JENS SVENSSON & COMMISSIONER for ACT REVENUE (Administrative Review)

[2010] ACAT 59

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JENS SVENSSON & COMMISSIONER FOR ACT REVENUE (Administrative Review) [2010] ACAT 59

AT10/15

Catchwords:             Administrative review-UCV-general rates assessment- valuation basis

Legislation: The Rates Act 2004 Ss 6, 9, and 10

Tribunal:                   Mr Brian Hatch, Senior Member

Date of Orders:  22 September 2010
Date of Reasons for Decision:         22 September 2010

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY   )
CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL                   )

AT10/15

BETWEEN:

JENS SVENSSON

Applicant

AND:

COMMISSIONER FOR ACT REVENUE

Respondent

TRIBUNAL:              Mr Brian Hatch, Senior Member

DATE:   22 September 2010

ORDER

1.         The Decision under Review is Confirmed.

………………………………..
Brian Hatch

Senior Member

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This is a review of a decision of the Respondent of 4 February 2010 with respect to the Unimproved Value (UV) of the Applicant’s Crown lease at block 7, Section 38 Division of Chifley. The value arrived at was $350,000.00. The purpose of the valuation is to enable the Respondent to calculate General Rates payable with respect to the property.

1. The Rates Act 2004 at Sections 9 and 10 provides for the determination of Unimproved Values for parcels of land in the Territory. Section 6 defines UV.

1. The Respondent had originally determined the UV at $390,000.00 on 14 September 2009. The Applicant had objected to that assessment in a letter dated 13 October 2009.

1. This matter came on for hearing on 8 July 2010. The Applicant represented himself. The Applicant’s arguments were set out in his letter to ACAT on 2 June 2010, which he then expanded upon in the hearing.

1. The Applicant‘s case seemed to be that UV figures for Chifley are wrong because the values for sales recorded on a commercial Real Estate site show a decline from 2007 to 2009 from $460,000.00 to $400,000.00.

1. The site in question is called “All Homes”. It is a site that appears to be a site that provides a lot of information about sales and purchases of land in the ACT and perhaps elsewhere. A visitor to that site can see information going back to at least 1996. Individual blocks can be searched to see a history of UV and a sales history of the block.

1. What “All Homes” does not seem to be is a site with any expertise in valuation of land. It may well be a useful site for research, and for looking for information as to houses for sale, but the information presented to me from that site does not assist me in determining a UV for the subject block, and probably would not assist with respect to any other block.

1. The “All Homes” information does show a drop in the values as described by the Applicant. But these are raw figures based on a self selected group of sales, that is, selected on the basis that these blocks have been sold in a given period. By way of example “All Homes” shows that 28 houses were sold in Chifley during 2009 with a median value of $400,000.00. There is no evidence as to whether these 28 sales are a representative group of Chifley houses or represent the high or low point of the Chifley housing stock. As raw information, it may have a use, and may help inform a prospective purchaser in the area, but as a basis for a valuation it is of no real use.

1. In addition the Applicant gave evidence that people buy houses to live in and that was a matter to be taken into account. It was not clear to me how this could be relevant, and it is clear to me that houses are bought for a variety of reasons. This obviously includes as a place to live, but may be for the purpose of development of the land now or at some time in the future, or simply as a type of investment such as for rental or as an investment in future capital growth. Personal reasons for purchases can add a myriad reasons to the decision to purchase as well.

1. The Respondent relied upon the statement of Mr Haydn Rudata a Qualified Valuer employed by the Australian Valuation Office in Canberra. He was not able to attend to give evidence and further oral evidence was given by M Geoffrey McInerney from the same office, a qualified valuer of 35 years experience. The evidence of the valuers is that 5 to 10 properties in each suburb are looked at with respect to calculating UV for that suburb. That is what Mr Rudata did for the initial valuation, and he then looked at a new set when he made the later UV calculation of 11 December 2010. Mr McInerney in evidence went through a comparison of various blocks in Chifley and gave credible evidence as to the basis upon which the UV was arrived at. This was even more useful for the Tribunal as his evidence was only being relied upon at the last moment and he was able to give a background to these types of valuations and explain the basis of these UVs without having been involved in the Chifley valuations prior to this time. His evidence was strong support to the statement of Mr Rudata who had a more “hands on” approach to the valuations.

1. In the absence of any expert  evidence from the Applicant and as I do not accept his evidence as to the usefulness of relying upon sites such as “All Homes” and on the basis that I accept the credible evidence of the 2 valuers who gave evidence for the Respondent, I confirm the decision under review.

………………………………..
Mr B. Hatch

Senior Member

PUBLICATION DETAILS

TO BE PUBLISHED

To be completed by Tribunal Staff

PART A  FILE NO:      

APPLICANT:                
RESPONDENT:            

COUNSEL APPEARING:       APPLICANT:          

RESPONDENT:      

SOLICITORS:  APPLICANT:          

RESPONDENT:      

OTHER:  APPLICANT:          

RESPONDENT:      

TRIBUNAL MEMBER/S:        

DATE/S OF HEARING:  PLACE: CANBERRA

DATE/S OF DECISION:  PLACE: CANBERRA

PART B

RECOMMENDATION:

FULL REPORT ( )        CASE NOTE ( )        UNREPORTED DECISION ( )

COMMENTS: