the following main grounds, which I have grouped as follows:
•Prior year objection
•In 2020, the GRV of the neighbouring property at 73 Gildercliffe Street, a 4 x 2 x 2, was lower than his property. He objected and his GRV was reduced to $30,160, partly because of a discrepancy in the building plans and in respect of an internal wall that had not been built. The valuer at the time told him that she could not find a comparable house to his. Separately, Mr Warr, a valuer for the Valuer General, with over 30 years' experience stated, in his valuation report dated 1 November 2021, there 'was a lack of directly comparable rents due to the large size of the house and number of bedrooms (only two bedrooms).[16]
[16] HB at page 33.
•Prior year GRVs
•In 2017 his property had a GRV of $38,480 which was 12.12% higher than 73 Gildercliffe Street, and 27.16% higher than 119a Grand Promenade.
•In 2020, prior to his objection, his property's GRV was 13.56% higher than 73 Gildercliffe Street, and 35.35% higher than 119a Grand Promenade.[17]
[17] ts 64 to 65, 2 April 2025.
•Comparability of rental evidence
•How can a reliable valuation be derived by comparing his property with properties different in size, age, features and overall quality?
•The comparison to properties that are 'inferior' and 'considerably inferior' may inflate the GRV of his property due to the stark differences.
•His property is a standalone house making direct comparison to apartments problematic and inflate the perceived rental value of his property.
•His property is inland, not close to the beach as many of the apartments relied on are. Apartments target a different rental market.
•What adjustments were made to the rental for differences in features, size, view etc?
•Subjective assessment by Mr Culverwell
•The statement that his property would appeal more to a professional couple or small family is subjective and may not accurately reflect the potential tenant pool.
•Whether tenants willing to pay high rents for luxury apartments on the beach would pay the same for his property is debatable.
•Descriptions such as 'quality' and 'grand proportions' are not reflective of an objective valuer. Whether 'quality' and 'grand proportions' impact on rental value is subjective.
•119a Grand Promenade, Doubleview
•The Doubleview property is comparable to his property. It backs on to Mickey Lane between Gildercliffe Street and Grand Promenade and is about 80 metres from his property. It has two levels with a loft and has four bedrooms. It was renovated and extended in 2016. It is situated on half a block.

Consideration of Mr Ferguson's objection to the GRV of $34,320 at DOV

Lack of independent valuation

While Mr Ferguson challenges the valuation methodology including Mr Culverwell's opinion, he chose not to produce any independent expert valuation to rebut the Valuer General's expert valuation. This in in the context, that Mr Ferguson was:
(a)invited at an earlier stage in the proceeding (at a directions hearing) to file his expert valuation evidence to rebut the Valuer General's expert opinion; and
(b)informed that the Tribunal is not a valuation agency and that it does not take on the role of 'third valuer.'[18]
[18] As the Tribunal is not 'a valuer' this limits the role of the Tribunal in a valuation case. However, those limits do not require the Tribunal to act on any evidence of a valuer, which for a proper reason, the Tribunal does not accept.
Much will turn upon the material collected by, and the application of the expert valuer's opinion on that material. Therefore, it is ordinarily necessary for each party to put forward an expert valuation. This, the valuer for the Valuer General has done, but Mr Ferguson declined to do so, citing the cost to obtain an expert valuation report.
In Julians Lodge PL v Commissioner of State Revenue [2001] VCAT 1945 (Julians Lodge), the Tribunal (constituted by a panel including the then President Kellam J) held at [23] to [24]:
We are satisfied that the method adopted by Mr Burkitt [expert valuer for the respondent] to value site value in each case was an appropriate method … We are unable to suggest any superior method of valuation to that adopted by Mr Burkitt. It is appropriate to say that we accept that Mr Burkitt has substantial expertise … and that he had a clear and detailed knowledge of the particular issues relevant to the value of such sites. We are comforted in this regard by the failure of the Applicant to call any expert evidence whatsoever or to challenge, in any meaningful way, the method of valuation adopted by Mr Burkitt.
Having conducted his analysis of comparable sales Mr Burkitt then gave evidence of his opinion of the site value of the relevant site in consequence of such analysis. … We accept the expert opinion of Mr Burkitt in this regard and as noted above observe that his valuation was not challenged by any contrary expert evidence.
(added emphasis)
In McKay v Commission of Main Roads [No 7] [2011] WASC 223 (McKay) the Court held at [163] that in determining the value of land:
… the court relies on the evidence of professionally qualified valuers.
This Tribunal has consistently reached the same conclusion as that in JuliansLodge and McKay where the applicant fails to call any expert valuation evidence or to challenge, in any meaningful way, the method of valuation adopted by the Valuer General.
Mr Ferguson did not provide any rental evidence to support his position that the GRV of his property at the DOV should be $510 per week or any other amount.[19]
[19] ts 71 to 72, 2 April 2025.
Besides his experience in managing rental properties over an extended period up to about 2015, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that Mr Ferguson has, as required by s 6(2)(a) of the VL Act, the 'qualifications and experiences appropriate to the exercise of powers' under the VL Act. Consequently, Mr Culverwell's valuation of the property is prima facie evidence of an expert valuer's opinion of the GRV of the property at the DOV. The result is as there is no expert evidence to contra Mr Culverwell's valuation, following Julians Lodge and McKay and the earlier cases of this Tribunal, the valuation opinion by Mr Culverwell is accepted on that ground alone.
However, I will go on to consider Mr Ferguson's main grounds of objection.

