Jump to content

Rates Revaluation


Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

Chris, you have correctly raised the question of 'why there was no consultation' with regard to the sewerage charge. At the debate over the Bill introducing the sewerage rate, the question was also asked of Alf Cannan. As yet I have not seen one response from the Chairman of the MU as to why on both occassions there was no consultation, totally aganist the 'best practice' guide of Tynwald. Chris, can you push for a proper answer on this. In the UK where consultations were not conducted, it was actually deemed illegal for legilstation to have been brought in. Either there are rules to be followed by Tynwald or not!

Good point. LegCo rather rushed its consideration of the sewerage rate bill. I raised several issues particularly in my third reading speech which I hoped it would take up, but it didn't. I intend to follow up these issues.

 

Chris can you confirm that any form of revaluation procedre will include all H

 

 

The Tynwald Committee which was set up and has reported on the Petition of Grievance of Butch Buttery chose not to seek the views of the Rent & Rating Commissioners of the Isle of Man ( the Rates Appeal Tribunal).

We did make a general call for evidence John Wright. Perhaps we should have specifically invited the Tribunal so submit evidence? Remember though that the terms of reference for a committee considering a petition for redress of grievance are limited to the subject of the petition i.e. we were not considering rates reform in general.

 

Hi Chis, Can you advise that all hereditaments presently included on the Rating Lists will be subject to the same form of review for residential dwellings. It appears to me at present, that the intention is review only residential dwellings, your clarification on this point would be greatly appreciated.thumbsup.gif Buster

 

It seems clear to me that the intention is to revalue domestic properties only, on a capital value basis, and leave everything else. So we have a system that is deemed unfair which Govt said they would change, but they are not going to review non domestic properties or agricultural properties/land. Is that fair?

 

Thanks for the reply, much appreciated. This proposal is certainly not fair, as the amount of rates paid by Homeowners/Tenants will pay more due to a) as a proportion of the total rates required, then pay more as I cant think of any industrial building etc value has been, less that lets say 20% or the same amount the domestic values.

 

I was trying to figure out how Government were to carry out a revaluation, without a significant increase in cost to Government, from the domestic properties, which would be considerable increase in the overall rates. What Government is now doing, that the extra income that will be required for Local Authority to carry out the extra services the LA's will be required to be undertaken., will be funded solely be the domestic ratepayers.

 

You cant revalue one half of a system, and then as Eddie Teare has this prior week, stated that all changes will be fair, I would love to see Eddie's response in which he explains the proposed scheme is fair.

 

What are your views on the proposed scheme?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chris, you have correctly raised the question of 'why there was no consultation' with regard to the sewerage charge. At the debate over the Bill introducing the sewerage rate, the question was also asked of Alf Cannan. As yet I have not seen one response from the Chairman of the MU as to why on both occassions there was no consultation, totally aganist the 'best practice' guide of Tynwald. Chris, can you push for a proper answer on this. In the UK where consultations were not conducted, it was actually deemed illegal for legilstation to have been brought in. Either there are rules to be followed by Tynwald or not!

Good point. LegCo rather rushed its consideration of the sewerage rate bill. I raised several issues particularly in my third reading speech which I hoped it would take up, but it didn't. I intend to follow up these issues.

 

Chris can you confirm that any form of revaluation procedre will include all H

 

 

The Tynwald Committee which was set up and has reported on the Petition of Grievance of Butch Buttery chose not to seek the views of the Rent & Rating Commissioners of the Isle of Man ( the Rates Appeal Tribunal).

We did make a general call for evidence John Wright. Perhaps we should have specifically invited the Tribunal so submit evidence? Remember though that the terms of reference for a committee considering a petition for redress of grievance are limited to the subject of the petition i.e. we were not considering rates reform in general.

 

Hi Chis, Can you advise that all hereditaments presently included on the Rating Lists will be subject to the same form of review for residential dwellings. It appears to me at present, that the intention is review only residential dwellings, your clarification on this point would be greatly appreciated.thumbsup.gif Buster

 

It seems clear to me that the intention is to revalue domestic properties only, on a capital value basis, and leave everything else. So we have a system that is deemed unfair which Govt said they would change, but they are not going to review non domestic properties or agricultural properties/land. Is that fair?

