Appeal No. VA95/4/014 to VA95/4/022
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Adambridge Manufacturing Limited (VA95/4/014 - Unit
1) RE: Factory at Map Ref: 4BGHI5CDE/1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8 and 9 B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notices of Appeal dated the 3rd October, 1995 the Appellant's appealed against the determinations of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing rateable valuations on the above described hereditaments as follows:- (1) VA95/4/014 - RV £600, (2) VA95/4/015 - RV £400, (3) VA95/4/016
- RV £55, (4) VA95/4/017 - RV £75, The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notices of Appeal are that:- These appeals were held contemporaneously by agreement by way of an oral hearing held at the District Courthouse, Anglesea Street, Cork on the 19th day of June, 1996. At the hearing the Appellant was represented by Aindrias O'Caoimh, Senior Counsel and the Respondent by Eamonn Marray, Barrister-at-Law. Valuation evidence was given on behalf of the Appellant by Mr. Alan McMillan, ARICS, MIAVI, a Director of Donal O'Buachalla & Company Limited and by Mr. Frank O'Connor, ARICS, B.Sc (Surv), a Valuer in the Valuation Office. David Holland, Barrister-at-Law appeared on behalf of Cork County Council and Ms. Phil Nic Suibhne, a Senior Staff Officer in Cork County Council also gave evidence. The Property Following the 1994/4 revision the following entries appeared in the Valuation List:- Lot : 4BcGhI5CDE/1 (VA95/4/014) Lot : 4BcGHI5CDE/2 (VA95/4/015) Lot : 4BcGHI5CDE/3 (VA95/4/016) Lot : 4BcGHI5CDE/4 (VA95/4/017) Lot : 4BcGHI5CDE/5 (VA95/4/018) Lot : 4BcGHI5CDE/6 (VA95/4/019) Lot : 4BcGHI5CDE/7 (VA95/4/020) Lot : 4BcGHI5CDE/8 (VA95/4/021) Lot : 4BcGHI5CDE/9 (VA95/4/022) An appeal against each of the above assessments was lodged with the Commissioner of Valuation which resulted in no change and on foot of these decision these appeals to the Tribunal now lie. Oral Hearing Mr. O'Caoimh contended on behalf of the Appellants that the blue list submitted to the Commissioner of Valuation did not include Lot No's. 4F and 5B. He also contended that the notification procedure required under the provisions of Section 3(4)(a) of the Valuation Act, 1986 was not adhered to and accordingly the valuation attaching to these lot numbers should be struck out. Mr. Marray on behalf of the Commissioner of Valuation conceded that the lot numbers referred to were not listed nor indeed did it appear that the County Council fully complied with the procedures required under the 1986 Act. Nonetheless in accordance with the decision of R. & H. Hall v. Commissioner of Valuation the Commissioner was entitled to enter into the property and carry out the revision of valuations as had been completed. The essence of the matter was that the occupier was identified and notified and whilst there may not have been complete compliance the short coming in the administration procedure was not fatal to the revision.
Mr. Holland on behalf of the County Council said that the Local Authority in preparing the notices relied to a large degree upon the information contained in the Valuation List. If the occupier or owner had changed it was not a fatal flaw as long as the information relied upon by the County Council was sufficient so as not to prejudice the Ratepayer. As far as the County Council was concerned it had an obligation as far as possible to notify the occupiers of the upcoming revision whilst the matter of lot numbering was the responsibility of the Commissioner of Valuation. He contended that the County Council had to the best of its ability listed all the relevant lots and as for the Commissioner of Valuation he had no way of knowing about the contents of the notices sent out. Mr. O'Caoimh submitted that the carrying out of a valuation for revision purposes is a judicial function insofar as it affects peoples rights. Where Ratepayers are not properly notified about the upcoming revision they are not aware in advance of what is happening. Following a short adjournment during which the Tribunal considered the submissions made by the Appellant the Tribunal ruled as follows:- Cork County Council substantially complied with the requirements of Section 3(4)(a) of the Valuation Act, 1986 and did in fact serve notices on the occupiers . The Tribunal also noted that this is not the first time that an issue regarding the notification procedure had arisen and accordingly the Tribunal would like to see the Local Authority put in place some more satisfactory procedures regarding the issuing of such notices, such as the use of carbon copy documentation and post book which could be adduced in evidence. In any event the Tribunal does not consider the rights of the Ratepayer in this instance to be prejudiced in any way and does not accept that the deficiency in the administration procedure on this occasion goes to the root of the appeal. Given the particular circumstances that pertain in relation to this property where a number of inter-related companies are trading collectively as Munster Joinery and occupying a single site, it is not surprising that errors could be made in preparing the documentation for the revision procedure. Mr. O'Caoimh expressed dissatisfaction at the Tribunal ruling at the oral hearing. Appellant's Valuation Evidence Mr. McMillan pointed out that the premises are located in a rural location far from the source of raw materials, support services and customer base. The road net work in the surrounding area is inadequate and not suited to heavy vehicular traffic. Having regard to the inherent drawbacks it was his contention that these should be reflected in the valuation attributable to the various buildings within the complex. Mr. McMillan said that the Commissioner of Valuation had purported to
value 12,783 sq.ft. Having regard to the above Mr. McMillan put forward one valuation for the entire complex excluding the areas which he contended were incomplete at the valuation date as follows:- Offices 7,717 sq.ft. @ £1.75 = £ 13,505 Mr. McMillan then proceeded to apportion the RV between the various occupiers as set out below. In carrying out his apportionment he attributed the main office to Munster Joinery Limited and the mezzanine areas to Adambridge Manufacturing Limited and Limchae Limited.