Mr Ferguson's grounds of objection

Prior year objection

Mr Ferguson relies on his objection in 2021 where the GRV at 1 August 2018 (being the relevant date of valuation for that earlier objection) was reduced to adjust for a spa (rather than a swimming pool[20]) and that a wall shown on the plans had not been built and thereby turning two living areas into one. Mr Ferguson asserts that these prior year adjustments have not been carried through by the Valuer General to determine the GRV of $34,320 at the DOV.
[20] However, in his statement to the Tribunal filed on 1 December 2024, Mr Ferguson states that he undertook renovations and additions which included a 'swimming pool'.
It was Mr Culverwell who accepted the property had a spa (rather than a swimming pool) in Mr Ferguson's objection in 2021. In giving oral evidence, Mr Culverwell confirmed that the adjustments made to the GRV in earlier years (for example the descriptor that the property had a spa rather than a swimming pool) remain in place and therefore are taken into consideration in the GRV under review.[21]
[21] ts 48, 2 April 2025.
I am satisfied that adjustments made in earlier years have been carried through by the Valuer General to determine the GRV at the DOV. Consequently, Mr Ferguson's objection as it relates to the prior year objection of a GRV is without merit.

Prior year GRVs

Mr Ferguson contends that the 2017 and 2020 GRV for his property was higher than that for 73 Gildercliffe Street, which he says is a superior property, and for 119a Grand Promenade which he says is a comparable property.
The GRV of a prior year is not relevant to the objection of the GRV for the property at the DOV. If Mr Ferguson does not agree with the GRV for those prior years, he has, subject to the time limits stipulated in the VL Act, the right to object to the GRV for those prior years.
Mr Ferguson's objection as it relates to the prior year GRVs has no merit in relation to GRV at the DOV.

