The Curepe land valuation issue

THE EDITOR: I refer to “Stand-off delays Curepe interchange” on Page 5 of the Sunday Newsday, 13th January, 2019. There may be three reasons for the disparity in valuations for the Curepe residents. These are (a) different dates of valuation, (b) valuers looking at different sales information and (c) the subjective nature of judgement.

Firstly, as no Land Acquisition Act sec 5 order has been issued, the date of valuation should be according to the sec 4 order of that Act, that is the date of entry. If the sec 4 order, having lapsed, is not valid then the date of valuation is the present. Valuations done at earlier dates maybe rendered useless.

Secondly, the valuers on opposite sides may not be looking at the same sales information. The government valuers depend solely on dated and inadequate information in registered transactions. The problem with this is that in many instances the valuers do not know the date the consideration (price) was agreed and also pertinent background to the transaction.

Private sector valuers, in addition to registered transactions, use the “real time” information of sales agreements from their valuation practice. They will also have some knowledge of the background to these transactions. The problem here is that not all agreements end in a completed sale. Also, sales information cannot be divulged outside the confines of a confidential professional valuation discussion.

Lastly, all valuers have to apply their subjective judgement to sales information to arrive at a valuation. It is perfectly in order for different valuers in the same office to arrive at different valuations based on the same sales information. Valuation is not an exact science. Disparity in valuation is not unusual. It is the duty of the valuers to close the gap.

Ray Pierre
v
ia email