ASSESSMENT OBJECTIONS REJECTED

Evening Star, Issue 21751, 20 June 1934, Page 3

ASSESSMENT OBJECTIONS REJECTED

VALUER'S EVIDENCE DISCREDITED FEE IF HE COT RESULTS [Pm United Press Association.] AUCKLAND, Jane 19. The rejection by Mr W. It. M'Lean, S.M., oi' the evidence of a valuer who admitted working on a basis of payment by results caused a stir at a sitting of the Assessment Court at Mount Eden to-day. The matter arose, when a batch of 176 objections, presented by Mr R. E. Taylor on behalf of the property owners, was considered by the coux-t. Complaint was made that the objections had been lodged so late that considerable extra work by the staff had been entailed. “ It is a very unsatisfactory way of doing things,” commented Mr M'Kean. “ 1 raise the technical objection that the objections are not in order,” said Mr Terry, who appeared for the Borough Council, “ and 1 would like one of the cases heard to test its validity. The council considers the evidence to be not bona fide.” Mr Terry alleged that the council had information which pointed to the conclusion that the district had been canvassed by an agent named Lange, and the residents were invited to put the matter of assessment objections into his hands. “ Of these objectors not one is present in court,” said Mr Terry. “ It is suggested that Lange was to receive a certain fee if successful.” Is it the case that the people have been, 'canvassed ? ” asked Air M'Kean, addressing Mr Taylor. Air Taylor: I do not think so. “ If Atr Terry's statements are correct, it is a most improper state of affairs,” said Mr M'Kean, Submitting that the objections -were invalid, Mr Terry said they failed to comply with the requirements of the Rating Act, in that the name of the objector or objectors did not appear in the objections concerned. “ It will bo a grave injustice if the people concerned do not have a chance to have their valuations considered,” remarked -Mr Taylor. Mr M'Kean then called evidence by Lange on one of the objections. “ How did you come to see tho owner? By whom were you asked?” questioned Air Al‘Kean. Lange: By a friend of the owner. [n cross-examination. Air Terry asked the witness whether he had issued any circulars concerning valuation objections. Witness; Yes. After further questioning he admitted that he got between fifty and seventy clients on a basis of the payment of 10s if the objection were successful, and nothing if the valuation were sustained. About thirty people had actually asked him to go to see them about their properties. He could not swear that ho was actually asked in every instance.' Air Terry: Do you ask the court to take your valuation against that of the Mount Eden valuer on a basis of 10s or nothing? Lange: I ask only for fair reductions. “ After admitting that under the terms of your employment you get no pay unless you secure a reduction, do you expect me' to make reductions? ” asked Mr M'Kean. Addressing Air Taylor, Air Al'Kcan asked whether lie proposed bringing the witness forward in all cases in view of the fact that he hail been discredited from the outset. “ I cannot possibly prefer the evidence of an interested witness to that of the official valuer,” he continued. ” I am astonished that anything of the sort of which 1 have heard could take place. I cannot place any reliance on the witness, arid I regret that such a position had arisen.” Mr Taylor said he admitted that if canvassing had been carried out it was a very improper thing. Would it not be possible to confer with the valuer to secure an adjustment in cases where an over-valuation was apparent? If people are prepared to make terms like that they do not deserve assistance,” said Mr Terry. 1 Mr M'Kean ruled that in the light of the evidence he would uphold Mr Terry’s objection, and refuse to hear further evidence. He left it in the hands of the official valuer to make amendments to the assessments where these appeared to be warranted.