|
Appeal No. VA05/2/028
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA Rathbeale Service Station Ltd. APPELLANT RE: Garage/Filling Station at Lot No. 7b, Commons West,
Swords Lissenhall, Swords, County Dublin. B E F O R E JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL By Notice of Appeal dated the 20th day of May, 2005, the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of €680.00 on the above described relevant property. The Grounds of Appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal (a copy of which is at Appendix 1 to this Judgment) are: "6(a)(i) On the basis that the RV is excessive, inequitable & bad in law; 6(c)(iii)(I) The occupiers representations were not taken into account by the revision officer; 6(c)(iii)(II) The property was not revised in accordance with the terms of the Act in that it was not compared with comparable properties as set out in S.49(1) of 2001 Act." PRELIMINARY LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the respondent complied with Section 29(3) of the Valuation Act 2001 The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing, which took place in the
offices of the Valuation Tribunal, Ormond House, Ormond Quay, Dublin 7,
on the 26th July, 2005. The appellant was represented by Mr. Eamonn Halpin,
B.Sc. (Surveying) MRICS.,MIAVI., and the respondent by Mr. Damien Curran,
MRICS., ASCS., BSc (Surv)., a Team Leader in the Valuation Office. The Property Tenure Valuation History Appellant's Case During the course of his review of his précis of evidence, Mr. Halpin reiterated his concerns that the occupier's representations were not adequately taken into account by the Revision Officer prior to the Commissioner issuing the Valuation Certificate on the relevant property. In order to deal with this particular matter, it was acknowledged by the parties that it should be treated as a preliminary issue, and, as a consequence, Mr. Curran was offered, and availed of, the opportunity to then cross-examine Mr. Halpin. Mr. Curran outlined for the Tribunal his view that the issue of representation had been properly dealt with by the Revision Officer, whom he acknowledged to be himself, at the appropriate time and in advance of the issuance of the Commissioner's final decision which affirmed an unchanged RV of €680. Mr. Curran referred to file notes during the course of his deliberations. He stated that he had no recollection of the alleged telephone call to Mr. Halpin on or about 6th December, 2004, and would not, he stated, have any reason to suggest that the Valuation Office did not have sufficient time available to consider representations made previously by Mr. Halpin. Following further consideration of the issue, the Tribunal adjourned to consider the views expressed by both parties. When the Hearing reconvened, Mr. Curran was invited to the stand, took the oath and adopted his précis of evidence as his evidence-in-chief. It was noted that both parties had exchanged their respective précis some weeks in advance of the Hearing. Mr. Curran consented to cross-examination by Mr. Halpin on the aforementioned preliminary issue. In particular, Mr. Curran offered the Tribunal clarification on an earlier statement made by him which suggested he could not locate relevant information specific to Comparison No. 2 on page 9 of Mr. Halpin's submission (see Appendix 2 to this Judgment). He explained that though the particular information he was looking for could not be located in the Valuation Office records, he relied upon verbal information provided to him by one of his colleagues who had been engaged in the revision of that particular service station in 1997. Following detailed discussion and review of the various previous communications on this case between the parties, and noting the failure of both Valuers to concur on a number of issues, the Tribunal again adjourned to consider the preliminary issue and depending on a decision on the issue, would either reconvene the Hearing to consider the quantum issues under appeal, or not. The Hearing was duly reconvened and the parties were advised that the Tribunal had considered all of the earlier evidence submitted in writing, the evidence adduced at the Hearing and further copy evidence introduced during the course of the hearing. The Chairperson summarised the position, conclusion and determination of the Tribunal verbally, as follows: Confirming reference to the subject Appeal, i.e. VA05/2/028 - Rathbeale Service Station, the parties were then informed that the Tribunal, in reaching its determination, bore reference to the following:- 1. Notice of Appeal dated 20th May, 2005 (see Appendix 1), received by the Valuation Tribunal on 23rd May, 2005, and in particular the Grounds of Appeal set out in paragraph 6.(c)(iii)(I) therein, which inferred that the representations made by the occupier, through his Consultant, were not taken into account by the Revision Officer. 2. The copy of the Notice of Appeal served by the Valuation Tribunal on the Commissioner on 23rd May, 2005. 3. The Notice of Hearing (see Appendix 3) issued to the Commissioner on 24th May, 2005 which drew the Commissioner's attention to the legal grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. 4. The appellant's précis of evidence received by the Tribunal on 12th July, 2005, which sought two remedies. One of these was relevant in the context of expressed inadequate consideration of representations earlier filed with the Revision Officer and which specifically referred on Page 3 therein (see Appendix 4) to a telephone call, allegedly made by the Revision Officer on or about 6th December, 2004, declaring that the said communication confirmed that the Revision Officer was unable to fully consider the appellant's representations due to pressure to issue a decision on the revision. In addition, at Page 5 of the same précis (see Appendix 5), under heading "Tribunal Stage" (ii), Mr. Halpin referred to a claim made again that the occupier's representations, in the occupier's view, were not taken into account by the Revision Officer, and within the same page under the heading "Remedies Sought", subheading "In the Alternative", the appellant's précis stated as follows:- "If it is held that the property was not property (taken to read properly) revised, then the RV should be struck out and the OV (taken to mean Original Valuation) restored." 5. A copy letter dated 10th day of January, 2005 (see Appendix 6), issued by Eamon Halpin & Company, addressed to the Appeal Officer of the Valuation Office, by reference to Property Record No. 388587, Clients: Rathbeale Service Station Ltd., contained a second sentence as follows:- "I would request that our case put forward at the representations stage now be considered as this was not possible at that time due to time pressures on the Revision Officer". The Tribunal had been informed earlier by Mr. Curran that such correspondence related to First Appeal, and as it was addressed to the Appeal Officer, was not of particular relevance to his task as the Revision Officer, though the contents of same had been brought to his attention. The said letter also contained a third sentence which read as follows:- "Additionally, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss matters with you before the final appeal decision is issued". Conclusion and Determination -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendices Appendix 1 - Copy of Notice of Appeal dated 20th May 2005 Appendix 2 - Copy of Page 9 of the appellant' précis of evidence Appendix 3 - Copy of Notice of Hearing dated 24th May 2005 to the Commissioner Appendix 4 - Copy of Page 3 of the appellant's précis of evidence Appendix 5 - Copy of Page 5 of the appellant's précis of evidence Appendix 6 - Copy of letter dated 10th January 2005 from Eamonn Halpin & Company addressed to Appeal Officer, Valuation Office |