Supreme Court
Appeal No. 3 of 1981
2nd October, 1981.
Alcantara, J.

The Appellant in Person
Mr. Rajasingham for the Respondent

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

J U D G M E N T

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.

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 l20% on the $1140 figure.

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."

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.

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.

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 this issue. The judgment reads:

"The first ground (a) was satisfactorily disposed of at the hearing, so we need not go into it. Suffice it to say that the Appellant eventually accepted the area assessed as being reasonable."

And the notes have this to say:

"A floor plan is presented to the Board by the Valuation Officer. The measurements are accepted by the Appellant. The area is worked out and shown to be 1137 square feet. Discussion arises as to whether the verandah, porch and landing should be included for rating purposes. ....… These measurements (10l3 square feet) are finally accepted by the Appellant."

The Appellant before me has challenged this assertion saying that he never agreed to any measurements. I cannot accept this statement. It is clear on the appeal record that measurements were agreed. It was a finding of fact by the Valuation Appeal Beard. The measurements can only be disturbed by new evidence being produced to this Court and by giving notice of appeal on that issue to the Respondent and to the Court. This has not been done. I find as a fact that the measurements were agreed.

Finally, as to the merits of the case. I find the judgment of the Valuation Appeal Board is impeccable. I do not think I could deliver a better judgment. It is short, concise and to the point. They applied the correct test and therefore came to the correct decision. Whatever sympathy I might have for the Appellant, the decision of the Valuation Appeal Board must be upheld.

Appeal dismissed.

----------OO-----------