Comparability of rental evidence and subjective valuation

First, Mr Ferguson complains that three valuers for the Valuer General, Ms Adviehchi, Mr Warr and Mr Culverwell have all reported that there was a direct lack of comparable rents for his property.
In Mr Culverwell's report of 23 July 2024, he made clear reference to the lack of comparable rents as follows:[22]
Given the sizeable dimension of the home and the standard of finish revealed by the internal photos provided (which includes a lift servicing all levels), it is considered the property would appeal more to the professional couple/small family rental marked that it would a larger family looking to rent in the area. This opinion is further supported by the accommodation only providing 2 bedrooms but having 3 bathrooms.
It is considered the subject would be an attractive rental property for the section of the market looking for these features and drawing rental evidence from apartments with similar accommodation configuration assists in providing a very good guide to the potential rental value of the subject.
There was a lack of directly comparable rents due to the large size of the house and minimal number of bedrooms (only two bed). Rental evidence for two-bedroom properties usually refer to either much smaller group dwellings with far smaller building area under main roof or apartment houses within residential towers near the beach.
…
Having investigated rental being achieved for good quality, 2 bedroom apartments with ocean views within the Scarborough area, I consider the subject would easily achieve $660 per week that the reduced [GRV] suggests.
(added emphasis)
[22] HB at page 80.
Mr Culverwell accepted, both in his witness statement and upon questioning at the final hearing, that there is no 'mirror' or 'identical' property nearby to that of Mr Ferguson's property. But that does not mean that Mr Ferguson's property is so unique that the GRV cannot be determined by comparable rents within the surrounding residential area. This is not a case such as Citic Pacific Mining Management Pty Ltd and Valuer General [2016] WASAT 23 which concerned a transient workers' accommodation village in a remote and isolated location in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. In that case, the Tribunal held that the GRV could not be determined by comparable rents.
In addition to his evidence at hearing (see above at [41]) in his witness statement at paragraph 12, Mr Culverwell set out or exposed his reasoning to reach his valuation of the property as follows:[23]
[T]his is by no means a unique situation, and to establish the rental achievable for more modest, 2-bedroom properties nearby which may share some similar features with the subject is not difficult. It is not unreasonable therefore to expect that a prospective tenant might pay more for a better quality residence, given that the number of bedrooms is not the only factor considered by the rental market, other factors have a strong influence on the rental a home may achieve.
Not all prospective tenants are large households and large households and indeed many renters in the market are not looking for more than two bedrooms or a large yard that requires maintenance and would consider the subject property as having for them, the advantages of apartment accommodation without the disadvantages of high density living.
Quality attributes such as lift, panoramic ocean views and generous proportions are desirable and also influence the amount of rent a tenant would pay when compared to a more modest 2-bedroom residence lacking these features.
There is a strong rental market for quality apartments in Scarborough which can provide features such as low/no maintenance yards, large entertainment areas and sweeping views as evidenced by the rental information provided. Although the subject is located significantly further from the beach than some of the apartments[,] being away from the busy beachside means less noise and visitor parking is not an issue. Although not directly comparable to the subject I considered it is not unreasonable to expect that tenants looking to rent in this market might also consider the subject home and therefore the apartment rental evidence is included for completeness in understanding the strength of the rental market for two-bedroom accommodation in Scarborough at the date of valuation[.]
[23] HB at page 197.
Further, it was explained by Mr Culverwell that when determining the GRV, it is to be determined on what is termed as, 'vacant to let'. The result is that the individual circumstances, such as Mr Ferguson's evidence that the lift is used as a medical aid and is GST exempt, are not taken into consideration.[24]
[24] ts 20, 2 April 2025.
And again, when recalling an earlier discussion with Mr Ferguson about whether having a large block was a consideration in determining the GRV, Mr Culverwell explained:[25]
[I]f you look through all the evidence that I've provided for the valuation, they're all on small strata front and back lots with road frontages. That was done on purpose so that the evidence - it is evidence-based evaluation, not a judgment as to whether someone might pay more or less for a backyard. I said it is not unreasonable, and I think in the context of the discussion, I said it wouldn't surprise me in my experience that somebody who's renting a property may not pay any more for a large yard because that provides more say mowing and maintenance for someone who's not owning the property, not looking after the capital value of that property, they are renting it for a purpose and if you're getting to a point where you're getting down to a two bedroom, that may narrow the use of that, it might not be a large family in there.
[25] ts 27, 2 April 2025.
It can be seen from the above reasoning of Mr Culverwell, that valuation is an 'art' and not a 'science'. In other words, valuation involves the exercise of many subjective judgments and the steps in reasoning are not always able to be articulated fully: McKay at [165]. This is often referred to as the 'valuer's art'.
As already stated, and I repeat here, while I accept there is no 'mirror' or 'identical' property to that of Mr Ferguson's property, that does not mean his property is so unique that the GRV cannot be determined by comparable rents within the surrounding residential area. Mr Culverwell explained it this way:[26]
So the way you approach a valuation is to have a look at the rental evidence that is available and make the comparisons to those rented properties. There are properties next door and across the road and everything that aren't rented, but they don't assist in determining what I think the property would rent for because it's not then making something available to analyse to make that comparison.
[26] ts 29, 2 April 2025.
Mr Ferguson asserts that his property with two bedrooms is unique because the dimension of some of the rooms, mainly living areas is bigger.[27] However, Mr Ferguson accepts that the property market at the date of valuation is nothing like it was before 2015.[28]
[27] ts 74 and 80, 2 April 2025.
[28] ts 76, 2 April 2025.
I find that the Valuer General has properly compared Mr Ferguson's property to properties, including two-bedroom apartments, which are in the closest proximity to Mr Ferguson's property and which are the most similar. Further, I find that the Valuer General properly assessed relevant comparable properties on a like-to-like basis. I am satisfied that this approach is correct as a method of valuation and is in accord with the VL Act.
Second, Mr Ferguson challenges why the GRV of his property is the same as that at 73 Gildercliffe Street, Scarborough which he says is a superior property as it is a four-bedroom home including a swimming pool (and not a spa) and is on a larger 693 square metre block.
Following Mr Ferguson's objection, the Valuer General reduced the GRV of the property and it is therefore different from that at 73 Gildercliffe Street, Scarborough. Consequently, there is no merit in Mr Ferguson's second challenge.
Third, Mr Ferguson asserts that Mr Culverwell overemphasized some features (lift, views, spa) to substantially increase the GRV of his property.
While Mr Ferguson states that the demand for such features in the rental market may be limited, he provides no evidence to support his position.
In addition, relying on Hafez and Valuer General [2012] WASAT 103, Mr Ferguson asserts that as his property is on a smaller block, the GRV should be lower.
Mr Dumas for the Valuer General made the following submission in reply:[29]
[I] have spoken to many real estate agents, and they categorically told me that people rent for different reasons to why they buy, and there is a great benefit to low maintenance small rear yard on a half size block so to speak. That is quite attractive, and this is what the real estate agents that are in the market, dealing with the marketplace are doing that.
[29] ts 75, 2 April 2025.
As already stated and I repeat here, the 'valuer's art' is the art of comparing the property with rental properties in the locality and to make individual allowance or adjustment for matters such as position and size and the like, as well as considering questions of overall amenity in the area: Duffy v The Minister for Planning [2003] WASCA 294 at [29]. Such 'valuer's art' applies to Mr Ferguson's submissions regarding the following features of the comparative properties, namely, the size of the block, lift and views. I previously made the finding that the Valuer General has properly compared Mr Ferguson's property to properties, including two-bedroom apartments, which are in the closest proximity to Mr Ferguson's property and which are the most similar. Further, I made the finding that the Valuer General properly assessed relevant comparable properties on a like-to-like basis (see above at [49]).
For completeness, I note that Mr Culverwell explained that a general valuation is undertaken every three years to revisit every property on the basis of the evidence that is at the date of valuation because the market is constantly changing.[30]
[30] ts 44, 2 April 2025.
The result is that there is no merit to Mr Ferguson's third challenge.
Fourth, Mr Ferguson challenges the lack of what he refers to as 'quantitative adjustments' in Mr Culverwell's valuation. In Mr Ferguson's view, a proper comparative analysis requires assigning numerical values to differences in features, location, and other factors and then to adjust the comparable rent.
Apart from making this statement, Mr Ferguson did not undertake such assignment of numerical values himself to the properties referred to by Mr Culverwell nor did he challenge Mr Culverwell's valuation methodology by putting it to Mr Culverwell that such assignment of numerical values was required.
Mr Ferguson's fourth challenge is not made out.
Fifth, Mr Ferguson takes issue with Mr Culverwell taking into consideration two-bedroom apartments in his valuation.

