Property valuation appeals stall

The death of an appeals administrator and the resignation of a property valuer has left the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality scrambling to address hundreds of outstanding valuation appeals.

The backlog in processing the appeals related to more than 400 valuation objections means some property owners may have to pay potentially excessive property rates until their appeals are assessed.

The matter has been further exacerbated by claims and counter-claims between municipal and provincial authorities over requests for an additional board to be established to help clear the backlogs.

The situation arose after the death of the chairman of the board which assesses the valuation appeals and the subsequent resignation of the metro’s valuer, which has now left the appeals board with just two members and no ability to reach a quorum.

The Bay municipality undertakes general property valuations every four years.

In an attempt to solve the crisis, Bay mayor Athol Trollip wrote to Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Cogta) MEC Fikile Xasa requesting the appointment of a second appeals board.

Yesterday, Xasa said he had approved the request and it was up to the metro to establish the (second) board. “I am certain that I have approved the request and it is up to the municipality to establish the board,” Xasa said.

He could not say when he had given his approval.

But both Trollip and metro manager Johann Mettler said they had not received any communications from Xasa’s office.

In his letter, Trollip claimed Xasa’s department had carried out interviews on January 31 but that he, as mayor, had not been consulted.

“The fact that the [municipality] does not have an appeal board to deal with the appeals within the time frames stipulated in the Municipal Property Rates Act is putting pressure on officials who are time and time again being challenged by appellants due to the fact that their appeals are not being dealt with in the stipulated time frames,” Trollip said.

He said this also put the metro at risk of contravening the terms of the Act.

“It must be noted that section 54(4) of the [Act] stipulates that an appeal lodged does not defer a person’s liability for payment of rates.

“The fact that the appeals are [not] dealt with within the time frames stipulated by [the Act] could be putting serious financial constraints on property owners.”

Budget and treasury political head Retief Odendaal said the delays were unacceptable.

“Because of the dismal performance last time, it took them four years to complete the appeals. There were many more appeals then than this year,” Odendaal said.

It was hoped the establishment of a second board would help speed up the process. “We petitioned the MEC to establish a second board because we wanted the appeals to be done as soon as possible.

“The fact is that he has not established a single board, let alone the second one as we requested,” Odendaal said.

“Quite frankly, it’s unacceptable. He should perform the functions of his office and as such deal with the matter.

“It’s unacceptable that residents of the metro are suffering because of somebody’s inability or unwillingness to fulfil their functions,” Odendaal said.