 

Thanks for the reply, much appreciated. This proposal is certainly not fair, as the amount of rates paid by Homeowners/Tenants will pay more due to a) as a proportion of the total rates required, then pay more as I cant think of any industrial building etc value has been, less that lets say 20% or the same amount the domestic values.

 

I was trying to figure out how Government were to carry out a revaluation, without a significant increase in cost to Government, from the domestic properties, which would be considerable increase in the overall rates. What Government is now doing, that the extra income that will be required for Local Authority to carry out the extra services the LA's will be required to be undertaken., will be funded solely be the domestic ratepayers.

 

You cant revalue one half of a system, and then as Eddie Teare has this prior week, stated that all changes will be fair, I would love to see Eddie's response in which he explains the proposed scheme is fair.

 

What are your views on the proposed scheme?

 

hi buster. i'd like to ask a question if you don't mind as, so far, it seems that your posts, in various topics, are very informative and correctly stated. without selecting each one, i'd like to ask if the info you've supplied, and the proposals you've suggested, correlate directly to the manifesto of the campaign you were part of. my point being are your views here the same as the views in Mr Woodfords campaign Manifesto? i know you have a lot of critics and i don't know you personally but would be interested to know if that's ok. thanks x

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 362
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Valuations are subjective in the current market though John. I could have my house valued at £500,000 by any idiot agent in the Island tomorrow. However at sale in the current market i might get £325,

It's the antithesis of business really. I wish I could charge my customers whatever I liked by law and tell them they get what they're given in terms of goods and services I provide. Some business pla

This leeching bloated government is strangling and doing untold damage to our economy. There has to be a revolutionary change in thinking at the next election if we are to avoid a major, largely self

So in essence the public are going to pay 2m to some external agencies so that government can raise more revenue to protect itself from the black hole, which as we all know will be the result of the exercise !

 

If this has to be done and I don't pretend to understand all the nuances, surely there is some way they could engineer to pay some of the fees to on island business ?

 

I wonder if Eddie has written the result of the consultation he wants yet !

Link to post
Share on other sites

By asking up front for £2m it saves him the embarrassment of going back for more. As he has already stated that he will not be paying out supplemental sums outside of budgets he is basically covering his arse by this exercise.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Street lighting? - luxury!

When I was a girl we used to dream of street lighting.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Chris, you have correctly raised the question of 'why there was no consultation' with regard to the sewerage charge. At the debate over the Bill introducing the sewerage rate, the question was also asked of Alf Cannan. As yet I have not seen one response from the Chairman of the MU as to why on both occassions there was no consultation, totally aganist the 'best practice' guide of Tynwald. Chris, can you push for a proper answer on this. In the UK where consultations were not conducted, it was actually deemed illegal for legilstation to have been brought in. Either there are rules to be followed by Tynwald or not!

Good point. LegCo rather rushed its consideration of the sewerage rate bill. I raised several issues particularly in my third reading speech which I hoped it would take up, but it didn't. I intend to follow up these issues.

 

Chris can you confirm that any form of revaluation procedre will include all H

 

 

The Tynwald Committee which was set up and has reported on the Petition of Grievance of Butch Buttery chose not to seek the views of the Rent & Rating Commissioners of the Isle of Man ( the Rates Appeal Tribunal).

We did make a general call for evidence John Wright. Perhaps we should have specifically invited the Tribunal so submit evidence? Remember though that the terms of reference for a committee considering a petition for redress of grievance are limited to the subject of the petition i.e. we were not considering rates reform in general.

 

Hi Chis, Can you advise that all hereditaments presently included on the Rating Lists will be subject to the same form of review for residential dwellings. It appears to me at present, that the intention is review only residential dwellings, your clarification on this point would be greatly appreciated.thumbsup.gif Buster

 

It seems clear to me that the intention is to revalue domestic properties only, on a capital value basis, and leave everything else. So we have a system that is deemed unfair which Govt said they would change, but they are not going to review non domestic properties or agricultural properties/land. Is that fair?