When asked whether in his opinion as a valuer, that in a fairly tight rental market, that parties looking to rent might look at both houses and apartments and it may be that the supply of apartments is greater than houses and therefore rent an apartment but would have preferred to rent a house, Mr Culverwell stated:[31]
[Considering that there's probably a lot of - a lot of apartments are, in a lot of senses, built for lease. That's their design. Some of them are, you know, more available, generally, for that sort of - in a rental market because, you know, you've got the communal living issues, that sort of thing. And I think the market has been very tight. I think that, you know, my first instinct when I looked at what the rents being achieved for those apartments down near the beach was saying to me that, certainly, in a tin a tight market where supply is very, very thin, that people may well - it's certainly not out of consideration that first - at first - first option might have been a house and then the fallback may well have been. That's certainly not - not out of consideration. That certainly could be the case. But - but I go back to what I said before. The market has been very tight and - and rentals are hard to find. You know, properties, generally, are - to rent are hard to find and it's a bit still the case, even more so now. It's just the state of the market.
[31] ts 60, 2 April 2025.
I previously made the finding that the Valuer General has properly compared Mr Ferguson's property to properties, including two-bedroom apartments, which are in the closest proximity to Mr Ferguson's property and which are the most similar. Further, I made the finding that the Valuer General properly assessed relevant comparable properties on a like-to-like basis (see above at [49]).
I am satisfied that the Valuer General has established its case supporting the GRV under review.
The fifth challenge is without merit.

