Auckland property owners are now able to see their latest Auckland Council Rating Valuations, which went live on the Auckland Council website on Monday.
Most will show a significant reduction in their valuation, with the average Capital Valuation declining by 9% across the region.
Properties in the more expensive central Auckland suburbs have tended to have the biggest valuation decline of around -11% to -14%, while properties in outer areas of the region have tended to decline by less, according to the Council.
However, the latest rating valuations probably don't reflect the latest market values, because they were prepared as at May last year.
The previous rating valuations in Auckland were prepared as at June 2021.
"The last council valuations from 1 June 2021 were completed close to the market peak and between then and May 2024, the economy and property market generally trended sown," Auckland Council Chief Financial Officer Ross Tucker said in a statement on the council website.
"Therefore, as most people would expect, the May 2024 Capital Values are lower than the previous 2021 Capital Values for many properties," he said.
It is not just residential property owners who have been hit with a decline in values - the latest rating values for commercial properties were down by an average of 5% compared to the 2021 valuations.
Other types of properties have shown increases in rating valuations between 2021 and 2024, led by Industrial properties +5%, lifestyle properties +4% and rural properties +4%.
However property owners should remember that rating valuations are not market valuations, they are designed purely for the purposes of apportioning the amount of rates payable by individual property owners.
It is possible that the market value of some properties could have declined further from where they were in May last year when the latest rating valuations were set.
According the the latest Real Estate Institute of NZ figures, the median selling price of residential properties in Auckland declined from $1.042 million in April 2024 to $1.0 million in April 2025.
Auckland Council expects to mail out written valuations at the end of this week.
51 Comments
My combined CVs have gone down 22% although I think the new figures are realistic. Will this mean my rates will go down?
What do you mean by "combined" CVs? Each property will have an individual decline - largely depending on area/location.
Are you adding, for example, two 11% decreases and referring to that as a 22% decrease. Doesn't quite work that way, if so.
But if you mean you lost 22% in previous (unrealised) capital value from one or more properties - that would make sense.
And no, there is no guarantee your rates will go down. Might well go up depending on ACC's new budget expenditure!
I added up all my CVs and worked out the total % drop as if it was one house. It's possible that rates could go down, or not go up as much as others, if the CV values go down more than others. I once got a CV dropped on a property and paid lower rates.
wow - that's quite high based on the average being reported as a 9% decline.
Are you going to object on any of the new valuations?
I'm beginning to wonder about where they got 9% from.
It could be the total decrease in value of CVs, e.g. total residential value was $100bn, now it's $91bn.
But I'm hearing a lot of people with 20% plus decreases, especially houses.
Maybe 9% is the average decrease in % terms. In which case maybe apartments on average have experienced less than 9% decreases, and 9% is the average of the % decreases , but total value decrease could be higher?
That is interesting. Indeed when I read the average being a 9% drop - I thought AKL did so much better than Wellington - also re-valued from a 2021 prior valuation. Wellington if I recall correctly was reported as more around a 20% average drop.
You could be right - that the greater share of apartments in AKL could have been a factor - however apartments in Welly also took biggish hits, I think.
Being a planner, I don't agree with rates being based on these blanket-type dollar value valuations. I'd rather we used a points system - making use of the rich data in GIS systems. General rates to my mind ought to be based largely on three factors: proximity to the amenities provided by local government + the proximity to public transport services + the proximity to large centers of employment. All the user-pay, i.e. targeted rates, such as the three waters, can remain as is.
The other thing AKL does wrong (to my mind) is they inappropriately take advantage of the fixed-charge UAGC as a means to 'smooth' out rates - charging every unit the same amount. It is a regressive tax for sure.
I'd consider that Auckland, with it's gargantuan highs in 2021 and greater population (and level of leveraged debt) had more to lose than Wellington. There are many questions as to why the insane delay in CV's being released in AKL and it reeks of undue influence to me. Lots of money at stake depending on what is reported, make or break territory in terms of debt servicing costs and ability to borrow. I wonder if the media would get a few OIA requests to council to uncover anything unscrupulous, but then again, the media is so reliant on income from the property sector now I'd doubt it.
