Appeal No. VA94/3/096
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
Jerome Jones APPELLANT
RE: Car-park at Map Ref: Rere 72, Townland: Merrion
B E F O R E
JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
By Notice of Appeal dated the 3rd day of November 1994 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £53 on the above described hereditament.
The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that:
In his written submission, Mr. McGrath described the property, its accommodation and tenure. He said that the entire property was held in fee simple by Jermone Jones Esq. Mr. McGrath said that the property was acquired in 1989 by Jerome Jones when the passing rent was £5,004 broken down as follows:
11 spaces let on verbal agreement at a rent of £4,904
Mr. Clarke assessed rateable valuation based on the passing rent in respect of the subject property at the relevant date. He said that this suggested a rate of £446 per space let and he set out his calculation of rateable valuation as follows:
13 spaces x IR£445
Less 15% to allow for management and voids IR£4,917.25
Net Annual Value as at 1st November 1988 = IR£4,917.25
Mr. Clarke said that in assessing the rateable valuation an important factor to consider is that any respective tenant considering the property would either be doing so to rent on some or all of the spaces and would accordingly adjust his rental bid to allow for the cost of management and a relatively high level of vacancy, or he would require all spaces for his own use, in which case mindful of market conditions he would be in a position to negotiate a substantial reduction in the rate per space.
Mr. Clarke submitted the following comparisons:
(1) Site R/O 72 Merrion Square South (the subject property)
(2) 37 Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin 2.
(3) 38/39 Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin 2.
A written submission was received on the 2nd day of August 1995 from Mr. Tom Cuddihy, District Valuer with 20 years experience in the Valuation Office.
Mr. Cuddihy described the property and its valuation history and set out his calculation of rateable valuation as follows:
14 car spaces @ £600 per space = £8,400
Est. NAV = £8,400 x 0.63% = £52.92
He offered comparisons as follows:
(2) Dunsforth Limited
(3) Phonex Limited
(4) Irish Intercontinental Bank
In summary Mr. Cuddihy said that the comparative evidence showed that car parking valuation in the area are based on NAV between £550 to £650 per car space. He said that the figure of £600 per car space applied to the subject compares favourably with these figures.
Both parties relied on their written submissions. In response to a query from the Tribunal, Mr. Cuddihy said, that, as his valuation related to fourteen car spaces and Mr. McGrath's to thirteen car spaces it had been agreed between both parties prior to the hearing that the overall rateable valuation attributed to the subject property by the Tribunal would be apportioned pro rata. It transpired that the discrepancy had resulted from one of the lessees namely, Art Direction Limited having lodged it's own appeal in relation to one car space only.
Mr. McGrath said that the thirteen parking spaces are let out to six different tenants at varying rates as follows:
(1) five spaces rented at £500 per annum
He said that the best evidence of net annual value is the passing rent in respect of the subject property at the relevant date and that this would suggest a rent of £446 per space let. He referred to two comparisons in the Fitzwilliam Square area with lettings very close to the relevant date. The rent achieved for these comparisons is in the region of £450 per space and that this figure should be adjusted downwards in arriving at the net annual value of the subject to allow for the greater number of spaces included in the subject and to allow for the possibility of vacancies and management difficulties in dealing with letting thirteen spaces to a number of different parties.
Mr. McGrath said that the appellant had experienced difficulties in letting all the parking spaces and that there were considerable periods of vacancy up until approximately May to June 1995. He said that the fact that some of the spaces were let at £500 per annum indicated the difficulties in letting the spaces in this area. He said that there were difficulties in obtaining a single tenant for the entire thirteen spaces which has resulted in extra management costs for the appellant. He said that his estimate of net annual value should be adjusted by 15% to allow for the cost of management and also of a relatively high level of vacancy.
Mr. Cuddihy said that he was relying on four comparisons, all in the immediate vicinity of the subject premises and all being car parking spaces let separately from office accommodation. In his opinion car parking spaces let in conjunction with office accommodation are let at a lower rent as an incentive to a prospective tenant. Mr. Cuddihy said that the parking spaces in all of his comparisons devalue at approximately £600. He contended that there is always a demand for parking spaces in the Fitzwilliam Square and Merrion Square areas and that the fact that the appellant had let two of his spaces at £1,200 per annum each indicates the level of demand in the area. Mr Cuddihy said that his estimate of net annual value per space at £600 was a very fair figure for the particular area.