LAZAR ILIJOSKI AND TRAJANKA ILIJOSKI and SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

[2009] AATA 676

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 676

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2009/1738-1739

GENERAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		LAZAR ILIJOSKI AND TRAJANKA ILIJOSKI

Applicants

And SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr B H Pascoe, Senior Member  

Date8 September 2009

PlaceMelbourne

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.  

B H Pascoe

Senior Member

SOCIAL SECURITY - value of real estate - valuation by Australian Valuation Office - council valuation for rate purposes - opinions by real estate agent - preferred valuation

Social Security Act 1991

REASONS FOR DECISION

8 September 2009 Mr B H Pascoe, Senior Member  

1.      This is an application to review a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) of 15 April 2009 which affirmed a decision of the respondent made on 10 November 2008 to value a rental property jointly owned by the applicants at $350,000 and adjust their rates of age pension accordingly. 

2.      At the hearing the applicants, Mr and Mrs Ilijoski, were unrepresented.  The respondent was represented by Mr T De Uray, an advocate with Centrelink.

3.      Mr and Mrs Ilijoski have been in receipt of age pension since February 1997.  The jointly owned property is at 47 Moore Street, Footscray, is unencumbered and rented out.  On 21 October 2008, Centrelink requested a valuation of the property by the Australian Valuation Office (AVO).  On 10 November 2008, AVO provided a valuation of $350,000 based on a roadside inspection.  On the basis of this valuation, a Centrelink Officer made a decision to reduce the amount of pension payable to Mr and Mrs Ilijoski.  On 17 November 2008 a review of that decision was requested and AVO was requested to conduct a full inspection of the property and provide a full valuation report.  On 19 December 2008, AVO provided a full valuation report after an inspection of the property and consideration of comparable property sales.  The Valuation of $350,000 was maintained.

4.      Mr and Mrs Ilijoski maintained that this valuation was excessive.  They relied on a valuation of $310,000 stated on the rate notice from Maribyrnong City Council dated 15 August 2008.  They produced a letter to them dated 12 January 2009 from Mr S Spirovski, Sales Manager of Danny and Co Real Estate Pty Ltd of St Albans which stated:

It is my opinion that considering the prevailing market conditions and comparing the property with similar properties on the market it is worth in the vicinity of $320,000

This letter contained a disclaimer that:

… it is an opinion only and not to be taken as a sworn valuation and … prepared solely at the request of the above mentioned and not for any third party.

Another letter to Mr and Mrs Ilijoski was provided from a Mr F Verduci, a licensed real estate agent of Footscray.  This letter was dated 28 January 2009 and stated:

… I believe the property should realize in the vicinity of $310,000 to $320,000 price range if placed on the market under strong competitive conditions.

5.      It is well established in many decisions of the Courts and this Tribunal that market value is an independent assessment of what a willing but not anxious buyer would pay a willing but not anxious seller to conclude a sale.  For this purpose a valuation by an experienced and competent qualified valuer carries considerable weight.  Where there are competing and different valuations it is appropriate for the Tribunal to consider the qualifications, experience and independence of the valuers and whether the valuation was carried out in accordance with accepted practices of the profession.

6.      Here the AVO valuation was carried out by a certified practising valuer who produced an eight page report setting out full details of the property, and details of sale prices of four said to be comparable properties.  In particular it referred to a sale price of $382,000 for 48 Moore Street described as a two bedroom weatherboard dwelling on an area of land being some 72 per cent of the land area of 47 Moore Street which has a brick three bedroom residence. 

7.      It is well accepted that council valuations shown in rate notices are not considered as a reliable and accurate valuation of market value.   Clearly, they are not based on a full inspection and individual market valuation at a particular date.  There are several difficulties in accepting the opinion of the two real estate agents.  There is no indication of the respective qualifications or experience as valuers.  Their opinions were expressed in January 2009 whereas the relevant date of valuation is November 2008.  Mr Ilijoski confirmed at the hearing that the valuations were requested in the context of the effect on their pensions.  This has a clear impact in considering the independence of such valuations.

8.      It is clear that of the four suggested valuations, that performed by the AVO was the only valuation where the Tribunal can be satisfied that the valuation was performed by a qualified, experienced and independent valuer and in accordance with accepted practices of the profession.  It follows that this is the valuation which must be preferred.

9.      Mr and Mrs Ilijoski sought to argue that their property was very basic, in a poor state of repair, difficult to access being close to an intersection and not worth the $350,000 suggested.  While accepting their evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that all of these concerns were recognised and taken into account by the AVO valuer.

10.     It follows that the Tribunal is satisfied that the value of the property at 47 Moore Street, Footscray as at November 2008 was $350,000 and such value is to be taken into account in assessing the value of the assets of Mr and Mrs Ilijoski at that date.  Consequently, the decision under review should be affirmed.

I certify that the ten [10] preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of
Mr B H Pascoe, Senior Member

Signed:         Dianne Eva
  Clerk

Date of Hearing  2 September 2009 
Date of Decision  8 September 2009
Advocate for the Applicant       Self Represented
Advocate for the Respondent   Mr T De Uray, Centrelink Legal Services