 

Thanks for the reply, much appreciated. This proposal is certainly not fair, as the amount of rates paid by Homeowners/Tenants will pay more due to a) as a proportion of the total rates required, then pay more as I cant think of any industrial building etc value has been, less that lets say 20% or the same amount the domestic values.

 

I was trying to figure out how Government were to carry out a revaluation, without a significant increase in cost to Government, from the domestic properties, which would be considerable increase in the overall rates. What Government is now doing, that the extra income that will be required for Local Authority to carry out the extra services the LA's will be required to be undertaken., will be funded solely be the domestic ratepayers.

 

You cant revalue one half of a system, and then as Eddie Teare has this prior week, stated that all changes will be fair, I would love to see Eddie's response in which he explains the proposed scheme is fair.

 

What are your views on the proposed scheme?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chris, you have correctly raised the question of 'why there was no consultation' with regard to the sewerage charge. At the debate over the Bill introducing the sewerage rate, the question was also asked of Alf Cannan. As yet I have not seen one response from the Chairman of the MU as to why on both occassions there was no consultation, totally aganist the 'best practice' guide of Tynwald. Chris, can you push for a proper answer on this. In the UK where consultations were not conducted, it was actually deemed illegal for legilstation to have been brought in. Either there are rules to be followed by Tynwald or not!

Good point. LegCo rather rushed its consideration of the sewerage rate bill. I raised several issues particularly in my third reading speech which I hoped it would take up, but it didn't. I intend to follow up these issues.

 

Chris can you confirm that any form of revaluation procedre will include all H

 

 

The Tynwald Committee which was set up and has reported on the Petition of Grievance of Butch Buttery chose not to seek the views of the Rent & Rating Commissioners of the Isle of Man ( the Rates Appeal Tribunal).

We did make a general call for evidence John Wright. Perhaps we should have specifically invited the Tribunal so submit evidence? Remember though that the terms of reference for a committee considering a petition for redress of grievance are limited to the subject of the petition i.e. we were not considering rates reform in general.

 

Hi Chis, Can you advise that all hereditaments presently included on the Rating Lists will be subject to the same form of review for residential dwellings. It appears to me at present, that the intention is review only residential dwellings, your clarification on this point would be greatly appreciated.thumbsup.gif Buster

 

It seems clear to me that the intention is to revalue domestic properties only, on a capital value basis, and leave everything else. So we have a system that is deemed unfair which Govt said they would change, but they are not going to review non domestic properties or agricultural properties/land. Is that fair?

 

Thanks for the reply, much appreciated. This proposal is certainly not fair, as the amount of rates paid by Homeowners/Tenants will pay more due to a) as a proportion of the total rates required, then pay more as I cant think of any industrial building etc value has been, less that lets say 20% or the same amount the domestic values.

 

I was trying to figure out how Government were to carry out a revaluation, without a significant increase in cost to Government, from the domestic properties, which would be considerable increase in the overall rates. What Government is now doing, that the extra income that will be required for Local Authority to carry out the extra services the LA's will be required to be undertaken., will be funded solely be the domestic ratepayers.

 

You cant revalue one half of a system, and then as Eddie Teare has this prior week, stated that all changes will be fair, I would love to see Eddie's response in which he explains the proposed scheme is fair.

 

What are your views on the proposed scheme?

 

hi buster. i'd like to ask a question if you don't mind as, so far, it seems that your posts, in various topics, are very informative and correctly stated. without selecting each one, i'd like to ask if the info you've supplied, and the proposals you've suggested, correlate directly to the manifesto of the campaign you were part of. my point being are your views here the same as the views in Mr Woodfords campaign Manifesto? i know you have a lot of critics and i don't know you personally but would be interested to know if that's ok. thanks x

 

Thanks for the question, any questions or commentary made under my own Name on this Forum, are certainly as they say without favour or fear, having come from head via the keyboard to the Forum are my own personal contributions, I dont even discuss them with anybody before hand.

 

I appreciate you may find it hard to believe what a great feeling of freedom it is to be able to post on here without even having to think about what I am going to state, is it what they wanted me to say, has it been put over as they would expect.

 

Even at the Commissioners, I never let any person know what my personal views were, even the Commissioners, because I always took it very seriously that I was there to advise them, from fact and evidence, but never my own personal opinion, as even with my own personal opinion, I wouldn't know if it was fact or evidence based.

