Die “Betaal nou, argumenteer later”-reël / Challenging the “pay now, argue later” rule

[Afr] As 'n eiendomseienaar is u moontlik bewus daarvan dat Mafube Plaaslike Munisipaliteit onlangs 'n algemene waardasie onderneem het van al die eiendomme wat in sy gebied val. Miskien het u 'n kennisgewing vanaf Mafube ontvang dat u eiendom gewaardeer is teen 'n syfer wat in die kennisgewing uiteengesit word en vind u dit om twee redes vreemd, want:

• die waardasie wat deur die munisipaliteit voorgestel word, is na u mening veels te hoog of laag is.

• sover u weet, niemand van die munisipaliteit u eiendom besoek het om te inspekteer vir ‘n waarbepaling nie.

  
  

U kan beswaar aanteken

Die kennisgewing wat op die munisipale webblad verskyn, meld dat u beswaar kan maak teen die voorgestelde waardasie. Indien u beswaar misluk, kan u appèl aanteken. Hierdie prosesse is moeisaam en frustrerend en kan lank duur. Hangende u beswaar en/of appèl, sal die munisipaliteit u steeds faktureer op grond van sy nuwe voorgestelde waardasie en dat, indien u nie die volle bedrag soos gefaktureer betaal nie, die munisipaliteit u sal dwing om te betaal deur rentetoevoeging of om bloot noodsaaklike munisipale dienste, soos elektrisiteit en watervoorsiening, af te sny.

Onregverdig teenoor eiendomseienaars? Wat is die regsposisie? Sou dit moontlik wees om munisipaliteite hieroor uit te daag?

Die Wet op Munisipale Eiendomsbelasting 6 van 2004, soos gewysig 2014, (MPRA) beheer hierdie situasie. Die relevante bepalings van die Wet op Belasting is die volgende:

Artikel 50(6): "Die indiening van 'n beswaar stel nie aanspreeklikheid vir betaling van belasting na die datum vasgestel vir betaling uit nie".

Artikel 54(4): " 'n Appèl wat ingevolge hierdie artikel aangeteken word, stel nie 'n persoon se aanspreeklikheid vir betaling van belasting uit na die datum wat vir betaling bepaal is nie."

Dit word algemeen geïnterpreteer dat, wanneer 'n eiendomseienaar óf 'n beswaar óf 'n appèl aanteken, hulle, vanaf die datum van implementering van die waardasierol, tariewe moet betaal gebaseer op die betwiste munisipale waardasie hangende die uitslag van enige sodanige beswaar of appèl. Dit beteken dat die bepalings waarna verwys word as volg toegepas word” “Betaal nou, argumenteer later”. Hierdie interpretasie bevoordeel uiteraard munisipaliteite, maar benadeel die regte van eiendomseienaars.

Die MPRA vereis dat die munisipale waardeerder die presiese markwaarde van 'n eiendom bepaal. Dit word egter algemeen aanvaar in die waardasieprofessie dat waardasies onderhewig is aan 'n foutmarge van tussen 10 tot 15% van werklike markwaardes. Die werklikheid is dus dat, selfs wanneer behoorlike waardasiemetodes gebruik word, dit moeilik is om die presiese markwaarde van 'n eiendom te bereken. In sommige lande (soos die Verenigde Koninkryk) word 'n stelsel van waardasiebande gebruik om hierdie probleem te omseil. In sulke stelsels is dit nie nodig om die presiese waarde van 'n eiendom te bepaal nie, maar slegs om te bepaal in watter waardasieband die eiendom val. Die gevolg is dat die aantal waardasiegeskille so aansienlik verminder word.

In die lig van bogenoemde voer MBF aan dat daar geargumenteer kan word dat die “betaal nou, argumenteer later” interpretasie van aa 50(6) en 54(4) van die MPRA nie redelik en regverdigbaar is in 'n oop en demokratiese samelewing gebaseer op menswaardigheid, gelykheid en vryheid nie en dus ongrondwetlik is.

MBF beveel aan dat waar eiendomseienaars deur 'n onbillike waardasie benadeel word,

1. die beswaarproses in terme van die MPRA gevolg moet word; en daarby

2. 'n dispuut ingevolge artikel 102(2) van die Munisipale Stelselswet verklaar moet word.

MBF sal u graag van hulp wees en nooi inwoners, sake-eienaars, boere en belastingbetalers uit om ons kantore te besoek by Kerkstraat 18A, Frankfort op Maandae tot Donderdae van 08h30 tot 16h00 en Vrydae 08h30 tot 12h00. Bel of stuur 'n WhatsApp-boodskap aan Marina by 079 145 4295. Besoek ons webwerf www.mafubebf.org

 en volg ons op Facebook.

--------

[Eng] As a property owner, it may have come to your attention that your municipality has undertaken a general valuation of all the properties situated in its area. You may receive a notice from municipality that your property has been valued at a figure set out in the notice. You might find this strange for two reasons, because:

• Like many property owners, you believe that you have a good “feel” for what your property is worth, and the valuation proposed by the municipality is, in your opinion, far too high.

• No one from the municipality has been to inspect your property to properly assess its value.

The notice published on the municipal website informs property owners that they may object to the proposed valuation. If an objection fails, an appeal may still be lodged. These processes are laborious, frustrating and can take a long time. Pending your objection and appeal, your municipality will bill you based on its new proposed valuation and that, if you do not pay the full amount as billed, your municipality will force you to pay by adding additional interest or simply suspending vital municipal services, such as electricity and water supply.

This situation appears to be very unfair to property owners. What is the legal position?

Would it be possible to challenge municipalities on this?

The Municipal Property Rates Act 6 of 2004, as amended 2014, (MPRA) governs this situation. The relevant provisions of the Rates Act are the following:

Section 50(6): “The lodging of an objection does not defer liability for payment of rates beyond the date determined for payment”.

Section 54(4): “An appeal lodged in terms of this section does not defer a person’s liability for payment of rates beyond the date determined for payment”.

These sections are hereinafter referred to as the “impugned sections”. They are commonly interpreted to mean that, when a property owner lodges either an objection or an appeal, they must, as from the date of implementation of the valuation roll, pay rates based on the disputed municipal valuation pending the outcome of any such objection or appeal. This means that the provisions are what is referred to as a “pay now, argue later” policy. This interpretation obviously favours municipalities but clearly is to the detriment of property owners and their rights.

The MPRA requires the municipal valuer to determine the precise market value of a property. However, it is generally accepted in the valuation profession that valuations are subject to a margin of error of between 10 to 15% of actual market value. Thus, the reality is that, even when proper valuation methods are utilised, it is difficult to calculate the precise market value of a property. In some countries (such as the United Kingdom), a system of valuation bands is utilised to get around this problem. In such systems, it is not necessary to determine the precise value of a property, but only to determine into which valuation band the property falls. The result is that the number of valuation disputes is significantly reduced.

In view of the above, MBF submit that it may be argued that the “pay now, argue later” interpretation of ss 50(6) and 54(4) of the MPRA is not reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

MBF recommend that where property owners are disadvantaged by an unfair valuation,

1. the objection process is followed; and in addition

2. a dispute is declared in terms of section 102(2) of the Municipal Systems Act.

MBF will gladly assist residents, business owners, farmers and ratepayers and invite them to visit our offices at 18A Kerk Street, Frankfort on Mondays to Thursdays from 08h30 to 16h00 and Fridays 08h30 to 12h00. Call or send a WhatsApp message to Marina at 079 145 4295. Visit our website www.mafubebf.org and follow us on Facebook.