119a Grand Promenade, Doubleview

Finally, Mr Ferguson takes issue that Mr Culverwell did not consider 119a Grand Promenade, Doubleview, which he says is comparable to his property but requires adjustment downwards by 15% (as this property has four bedrooms and his property has only two bedrooms). However, Mr Ferguson provides no explanation or basis for the 15% used, other than it is reasonable. Without any explanation or basis, at best the 15% selected is a 'made up figure'[32] by Mr Ferguson.
[32] ts 102, 2 April 2025.
In giving evidence, Mr Culverwell said that he did consider 119a Grand Promenade, Doubleview, after Mr Ferguson brought it to his attention. Mr Culverwell acknowledges that this property is of a similar age, it is two and one half storeys, four bedrooms and measures 249 square metres and is nearby Mr Ferguson's property. However, Mr Culverwell contends this property is not comparable to Mr Ferguson's property because it has more bedrooms (four), and it is smaller. Mr Culverwell explained when comparing on 'a coordination basis', the GRV has to be coordinated with other properties and that in his view, the GRV of $600 a week for 119a Grand Promenade, Doubleview is correct.[33]
[33] ts 31, 2 April 2025.

Conclusion

While Mr Ferguson objects that the GRV for his property at the DOV 'remains too high'[34] he failed, although invited, to produce any expert valuation evidence whatsoever and has failed to challenge, in any meaningful way, the method of valuation adopted by the Valuer General to arrive at the GRV of the property at the DOV.
[34] HB at page 123.
For all of the above reasons, Mr Ferguson's objection is not made out, and, accordingly, his application for review of the GRV of $34,320 for his property at the DOV is dismissed. The correct and preferable decision is that the decision of the Valuer General made on 23 July 2024 is affirmed.

Orders

The Tribunal orders:
1.The application for review is dismissed.
2.The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MS R PETRUCCI, MEMBER
12 MAY 2025

