Appeal No. VA02/1/036
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
Charlotte Quay Carpark Partnership APPELLANT
RE: Carpark at Map Reference 1-9,14-18/
Unit D, Charlotte Quay,
B E F O R E
JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
By Notice of Appeal dated the 10th day of January, 2002, the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of €987.86 on the relevant property described above. The grounds of appeal were set out by the appellant in a letter attached to the Notice of Appeal and are interalia "there has been no alteration in the RV of the above and on behalf of the tenants of Charlotte Quay Car Park Partnership, I wish to appeal this decision on the grounds that it is excessive and inequitable and in this regard I enclose appeal fee...".
The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing that took place in the Council Chamber, Limerick County Council, O'Connell Street, Limerick on the 17th June, 2002. The Appellant was represented by Mr. John McDonnell who is a partner in the Charlotte Quay Car Park Partnership and the respondent was represented by Mr. Patrick Conroy, MIAVI, MSc, Dip Environ. Econ., staff valuer in the Valuation Office.
In accordance with the Rules of the Tribunal, the parties had prior to the commencement of the hearing exchanged their précis of evidence and submitted the same to this Tribunal.
At the oral hearing both parties, having taken the oath, adopted their précis as being their evidence in chief. This evidence was supplemented by additional evidence obtained either directly or via the cross-examination process. From the evidence so tendered the following relevant facts either agreed or so found emerged as being material to this appeal.
1. The rent agreed for this car park was
totally tax driven and artificial and should not be taken into account
when determining the rateable valuation of the subject property.
Mr McDonnell's comparisons are set out at
Appendix 1 to this Judgement. Mr McDonnell agreed that there were errors
in the figures in his comparisons and that the correct figures appeared
in Mr Conroy's comparisons.
Mr Conroy's comparisons are set out at Appendix 2 to this Judgement. He objected to Mr McDonnell's Summer Street comparison being used as evidence as it was subject to a First Appeal, which had not been decided upon. He also said that the facts presented by the Appellant in relation to it did not seem to be correct, in particular he referred to the number of spaces assigned to social housing and therefore not rateable, which had been included in the appellant's evidence. He said that in his opinion it was the worst car park in the City. Mr. Conroy said that both the Mount Kenneth and Steamboat Quay car parks were very comparable to the subject property.
In his précis Mr Conroy set out his
Valuation as follows: -
1. Rent reserved February 2000 €507
Adjust to November 1988 by CPI (518/698)
= €301 535 @ 0.63% = RV €1,899
As the RV of €987.86 as currently assessed represents an NAV of €156,832pa that RV is considered to be the minimum that can be considered for the subject property.
Valuation 2:- by reference to the comparative evidence.
423 spaces @ €370.76 = €156,832pa @ 0.63% = RV €988.
(The long established reducing factor to make relative in the County Borough of Limerick is 0.63% of the net annual value as at November 1988.)
Mr Conroy stated that the Revision in November 2000 which was upheld on First Appeal was on the basis of the tone of the list. In his view this was too low as the valuation list was based on out of date information. In his Valuation 1 the calculation was referenced to the rent paid less the capital payment. He stated that he made no allowance for the double tax relief on the rent in his calculation, as this was not provided for in the legislation.
Mr Conroy stated that on the Valuation Certificate
of the subject property included in
1. The Tribunal have considered the case
of Pavilion Partnership and Commissioner of Valuation - VA01/2/015 a decision
of the Tribunal in a case where the rent payable under the lease qualified
for double rent allowance and the Appellant's Accountant gave uncontradicted
evidence that the rent was a tax driven rent. In that case the Tribunal
in its findings stated: -
The facts in relation to the rent being paid in the appeal currently before the Tribunal are similar to the Pavilion Partnership case in that in the current appeal the appellant is entitled to double tax relief on the rent with the additional factor present of a capital payment by the landlord to the tenant.
The Tribunal find that the rent payable under the Lease in this Appeal is not representative of a market rent and is completely artificial and tax driven. Accordingly therefore as in the Pavilion Partnership case the rent payable under the lease in the current appeal is of little assistance to the Tribunal and the Tribunal in this case will look to the only evidence available namely the comparative evidence introduced by Mr McDonnell and Mr Conroy.
2. The most relevant comparisons in the Tribunal's
opinion in this appeal are the Mount Kenneth and Steamboat Quay car parks
which were common comparisons. However a number of important factors affecting
the subject property have also been taken into account by the Tribunal
in arriving at the valuation of the subject property:
In view of the foregoing and having taken all the evidence into consideration the Tribunal considers that there should be a considerable reduction in the RV concerned and determines the net annual value and the rateable valuation as follows:
Net Annual Value