 

I really enjoy posting my own views on the Forum, and really welcome it when somebody replies taken a different opinion or different angle, especially one I hadn't thought of.

 

To me, the Forum should be used more as a written debating chamber, and respect that other people have different opinions and views, this is part of a healthy debating system.

 

This is like a Christmas present being received 35 years after the event, I am really made up to be able to use it, freedom at last!!!

 

I trust the above answers your questions and gives some of the reasons why I now Post on a regular basis. Thanks Buster

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

no Buster i don't find it hard to believe at all, and, i agree wholeheartedly with your views that mf is a great platform for social discussion. i just meant that if you or the people with opposing views could point to the manifesto and correlate it with your views and posts here, it could open up rational discussion more, and we'd have less crap to sift through! i like the info you and others with opposing views post. we can all assess things better together. thanks Buster x

Link to post
Share on other sites

To us plebs 2 mil sounds a hell of a lot of money but the Govt know what is involved in an exercise such as this..................

 

A years employment of.....

 

10 Pen Pushers @ 50k 500,000

3 Team Leaders @ 58k 174,000

12 Managers @ 65k 780,000

3 clerical staff @ 40k 120,000

1 Assistant Chief @ 82k 82,000

1 Chief @ 96k 96,000

-----------

Total 1,752,000

 

So there is 1.7 mil gone before they start on the coffee mugs!

Link to post
Share on other sites

To us plebs 2 mil sounds a hell of a lot of money but the Govt know what is involved in an exercise such as this..................

 

A years employment of.....

 

10 Pen Pushers @ 50k 500,000

3 Team Leaders @ 58k 174,000

12 Managers @ 65k 780,000

3 clerical staff @ 40k 120,000

1 Assistant Chief @ 82k 82,000

1 Chief @ 96k 96,000

-----------

Total 1,752,000

 

So there is 1.7 mil gone before they start on the coffee mugs!

so, 27 chiefs and 3 indians..... sounds 'bout right.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is something strange going on here, last time they were serious about carrying out a revaluation, the estimate of the cost for revaluation was 7 million, and this was based on the same professionals carrying out the revaluations, and he would take view that if all the properties were similar in nature, then each of the properties would be allocated in the same band value that similar properties had sold for recently.

 

They have announced ii is going to cost £2 million this time which based on the Census of 2011 there were 35599 residential units, based on these two figures this gives a cost for revaluation per household of circa £56.00.

 

Based on the previous estimate of cost of £7 million and lets use the same number of residential units as per the 2011 Census, then the cost of valuation per unit was going to be £196.00, and this figure was agreed with the Estate Agents.

 

In having read the MEMO he has circularised to members as part of the Tynwald Agenda Package he makes no reference to the prior £7 million figure, which you would think you would do even as the only closet comparison, never mind making the case for value for money, bit strange isn't it?

 

In the MEMO it states

 

"The budgetary requirements and availability of sufficiently qualified valuers to deliver the project are as yet uncertain and remain a risk on this truncated programme".

 

and then

 

"Current resources are already operating at full capacity within Treasury and in order to deliver the project within the timescales a dedicated project management team and significant external professional valuation and legal advice will be required".
Well now we have a job for all the estate agents on the Island for the next two years, and yes you read it right "significant external .........legal advice will be required"., so the lawyers can get into the trough as well.
Well this says it all, the revaluation will be carried out by the private sector, but it is obvious that they haven't agreed a fixed rate per property, as they have said "The budgetary requirements and availability of sufficiently qualified valuers to deliver the project are as yet uncertain and remain a risk on this truncated programme". The words in red are not mine, yes they are theres.
It will be very significant to see how many MHK's raise the appropriate questions when this matter comes up for debate on the 20th January.
The taxpayer is being set up here and now, by first of all not having in placed a fixed cost per valuation, but you then go to tell them the proposed contractors we don't have the staff to do it, and we accept we may not have sufficient estimate funding, but if we tell them now, we have left the door we can go back for more.
Surely this is a very clear example of how our elected members are not competent in managing our monies is it not?
Edited by Buster Lewin
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...