Unusual property assessment appeal seeks to increase, not lower, Surrey home's value

Surrey is seen in this file image. (Murray Titus / CTV Vancouver)

A Surrey homeowner recently won an appeal of their property assessment, but unlike most people who appeal their homes' value, they weren't trying to get it reduced.

Surinder P. Gulati went to B.C.'s Property Assessment Appeal Board to challenge the assessed value of their house on 140 Street near 88 Avenue in Surrey.

Gulati argued that the 1,195-square-foot, one-storey home with a finished basement, six bedrooms and three bathrooms should be valued at $1,440,000, rather than the $1,270,000 value BC Assessment assigned it for 2024.

In support of this position, Gulati made a variety of arguments that PAAB panel chair John Bridal rejected as inappropriate in a decision posted on the board's website earlier this month.

Gulati told the appeal board the home, which was built in 1981, had recently been extensively renovated. They claimed that the amount of the assessed value allocated to the structure itself was insufficient because of these renovations, and that the building's replacement cost for insurance purposes was now $692,000.

Gulati claimed the renovation itself cost more than $135,000, which was the portion of the assessed value attributed to buildings, rather than land value, according to the decision.

Bridal noted that insurance values are not the same as market value, and the assessment process generally considers total value of land and buildings together, despite separating that value into the categories of "land" and "improvements."

The panel chair similarly dismissed Gulati's claims that the property generated $53,400 in net rental income.

"I find the income approach is not typically valid for single-family residential properties in Greater Vancouver, as there tends to be a tenuous relationship between rental income and sale prices," Bridal's decision reads.

"Buyers and sellers of these residential properties do not commonly focus on income-earning characteristics when establishing prices. However, even if this was a valid appraisal approach here, there is insufficient evidence presented to make any reasonable finding."

Likewise, Gulati argued that the assessor had inappropriately considered traffic noise from the property's location at the intersection of two busy streets as a negative factor, reducing the overall value.

The appellant argued the location on two busy streets should add to the value "as it strengthens the subject’s commercial redevelopment potential."

"The appellant notes there is a commercial complex across the street," the decision reads.

"However, the assessor provides evidence to show this suggested highest and best use is not supported by the zoning, Official Community Plan, or conformity with the neighbourhood. I find the Assessor’s evidence is convincing that the subject’s current use is its highest and best use. As such, I agree the traffic influence is more likely to be a negative factor."

Despite rejecting most of Gulati's arguments, the panel chair did increase the value of the property after comparing it to recent sales in the area.

Bridal set the home's value at $1,369,000, with all of the increase attributed to improvements, rather than land value.