Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Senator Byrne did raise this issue with me in County Meath yesterday and it is one we want to get right - I want to put this on the record of the House. As I outlined previously, providing a valuation list that comprises valuations that are not relative to each other, results in similar properties having different valuations, which results in different rate liabilities in the same area. This puts certain ratepayers at a competitive advantage or disadvantage over other people in the same geographic rateable area. It is only appropriate that when an appeal is being assessed the same criteria as applied in the original valuation be used.
When the Valuation Tribunal allows an appeal under section 37 with a view to amending the valuation, it will be required to do so in accordance with section 19(5). In essence, the Valuation Tribunal is placed in a similar position to the valuation manager when determining the value of a particular property. I think it would be peculiar to have the Valuation Tribunal applying different criteria to those used by the valuation manager to make the original valuation and I cannot think of an appeals process that works like that. The objective is to ensure that the valuation manager and the Valuation Tribunal, on appeal, apply the same criteria when determining values.
The Valuation Tribunal is in exactly the same position as the valuation manager in that it must look at the information and data that was available to the valuation manager and form its own conclusions as to the correctness, or otherwise, of that valuation. Where a valuation is incorrect it can be changed by the Valuation Tribunal. The tribunal has extensive powers that are set out in Part 7 of the Valuation Act but both criteria must be weighted by the Valuation Tribunal. It would be inappropriate that the Valuation Tribunal, on appeal, would assess a valuation on different terms and by reference to different criteria from those considered by the valuation manager. It is also appropriate that ratepayers who appeal their valuations to the Valuation Tribunal and those who do not appeal have the values of their properties ultimately determined by reference to identical criteria, in other words, the criteria now set out in this section. Any other approach could result in a most unsatisfactory outcome.
Senator Byrne has alluded to the Carlton judgment and I wish to put its conclusions on the record of this House. I will refer to extracts taken from the judgment of Ms Justice O'Malley, delivered on 11 April 2013. In her conclusion she stated "it seems to me that both sides are in error to the extent that they are each seeing one part of the picture". She went on to say:

The Commissioner is certainly correct in saying that uniformity and equity are essential to the administration of the rating system, as they are in relation to any tax. Like must be treated alike.However, there is a logically prior issue and that is whether liability to the tax in question has been properly assessed in the first place. There is no merit in the uniform application of a mistake.

She continued:

I also cannot accept the contention that, under the Act, uniformity and the tone of the list have no role. It would, again, render the terms of section 31 an absurdity.

We are trying to get a balance between the correct value and equity and the tone of the list. We have consulted widely on this legislation, as the Senator acknowledged, and received a submission from the Society of Chartered Surveyors, much of which was encompassed in this section. If there is an opportunity for further engagement between now and Report Stage I would be happy to take it. My officials are in contact with the Irish Hotels Federation and we want to get this legislation right, though we also want to account for both equity and correct valuation.