asked the Minister for Finance the number of revaluations of property carried out in Cork county in the years 1963 to 1966 inclusive.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Valuation Revisions.
25.
The number of properties listed by the Secretary, Cork County Council, for revision of valuation with effect from 1st March in each of the years in question was as follows:
|
1963 |
6,909 |
|
1964 |
3,780 |
|
1965 |
3,707 |
|
1966 |
4,080 |
These numbers include some cases in which no change in valuation resulted.
26.
asked the Minister for Finance if he will state, in respect of the last revision of rateable valuations (a) the number of properties on which the rateable valuation was increased and (b) the total increased rateable valuation of each local authority.
With regard to (a) of the Deputy's question, statistics are not available in regard to the number of properties on which the rateable valuation was increased. With regard to (b), it will be possible to furnish information in respect of the total rateable valuation of each local authority area as revised on 1st March, 1967, if the Deputy wishes to repeat his question in two weeks' time.
Did the Minister say, in the first part of his reply, that the information is not available?
Yes.
Would the Minister then consider giving the number of properties listed? I understand, from the reply to the previous question, that such information would be available. Am I right in that?
If the Deputy puts down questions, I shall endeavour to answer them as fully as possible.
The Minister will recall that the refused to answer one last week.
27.
asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that the Commissioner of Valuation increased the rateable valuation of many properties in Dublin city this year without having any inspection made of the properties in question; and if this is customary.
I am aware that the valuations of a number of properties in Dublin city were this year increased by the Valuation Office without inspection.
There is no obligation in law to inspect properties listed for revision of valuation by the local authority, although it is customary for revising valuers to do so in cases where the nature of revision indicated in the listing suggests that a further survey of the property may be required so as to update the information already on record in the Valuation Office from previous surveys.
As I said in reply to a question by the Deputy on 6th April, about valuation increases this year in certain districts of Dublin city, a frequent reason for increases is that houses formerly valued as family dwellings were found to have been subdivided into flats, apartments or bedsittingrooms. Listings in Dublin city for this reason were much more numerous this year than in previous years. Where entry into any of the premises listed in this category could not be arranged at a suitable time, it was necessary, by reason of the statutory obligation on the Commissioner to issue the revised valuation lists to the rating authorities for publication on 1st March, each year, to revise the valuations without internal inspection, and by reference only to information furnished by Dublin Corporation about the manner in which they are occupied. It is a function of the rating authorities to furnish the Commissioner of Valuation each year with particulars of changes in occupation of rateable properties.
I may add that any person aggrieved by reason of an increase in valuation has the right of appeal, initially to the Commissioner of Valuation and subsequently, if still dissatisfied, to the Courts, in accordance with the procedures and conditions laid down in the Valuation Acts.
Does the Minister consider it fair that valuations should be increased without an inspection, particularly where no change has taken place in the user of the premises? Because of the new valuation, innocent people who have not made changes are forced to undergo the worry and expense of a valuation appeal.
Does this relevantly arise out of the question at all?
It does. I am asking the Minister about revisions without inspections. I am asking the Minister to consider the position in which increases are made without inspections and where they are not justified which obliges people to suffer the worry and expense of an appeal. I would ask the Minister to use his good offices to ensure that in future revisions will not be carried out without inspections. In this year alone there have been several cases where increases have been imposed, even though the people had not converted their premises into flats.
It is frequently difficult to arrange for internal inspections. In so far as I can, I will try to ensure that this is done.
Would the Minister agree that it should be a general rule that there should be no increase without inspection?
I would not agree. There is no legal obligation to inspect. By and large the Commissioner works on the information supplied by the local authority. There is always the saving mechanism of appeal by any person who feels aggrieved.
It might be an expensive mechanism.
It is only to the Commissioner, in the first instance.
Would the Minister ask the Commissioner to notify people in regard to the wish to inspect? Even that has not been done and if it were done an appointment could be made.
My information is that they do notify the occupiers in writing but that as often as not they get no reply to such notification. Frequently when they have been notified in regard to the inspection, there is nobody there when the officer calls. The Deputy will appreciate the practical difficulties arising in this.
My information is that some people did not get notification of the wish to inspect and naturally they feel aggrieved.