Page 890 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 16 June 1992

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

---

The property inspection to check boundary encroachments, et cetera, was conducted on 20 February and finally, on 3 March, a valuation was made, putting it at $126,000. Ms O'Brien maintains that the valuation should have been based on 2 January, not 3 March. Why did it take two months from the date that she lodged the application before a valuation came forward? Indeed, if we like to put it another way, as the fee that the Housing Trust sought was received on 4 February, why did it take a month before the valuation was carried out? The Real Estate Institute and valuers tell me that the minimum time in which they can generally do a valuation is two days, and the maximum is a week. How come it took at least a month - or perhaps two months, as Ms O'Brien would argue - for this valuation to take place, and why was it not backdated at least to 2 January? In the interim - - -

Mr Berry: She would be really happy about you talking about all her problems!

MR CORNWELL: No. In the interim, Mr Berry, the price of houses rose by an average of 1.5 per cent per month. As a result of this two-month delay, Ms O'Brien has been forced to find an additional $3,780. She had an independent valuation done, and there was a difference of $1,500. I must say that on 25 March that valuation was brought in, and the Housing Trust agreed to split the difference, and so gave her a $750 rebate. The house is still costing $125,250. I maintain that this is an unfair impost, and I would ask Mr Connolly whether he would again examine this matter following these verbal representations.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Assembly adjourned at 10.49 pm

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .