Assessor for Strathclyde Region v Rea
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 10 August 1995 |
| Date | 10 August 1995 |
| Docket Number | No 59 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - Second Division) |
Second Division
ValuationValueDetermination of valuation band for council taxDwellinghouseImprovements affecting valueRelevant date from point of view of values being l April 1991 with relevant date from point of view of actual condition of property being 1 April 1993Whether installation of double glazing and new radiators between 1991 and 1993 relevant to valueWhether improvements affected size and layout of dwelling or affected physical state of its layoutWhether assumptions as to size and layout and physical state of locality explanatory only or descriptive and exhaustive of the only assumptions to be appliedLocal Government Finance Act 1992 (cap 14), sec 84(2)1Council Tax (Valuation of Dwellings) (Scotland) Regulations 1992 (511992/1329), reg 2(1) and (2)(c)2
Section 84(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 provides for the compilation and maintenance of valuation lists for the purposes of paying council tax for houses. The first list came into force on 1 April 1993 and was designed to show each house situated in the relative area and which band of valuation was applicable to it. Eight bands existed ranging from A to H. Section 84(6) enacts that the valuation ought to be carried out in accordance with sec 86. Section 86(1) enacts that the local assessor was to carry out a valuation of representative selection of the houses in his area and allocate the appropriate band accordingly. Section 86(2) enacts that the valuation was to be carried out by reference to a reasonable realisable figure on the open market as at 1 April 1991 and on assumptions, and in accordance with such principles, as might be prescribed. Regulation 2(1) of the Council Tax (Valuation of Dwellings) (Scotland) Regulations 1992 enacts that for the purposes of valuations under sec 86(2) of the Act the value of any house shall be taken to be the amount which the house might reasonably have been expected to realise on the open market on 1 April 1991 having applied certain assumptions found in reg 2(2). Regulation 2(2)(c) assumes that the size and layout of the dwelling and the physical state of its locality were the same as at the time when the valuation of the dwelling had been made.
The respondent bought a dwelling in 1991 and between that time and April 1993 installed double glazing and new radiators. But for these improvements the assessor would have classified the dwelling as falling within band A for the purposes of council tax. The assessor took the improvements into account and assessed the value as falling within band B. The respondent appealed to the valuation appeal committee who upheld the appeal. The assessor thereafter appealed to the Court of Session and argued, inter alia, that reg 2(2)(c) was explanatory only.
Held (aff judgment of the valuation appeal committee) (1) that sec 86(2), when read with reg 2(1) showed that the value of the subjects had to be taken to be the amount that they might reasonably have been expected to realise if they had been sold on the market by a willing seller on 1 April 1991 so that the starting off point was that the assessor had to proceed to value the subjects as they were being valued on that date; (2) that, as there was no question of the size or layout of the subjects being altered between 1 April 1991 and 1 April
1993, the assumptions in reg 2(2)(c) failed to apply; and (3) that there was no justification for implying any further assumptions than those contained in reg 2(2) as those were not explanatory but descriptive and exhaustive of the only ones which fell to be applied; and appealrefusedObserved (per Lord McCluskey) that, in any event, it might have been suggested that the assessor, by looking at the house individually instead of asking himself what group of houses it fell within, had fallen into error.
At a meeting of the valuation appeal committee for the region of Strathclyde held to determine appeals from decisions of the assessor in allocation of bands to dwellinghouses in the local area for the purposes of council tax under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and the Council Tax (Valuation of Dwellings) (Scotland) Regulations 1992, Albert Rea, 16 Househillmuir Crescent, Glasgow appealed against an entry in the valuation list wherein his dwelling was held to fall within band B as opposed to band A.
The valuation appeal committee allowed the appeal.
The assessor appealed to the Court of Session.
The cause called before the Second Division, comprising the Lord Justice-Clerk (Ross), Lord McCluskey and Lord Marion a hearing.
At advising, on 10 August 1995
LORD JUSTICE-CLERK (Ross)This is an appeal by the assessor for Strathclyde under sec 82(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 from a decision of the valuation appeal committee for Glasgow dated 6 September 1994 upholding an appeal by the respondent against an entry in the valuation list compiled by the appellant under sec 84 of the Act of 1992. The subjects of appeal are a dwellinghouse at 16 Househillmuir Crescent, Glasgow.