Address	Transaction	Description	Comments	Comparison
71 Gildercliffe St, Scarborough	GRV: $34,320/$660 per week Date of Valuation 1/8/2021	Steel framed and metal deck constructed, 3 level house effectively built in 2016 comprising 2 bedrooms, 3 living rooms, kitchen, kitchenette, scullery, dining, studio, study, 3 bathrooms, walk in robe with all levels of the home serviced by a lift. The house has a triple garage and measures a total area of 388m2.	Subject land is a street front survey strata lot having a land area of 387m². The lot enjoys an elevated position which affords the home uninterrupted, panoramic views of the surrounding area out to the ocean. Other features of the residence include a spa/plunge pool and a decked entertainment area.	Subject
Trethowan Lane, Scarborough	Rented for $820 per week on 13/10/21 GRV: $26,000/$500 per week	B/Ven 2 storey house built in 2018 comprising 2 bedrooms, lounge, kitchen, dining, family, study, 2 bathrooms, 3 toilets, 2 carports and an area of 136m².	A similar aged, stand-alone, 2 bedroom home located in Trethowan Lane on a small, street front survey strata lot (land area approx. 200m²). The home is approximately a third the size of the subject, does not provide many of the grand features of the subject but like the subject, it has a small plunge pool. Although located less than a kilometre from the subject the property, it does not obtain any views. Overall deemed a considerably inferior property to the subject.	Considerably inferior
Westview Street, Scarborough	Rented for $710 per week on 21/5/21 GRV: $27,040/$520 per week	B/Metal deck 1½ storey house built in 2008 comprising 2 bedrooms, lounge, kitchen, dining, 2 bathrooms, retreat, walk in robe and a store. The home has a pool and measures an area of 165m².	A stand-alone, 2 bedroom home located in Westview St on a small, street front survey strata lot (land area approx. 300m²). This home is 8 years older than the subject and although located less than half a kilometre from the subject, the property does not obtain any views. The home is less than half the size of the subject and features a below ground pool however does not provide many of the grand features of the subject. Overall deemed a considerably inferior property to the subject.	Considerably inferior
Herbert Street, Doubleview	Rented for $710 per week on 21/6/21 GRV: $28,080/$540 per week	B/Tile 2 storey house built in 2003 comprising 3 bedrooms, lounge, kitchen, dining and 2 bathrooms. Car covers include a double garage under the main roof. The home measures an area of 150m².	A stand-alone, 3 bedroom home located in Herbert St on a small, street front strata lot (land area approx. 280m²). This home is 13 years older than the subject and although having an additional bedroom, it is a litter over a third the floor area. Located less than a kilometre from the subject, the property does not obtain any views and does not provide many of the grand features of the subject. Overall deemed a considerably inferior property to the subject.	Considerably inferior
Newborough Street, Scarborough	Rented for $695 per week on 27/10/21 GRV: 22,100/ $425 per week	B/Tile 2 storey house built in 1992 comprising 2 bedrooms, lounge, kitchen, dining, and 2 bathrooms. Car covers include a detached garage and carport. The home measures an area of 114m².	A stand-alone 2‑bedroom home located in Newborough St, on a small, street front strata lot (approx. 400m²). This home is 24 years older than the subject and although located less than a kilometre from the subject, the property does not obtain any views. Overall considered a significantly inferior property to the subject.	Significantly inferior
95 Duke Street, Scarborough	Rented for $500 per week on 26/5/2021 GRV: $20,280 /$390 per week	B/I upstairs single level home built in 2015 comprising 2 bedrooms, lounge, kitchen, meals and 2 bathrooms. Car cover is single carport. The unit measures 72m².	The property is one of 12 strata titled homes units located less than a kilometre from the subject but does not obtain any views from its location. The unit is less than a 5^th the size of the subject and provides none of the additional features of the subject. Although this property is significantly inferior to the subject and not directly comparable, it demonstrates a tenant is prepared to pay $500/week for a 2-bedroom home unit in group housing.	Significantly inferior
171 West Coast Highway, Scarborough	Rented for $1,200 per week on 3/9/2021 GRV $30,680/$590 per week	B/I 2 storey apartment comprising 2 bedrooms, 2 lounge rooms, kitchen, dining, 2 bathrooms and a storeroom. Car covers include a triple carport. The apartment measures 110m².	The apartment is one [in] a large development of approximately 100 apartments and therefore is not directly comparable to the subject. It has been included as evidence of a strong demand for 2‑bedroom accommodation in the Scarborough area.	Inferior
171 West Coast Highway, Scarborough	Rented for $1,150 per week on 1/12/2021 GRV $33,280/$640 per week	B/I 2 storey apartment comprising 2 bedrooms, 2 lounge rooms, kitchen, dining, 2 bathrooms and a storeroom. Car covers include a triple carport. The apartment measures 113m² and enjoys ocean views.	The apartment is one [in] a large development of approximately 100 apartments and therefore is not directly comparable to the subject. It has been included as evidence of a strong demand for 2‑bedroom accommodation in the Scarborough area. As with the subject this 2-level apartment enjoys ocean views.	Inferior
5 Reserve Street, Scarborough	Rented for $870 per week on 12/2/2021 GRV: $30,160/$580 per week	Conc/I 2nd floor apartment built in 2014 comprising 2 bedrooms, kitchen, meals, family room and 2 bathrooms. The apartment measures 92m² and has a double garage and enjoys ocean views.	The apartment is one a medium size development of approximately 40 apartments and therefore is not directly comparable to the subject. It has been included as evidence of a strong demand for 2-bedroom accommodation in the Scarborough area. As with the subject this apartment enjoys ocean views.	Considerably inferior