Bradley v Valuation Appeal Board

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Alcantara, J.
• Judgment Date: 02 October 1981
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 3 of 1981
• Date: 02 October 1981

Supreme Court

Alcantara, J.

Appeal No. 3 of 1981

Bradley

and

Valuation Appeal Board

The Appellant in person

Mr. Rajasingham for the respondent

Appeal against finding of Valuation Board - Increase in the value of property — Rateable area — Correct test to be applied.

Alcantara, J.

1 Mr. Bradley has appealed to this court against the decision of the Valuation Appeal Board (Belize District) dated the 10th January, 1981, upholding the assessment of the Valuation Officer which valued the appellant's property situated at No. 1 “H” Street, King's Park Area, Belize City, at $2500 for the quinquennial period commencing January, 1981. The valuation was effected by taking a rateable area of 1013 square feet at $2.50 per square feet. His ground of appeal is that the decision was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence.

2 Mr. Bradley feels aggrieved, and I would be if I was in Mr. Bradley's place. On two previous occasions the valuation of this property has been reduced, first to $1500 and then to $1140. Now, all of a sudden it has been increased to $2500, an increase of 120% on the $1140 figure.

3 Mr. Bradley feels further aggrieved because of a pamphlet issued by the Ministry of Local Government and Social Security, paragraph 7 of which reads:

“On what grounds can I appeal? On any grounds which tend to show your property is over-assessed, but you must put forward valid reasons why in your opinion the assessment is wrong. For example, you may think your assessment is wrong because it is out of line with other assessments - it is open to you to refer to assessments or rents of similar properties in your area.”

4 This is precisely his case and to support his contention he supplied the Valuation Appeal Board and this court with a letter showing comparable properties. He relies particularly on the valuation of $1320 in respect of Mr. I. Rose' s property at 17th Street.

5 To counteract this the valuation officer produced a list of four comparable properties including that of the appellant showing that he had not been over-assessed.

6 There is one further point with which I have to deal and that is the rateable area. Before the Valuation Appeal Board it was a ground of appeal, the appellant contending that the rateable area was 947 square feet and not 1013 square feet. The judgment and the notes of the proceedings of the Valuation Appeal Board is clear as to what happened to...