The respondent appeared before the valuation appeal committee and challenged an entry in the valuation list which showed the subjects of appeal as being in band B. He contended that the subjects ought properly to have been placed in band A.
The respondent had been the tenant of a council house at 16 Househillmuir Crescent, Glasgow. He exercised his right to buy his council house, and the price which he paid was based upon a valuation of the appeal subjects at 27,000. The purchase was made in August 1991. Between that date and prior to 1 April 1993, the respondent installed some double glazing and some extra radiators. The appellant placed the subjects in band B which is for values exceeding 27,000 but not exceeding 35,000. The respondent contended that the value of his property would not exceed 27,000 as at 1 April 1991, and that accordingly the subjects should have been placed in band A.
Although there are no express findings as to the value of the subjects at April 1991 nor as to the cost of double glazing and extra radiators, the findings of the valuation appeal committee are, in my opinion, just sufficient to show that a question of law exists which this court must determine in terms of sec 82(4) of the Act of 1992. In their decision, the valuation appeal committee narrate that evidence was given by Mr Blaikie, a valuer employed in the appellants' office. Of his evidence, they state: Mr Blaikie gave evidence to the effect that since the subjects had been valued at 27,000 as at August 1991, the property might actually have been worth a little less than 27,000 as at April 1991. It was, however, his opinion that the value of the double glazing and the extra radiators installed by Mr Rea would take the value of the subjects over the 27,000 barrier and he therefore submitted that the property was correctly placed in band B.
In the final sentence of their decision, the valuation appeal committee state: The committee decided that the effect of excluding the double glazing and the extra radiators was to leave the value of the subjects at a value not exceeding 27,000 with the result that the appeal should succeed and the property should be removed from band B and placed in band A.
In my opinion the clear inference from that last sentence is that if the double glazing and the extra radiators were included, the value of the subjects would exceed 27,000. The question of law which now arises is whether the valuation appeal committee were well-founded in concluding that the double glazing and the extra radiators fell to be excluded, or whether the subjects of appeal fell to be valued in their physical state as at 1 April 1993.
In their very full and careful decision, the valuation appeal committee set forth the relevant statutory provisions, and the submissions which were made to them on behalf of the appellant. Although the respondent appeared before the committee on his own behalf, he does not appear to have done more than contend that no value had been added either by the addition of the double glazing or by the installation of the extra radiators, and that in any event the subjects of appeal ought properly to have been placed in band A. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v Josephine Coll (Listing Officer)
...this point, but he also derived some support for this conclusion from an earlier Scottish authority, Assessor for Strathclyde Region v Rea 1995 SC 577.21 The other case, to which I will make reference, is Burke v Broomhead (Listing Officer) [2009] RVR 250, which is a decision of Judge Kirkh......
-
Assessor for Lothian Valuation Joint Board v McLaughlin
...RA 269 Moray Council v Scottish Ministers [2006] CSIH 41; 2006 SC 691; 2007 SCLR 55; 2006 GWD 25–578 Strathclyde (Assessor for) v Rea 1995 SC 577; 1996 SLT 998; 1995 SCLR 1048; The Scotsman, 30 August 1995 Ted Jacob Engineering Group Inc v Morrison [2019] CSIH 22; 2019 SC 487; 2020 SLT 14 T......
-
Assessor For Lothian Valuation Joint Board Against Mark Mclaughlin
...to subsequent open market sales of comparable dwellings rather than 15 to the discounted price (see eg Assessor for Strathclyde v Rea 1995 SC 577, per Lord Justice-Clerk Ross at p 578F). To do otherwise would have been inconsistent with reg 2(1). [25] In our opinion the provisions which are......
-
Assessor for Grampian Valuation Joint Board v Brownlie
...Committee placed the property in Band F. The Assessor appealed to the Court of Session. Case referred to: Strathclyde Assessor v ReaSC 1995 SC 577 The Court refused the appeal. 1 The relevant statutory provisions are sufficiently set forth in the rubric, supra, and the opinion of the ...