Council Rates and Valuation Notice (VIC)

Hi all,

I have a question around council rates in Victoria, specifically in Banyule Council.

I own an IP in Banyule Council and my cousin owns one on an identical block next door. However, when we compared our latest rates and valuation notices, the capital improved value (CIV) of my property was $50k more than my cousin's property. Both properties are similar in nature (size, bedrooms, build).

I have read some threads on PC where people feel that the CIVs are too high - this is hard to argue. However, in my scenario, do I have a case to argue against the council? Why on earth should I be paying higher council rates when essentially, the two comparable blocks are the same?

Any advice / help would be appreciated.

 

Maybe there were more sales of better/larger/north facing/Penthouse style apartments in your building, thus pushing the average for that specific address up ?

I left Vic in part over CIV, my first place was a knockdown, I worked OT and two jobs at times to save enough to do repairs (flooring, roof,painting) only to have my rates skyrocket compared to my neighbors (because my place looked nicer !).

If you can afford a new roof then you can afford more rates

 

One of you may wish to object to the valuation and have a time limit to do this. Object to state valuer general not council. Consider land size and easements too. Width can vastly change value too. And the value of improvements including structures.

CIV is subjective. A 4 bed architect designed "grand design" property should have a vastly different CIV to a project kit home. Without valuers stepping foot inside I question how reliable this valuation is - Is it based on an indexed value of the construction approval ? Or a visual walk past and assumptions ? One house could have gold tapware, marble floors and the other cheap lino.

One misconception : Councils do not collect extra revenue as a result of changes in property valuations in aggregate. Valuations are simply used to help calculate the rates payable for each individual property. But comparing two neighbouring lots with equivalent size and build shouldnt be vastly different. eg Council wants to collect $400m of rates revenue. They determine the rate charge per $ of CIV. ie they work backwards.

 

Hi Paul, is that Australia wide or just NSW?
I thought the same and that the council increase in the % per CIV had to pass state government approval (at least in Vic).

Cheers

 

CIV isnt used in NSW. Unimproved land value is used in NSW and is used for land tax and rateable values. But its just a measure. If they were to use unimproved value the cents per $$$ of value is higher than CIV. Its like comparing shoe sizes i one country to another.

Every state as far as I am aware also applies an annual % cap to % change in rates etc

 

To clarify, the buildings are on separate titles / blocks - they aren't dwellings in the same building.

 

Thanks Paul. How do you suggest I play this?

I've had a look and land content / dimensions of both blocks are the same. The building on each of the blocks are like for like also. Yet, the CIVs of the properties are 800k and 750k respectively.

 

What I was refering to was that the valuation by the council is a desk top style based on street view and recent sales data (probably automated, think robodebt).

So if the only sales from your building with little visible gardens and were all ground floor or south side 2br units they would be of less value.

The nearly exact same building next door with flowers out the front that only had sales of premium north side 2br units and two penthouses would of greater value.

Thus skewing the perceived value of very similar apartments next door to each other

Feel free to contest the proposed valuation with them though

 

Incorrect. Values are localised in batches. Nothing robo but a unusual property can be impacted. Flowers wont be valuation matter but you could object if you want. Remember you are objecting to a val...not just telling them it seems unfair

 

I’m going to hijack this thread as I have a similar question. Say for example apartment a and b are in the same building and are the same size/layout. Apartment a has been renovated and sold but the last time apartment b was sold it wasn’t renovated. Does that mean apartment a will have a higher valuation? Even if apartment b is renovated after but never sold/leased.

 

Apartment A will drag up the average apportioned value of all units

As unless there were building permits issued for the renovation of apartment A the council won't know (or care) that there is any difference

Example being that in suburbia your neighbor sells their house, it sells at peak of market, is clean & freshly painted, professionally styled, they spend $20k on marketing and after feverish bidding get well above market value from someone suffering FOMO
The council will add that sale to the area average and it will lift all values (unless they did a knock down rebuild/extension, so the council would know they had increased the capital improved value).

*the apportioned value of your unit is the % of the building you pay for in your levies

 

So all apartments if identical (apart from the inside look) should be valued the same? I’ve been told the opposite and that all apartments are valued differently.
I think that’s unfair because how do you know if someone has renovated their place if it doesn’t require a building permit or they are owner occupied since reno’d.

 

Actually they are never "all valued" the same

If you look at the relevant strata documents (unit/lot levies) you will see that not all lots pay the same, this is because some units are on the ground floor, some are on the southern side (colder, less light, less privacy = lower rent or OO appeal), while others are on the north side and higher up (with more privacy, more light/warmth and better views = better rent and OO appeal), while the top floor could be the penthouse with total privacy, uninterrupted views and sunlight, with little to no noise from next door or below (making the top floor more desirable) so the unit lots with more floor space or a better aspect are apportioned more of the entire "building" by tbe quantity surveyors when set up.

Being based on a unit being "renovated" isn't a concern for the council, they don't care or want to waste resources going around looking at everyone's unit
Imagine you have two identical units in every aspect, but one is occupied by a uni student with milk crates for furniture and the other is occupied by a legal secretary who has $60k worth of top end furniture, art and audio visual, walking into the uni students you would think "this is a bit rough", yet walking into the secretary's you would be "wow, this place is nice, check out that 80" TV " and would value it higher due to it having far more appeal

Besides all of the above, your rates are usually made up of 3 components, land value, capital improved value and waste, the land and waste component will be similar for each unit with only the capital improved value differing IF there have been some council permitted changes to a given unit.

So to put it simply, the sale price of unit A will set the benchmark for unit B value (even though it hasn't been updated)

If you find you don't like the valuation you can appeal, but in this example it will get you nowhere,
Sorry