Property values website to go live

Fiona

I am going to set up a little file and print out all the property sells in the area and then add all the prices together then get the average and then ill get my figure based on that.

Hopefully that can be classified as honest!!

D3PO

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

And this is the problem with this whole system. How do you value property in a stagnant / falling market (depending on where it is)??

In fact, it seems Revenue themselves have it wrong from the start - story here this morning

Spin to make people think there valuations are reasonable and to make people accept them. Anecdotally look at what the regularls to this forum think of their valuations.

Some agree they have been undervalued but most have been overvalued.

monkeypants

smccarrick wrote: »

You can change the intensity of the orange

I know, I've already done that. But why couldn't they have used a couple of different colours, spread it across the spectrum.

Ogham

Bullseye1 wrote: »

For clarification if your property is worth €175,000 do you muliply this figure by 0.18%? Or do you take the figure for property between €150,000-€200,000?

You will be in band 3 and the full year amount will be €315
See here http://www.moneyguideireland.com/property-tax-how-much-will-it-be.html

Pason

just another question on this i live in one of the 0 to 100.000 areas and just had my house valued at 30k why should i have to pay the same as someone who value is 100k can anyone understand this

murphaph

monkeypants wrote: »

Why is everything in shades of bleedin' orange. I'm giving myself a headache looking at the damned thing. Will get the missus to do it.

Using a single colour at varying hues is the only thing right with this application ;-)

mfceiling

Talking about how useless this website is on the radio this morning. Revenue expecting a backlash.

I've a friend who's house backs directly on to a settled travellers site - they live in small bungalows. When his neighbours house was sold a few years ago he asked the valuer would his house sell for similar. Valuer told him "not a chance in hell"...The neighbours house is up the road while his backs on to the site. 2 times the fire brigade have been out to put out the fire where a traveller family burnt the house out before they left. I'd wonder what he'll value his house at, seeing as the market for people wanting to live in front of a traveller's site must be pretty low?

murphaph

mfceiling wrote: »

Talking about how useless this website is on the radio this morning. Revenue expecting a backlash.

I've a friend who's house backs directly on to a settled travellers site - they live in small bungalows. When his neighbours house was sold a few years ago he asked the valuer would his house sell for similar. Valuer told him "not a chance in hell"...The neighbours house is up the road while his backs on to the site. 2 times the fire brigade have been out to put out the fire where a traveller family burnt the house out before they left. I'd wonder what he'll value his house at, seeing as the market for people wanting to live in front of a traveller's site must be pretty low?

In this unique case he'll be best advised to get that valuer to put that in writing and use it as his valuation. Revenue can't argue with that.

mfceiling

murphaph wrote: »

In this unique case he'll be best advised to get that valuer to put that in writing and use it as his valuation. Revenue can't argue with that.

I'll text him that later....meeting him back at work on wednesday, should be a bit of crack!!

mathie

I put in my location and got a valuation.

Then I changed it to say it was built after 2000.

The property is valued at 50K more if it was built before 2000.

How is that possible?
Any older house is worth more?

D3PO

mathie wrote: »

I put in my location and got a valuation.

Then I changed it to say it was built after 2000.

The property is valued at 50K more if it was built before 2000.

How is that possible?
Any older house is worth more?

I understand the logic but they just not very scientific with it. Older houses would be worth paying a premium in my eyes. I dont want to every buy some cardboard crappily built piece of crap post 2000 (not saying they all like that) so id happily pay more in an area for an older property.

I know many that have the same opinion so older houses probably have a slightly greater value as are in greater demand but they have used a very blunt object to try and illustrate that and it doesnt exactly fit.

seamus

A lot of prices are going to be wrong on the estimation website because the criteria are rather simple (it doesn't take no. of beds, plot size, etc into account), and because it's impossible to account for less tangible aspects (end house, good view, south-facing garden, etc etc).

My suspicion is that they used actual sales prices from a number of years (don't forget that Revenue have access to stamp duty records) and then applied a function to them to get the current market value based on the CSO's quarterly figures. Then average that out and bingo-bango.

But it's impossible to take the specifics of each property into account.

The letter which comes out will probably be the same - they'll suggest what band your property is in rather than an actual monetary value.

pburns

D4 is a mess - are they really suggesting that an owner of a 1 bed apt in a certain electoral district is to pay property tax for a value of €350-400K? That the owner of a 1 bed shoebox pays the same as a 3 bed penthouse?

The area around Landsdowne is more realstic (for a 2-bed apt for example) but it's 3(!!) bands lower that neighbouring area. However the less salubrious areas of this district are proably overvalued also (Ringsend).

P. Breathnach

There seems to be a tendency to see problems where none exist. The guidelines are just what they say: guidelines. They are there to help people get a starting point for considering the value of their property. Of course some individual properties will be worth either more or less than the guideline figure, sometimes by a large amount.

It happens that the guideline for my home is in line with what I judge its value to be. But I can look out my study window on my mixed neighbourhood and see other properties that, in my non-expert judgement, should be placed in different categories than the guidelines suggest. Some I would bump up a higher category; others I would take down to a lower category.

BostonB

murphaph wrote: »

Using a single colour at varying hues is the only thing right with this application ;-)

How so? That it is all equally inaccurate?

My estate is a mix of house styles from small 3 bed semi to 4 and 5 detached. They are all the same on this map. In fact the whole area is the same and there's houses that sold for millions to 150k and they are all the same colour/band.

mfceiling

BostonB wrote: »

How so? That it is all equally inaccurate?