In regard to his opinion of value he had relied upon the comparisons as set down in Appendix 1 attached to this judgement. Under cross-examination Mr. McMillan said that due to the somewhat unusual situation as exists on the ground the only practical way to value the entire complex was as a single unit and then to apportion the resultant figure between the nine units of occupation. In essence he said the operation was one enterprise carried on by nine separate but nonetheless independent companies. The individual buildings or parts thereof he said were indicated to him by a representative of the Appellant Company as there was no physical boundaries between the various units of occupation. Mr. McMillan agreed that the buildings within the complex varied from good to poor but nonetheless even the good buildings were basic in construction and inexpensive to build. He also stressed the fact that location was always a major factor in arriving at an opinion of rental value which would also have to take into account the inherent infrastructural drawbacks. Respondent's Valuation Evidence Mr. O'Connor said that in his opinion the correct valuation approach was to accept that there were nine separate hereditaments to be valued on an individual basis. Having so decided he valued each unit of occupation as set out below:- 1. Lot 4BGHI5CDE/1 2. Lot 4BGHI5CDE/2 3. Lot 4BGHI5CDE/3 4. Lot 4BGHI5ICDE/4 5. Lot 4BGHI5CDE/5 6. Lot 4BGHI5CDE/6 7. Lot 4BGHI5CDE/7 8. Lot 4BGHI5CDE/8 9. Lot 4BGHI5CDE/9 Under cross-examination Mr. O'Connor agreed that whilst there were a number of separate companies all of them operated as one integrated enterprise. However, the nub of the matter was that each company was a separate legal entity and was in beneficial occupation of a section of the property. Accordingly, therefore it was correct that there should be nine separate valuations each of them to be individually assessed. Mr. Marray in his closing remarks submitted that the Appellant could not seek to value the complex as a single entity and then apportion the valuation so determined among the nine separate units of occupation as this issue was not raised at First Appeal stage. In relation to Mr. McMillan's contention that two of the buildings were incomplete at the revision date, there was no evidence of this fact in the revising valuer's report. Hence he submitted that these buildings should be included in the valuation. Mr. O'Caoimh in his closing submission said that the RV must be determined having regard to the rule of rebus sic stantibus. It followed therefore that the valuer must have regard to the reality of the situation and value the premises as one single unit as Mr. McMillan had done. Once having arrived at an overall figure he could then apportion the valuation over the nine individual lots. Mr. O'Connor's approach in the particular circumstances that pertained was incorrect and indeed it could be argued that in some instances the value of some of the separate units could be nil. Mr. O'Caoimh submitted that Mr. McMillan's valuation was well founded and supported by his comparisons which were more relevant than those of Mr. O'Connor. Determination 2. For reasons of its own each company has its own designated area within the complex and it appeared that there were no physical boundaries separating each individual unit of occupation other than the physical boundary of the building they occupy. It would appear that they share common services, common administration offices and common yard and circulation space. By any criteria this is a somewhat unusual situation and in normal circumstances the unit of occupation would be taken as being the entire. It is common case that each company is the rated occupier of the space it occupies and it is not for this Tribunal to cast doubts as to whether or not such a course of action is appropriate. 3. The agreement to accord a separate valuation to each unit of occupation
poses valuation problems. The Appellant's valuer takes the view that the
most 4. Having considered the various arguments the Tribunal prefers the Appellant's
valuer's approach as it more accurately reflects the actual situation
pertaining on the 5. In regard to the difference of opinion as to whether or not the two buildings located in lot numbers 4F and 5B were completed and capable of beneficial occupation at the valuation date the Tribunal finds in favour of the Appellant for the simple reason that Mr. O'Connor only visited the property after the relevant date and hence could not say one way or another what the situation was. Mr. McMillan on the other hand gave evidence to the fact that the buildings were in an incomplete stage at the valuation dates and the Tribunal has no alternative but to accept his sworn testimony in this regard. 6. The Tribunal has carefully considered all the comparative evidence
submitted by both valuer's and cannot anywhere find a comparison that
appears to be in any way 7. An examination of the photographs handed in at the hearing indicate
that Mr. McMillan's description of the factory buildings does not stand
up to scrutiny. 8. Having regard to the foregoing the Tribunal proposes to value the
entire complex in the first instance and then apportion the figure determined
in accordance with Mr. O'Connor's schedule of the areas in order to provide
an RV for each entry in the Valuation List. For the sake of clarification
the Tribunal accepts as a matter of fact that there are nine separate
hereditaments and that the proposal to initially value the property as
one entity is purely valuation methodology in order to arrive at a fair
and proper valuation of each unit having regard to the somewhat unusual
9. Having regard to the fact that the uncovered areas of the property are in common use it is not proposed to attribute any separate valuation to the yard space which in any event the Tribunal considers to be an inherent part of the buildings. 10. The Tribunal have carefully examined the areas submitted and finds
that there are some minor differences and accordingly for the basis of
arriving at the NAV on a global basis it is proposed to use the areas
as set out below and to apportion the resultant valuation on an individual
basis in line with Mr. O'Connor's schedule of Global Valuation: The above valuation is apportioned as follows:-
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||