My estate is a mix of house styles from small 3 bed semi to 4 and 5 detached. They are all the same on this map. In fact the whole area is the same and there's houses that sold for millions to 150k and they are all the same colour/band.

Same as my area

Victor

Pason wrote: »

just another question on this i live in one of the 0 to 100.000 areas and just had my house valued at 30k why should i have to pay the same as someone who value is 100k can anyone understand this

You think you'll be overcharged by €18?

It has to be calculated somehow. This is the way that was decided.

Victor

Threads merged.

Moderator

Chatterboxmoira

leanonme wrote: »

What price do you have your house insured for, that will tell you what value you put on your house.

That doesn't work because the property is valued at rebuild cost, which is not the same as buying cost.

kippy

D3PO wrote: »

I understand the logic but they just not very scientific with it. Older houses would be worth paying a premium in my eyes. I dont want to every buy some cardboard crappily built piece of crap post 2000 (not saying they all like that) so id happily pay more in an area for an older property.

I know many that have the same opinion so older houses probably have a slightly greater value as are in greater demand but they have used a very blunt object to try and illustrate that and it doesnt exactly fit.

In generic terms I'd be happier in a newer house.
The older houses I have seen (in generally) use older oil boilers, aren't very well insulated and tend to be plumbed and wired to older standards not allowing for alarms etc, using older piping materials, which may require replacements soon. Some dont even use double glazed windows.
Heating costs would generally be a lot higher and there is usually some maintenance to be undertook.

Not saying all newer houses are "great" but that would be my general take on it.

Bigcheeze

I'm guessing the colours are deliberately different shades of brown to prevent people marketing property as: "located in this highly sought after blue area of Dublin" etc......

Bigcheeze

kippy wrote: »

In generic terms I'd be happier in a newer house.
The older houses I have seen (in generally) use older oil boilers, aren't very well insulated and tend to be plumbed and wired to older standards not allowing for alarms etc, using older piping materials, which may require replacements soon. Some dont even use double glazed windows.
Heating costs would generally be a lot higher and there is usually some maintenance to be undertook.

Not saying all newer houses are "great" but that would be my general take on it.

I think that pre-2000 houses were on average larger than post-2000. A typical 4 bed semi seems to be around 1200 sq ft these days vs. 1400 in the 70's.

cookie1977

Bigcheeze wrote: »

I'm guessing the colours are deliberately different shades of brown to prevent people marketing property as: "located in this highly sought after blue area of Dublin" etc......

We can still do it:
We've a beautiful home in the much sought after of #FF7D40 Dublin and another nice house in another much sought after area of #FF8247 Dublin.

kippy

Bigcheeze wrote: »

I think that pre-2000 houses were on average larger than post-2000. A typical 4 bed semi seems to be around 1200 sq ft these days vs. 1400 in the 70's.

There was a size of 1350 sq ft (I think) that was the cut off point for first time buyers so yea, a lot of houses were probably below this size, that said when it comes to fuel costs I would think the older houses, in general cost more to heat unless retrofitted with extra insullation etc.

Bullseye1

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There seems to be a tendency to see problems where none exist. The guidelines are just what they say: guidelines. They are there to help people get a starting point for considering the value of their property. Of course some individual properties will be worth either more or less than the guideline figure, sometimes by a large amount.

It happens that the guideline for my home is in line with what I judge its value to be. But I can look out my study window on my mixed neighbourhood and see other properties that, in my non-expert judgement, should be placed in different categories than the guidelines suggest. Some I would bump up a higher category; others I would take down to a lower category.

Your contradicting yourself. You say there is no issue and then you look out your window and see properties which should be in different categories.:pac:

Bullseye1

Victor wrote: »

You think you'll be overcharged by €18?

It has to be calculated somehow. This is the way that was decided.

Was the figure of 0.18% not mentioned? It seems to have gone out the window. If there is a difference of €25,000 it doesn't matter with these bands.

P. Breathnach

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Your contradicting yourself. You say there is no issue and then you look out your window and see properties which should be in different categories.:pac:

Where is the contradiction? I said that they are guidelines; that means that they are not to be treated as definitive valuations.

DavyD_83

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Was the figure of 0.18% not mentioned? It seems to have gone out the window. If there is a difference of €25,000 it doesn't matter with these bands.

As far as I am aware the percentage is applied to the mid value of the 50k range you fall into.
So, yeh a house worth 252,000; will pay the same as a house worth 296K as both are in the 250-300K bracket.
- Cost would be 0.18% of 275K

One of the many issues with the system as it stands.

Ogham

Revenue admit that less than half of properties will be valued in the correct band - but 90% should be within 1 band of the correct band.

From Here : http://www.moneyguideireland.com/analysis-of-online-revenue-valuation-tool.html

There will be even more uproar when the actual forms land on doorsteps with estimates of the tax due. The estimate , in a lot of cases , will probably vary from the figure people have seen on this map .
The Revenue won't know the type of property everyone owns (semi/detached etc) - so they will have to be even less "accurate" .
Of course - everyone will have to realise that the estimate is not a valuation - contrary to what some press reports are saying.

Bullseye1

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Where is the contradiction? I said that they are guidelines; that means that they are not to be treated as definitive valuations.

You said there has been miss categorization.