EXACTLY RIGHT I1234!
I smell selfish, REA related vested interest, for the unforgivable delays in the release of these CVs. These recent fishy events, smells of corrupt practice to hide the scale and breadth of the Auckland property market crash. Biggest crash in Decades, is still to unfold and eventually find a bottom!!
Who pressured who? who had what to lose? who decided what and when? WHY WHY WHY??? - should be the investigation topics of an audit!
FMA or the Police financial fraud office? Who can hold the Auck CC to account?
Regressive tax? Could be more of a "user pays" thing.
I probably wont dispute them. Chances are low that I could get them increased. A quick check of similar houses in the street show the same sort of drops.
Does it even matter? The only draw back to a low CV I can think of is if you're selling now... give it abit of time and most will go back to not really caring.
Agree.
No. They adjust the $Rate/$RV up to compensate for the lower capital value. In fact with current council trends your rates will go up 5-15% irrespective of the RV. I don't know about Akl but council rates in NP are based on land value, not land + improvements.
ACC uses capital value (land + improvements) for its General Rate.
New Plymouth might be one of the only local authorities using land value only to calculate its general rate. Land value only generally meant in Auckland, that the closer one's property is to the CBD - the higher the rates on a per m2 of land were - so they changed (largely) for that reason. They wanted to 'spread' the costs 'out' to the more distant suburbs when the Super City was formed (as I understand it).
Lots of the 'old' Auckland City properties got very nice rate reductions following that move.
So with mass rating value decline, and justified after the gouge that was 2021, will the banks assessments start to move against those that are further underwater?
Banks don't care about CVs...
Sort of, having spent most of my life in banking I can assure you they take it into account.
If you purchase a place considerably above CV, they may ask for an actual physical valuation.
If you purchase a place with a small amount of equity they may ask for an actual valuation, even if purchase is below CV.
But if you purchase with considerable equity going in, they care less, as they assume there is enough equity to recover their mortgage.
Their models are trying to access if they can get out without a loss in event of mortgagee sales, and the CV can be useful for this.
Banks use valuation tools which pull through recent sales in the area & provide a current property value estimate. If it's outside a range of this value or cant generate - its likely they'll ask for a full registered valuation where a valuer inspects the property. CV is the absolute last resort. Times have changed...
QV and Opteon are the independent valuation providers who have completed the valuation process. These companies are experienced property valuers and have worked closely with the council.
Banks use APIs to reach into council etc and pick up these values, why would banks not use them, they are ACCURATE valuations at the date of valuation....
Banks are NOT into valuing properties via recent sale data, they leave that to outside companies and just pay to access data.
When did you last work for a bank Nifty?
You have no idea IT GUY... just do a Google search and it will show how wrong you are. Never a mention of council CVs...
So how do lenders value your property?
In the normal process they will order an ‘Automated Valuation Model (AVM) Report, from a provider such as CoreLogic. This machine-generated report will contain an estimated value calculated by looking at recent comparable sales in the surrounding area. It will take into account relative land sizes, numbers of bedrooms and bathrooms plus other characteristics. The model will also compare the distance from the property of those comparables, and how far back in time they sold.
Lenders can then choose to use an accurate AVM and lend to you, which they will often do if you are providing a deposit of over 20% of the property's value. If the AVM is inaccurate though, or your deposit is small, they may ‘cascade' the valuation to a registered Valuer working in your area.
https://www.corelogic.co.nz/news-research/news/archive/how-does-the-ban…
Who offer these AVMs Nifty? what companies?
are you backing out of the fact you stated banks maintain a view on recent sales... which they do not they ask externals to do this...
Can you not read...
I said banks use valuation tools - meaning Corelogic, Valocity...
Where does it say anywhere that banks tap into council values?
You're lost IT GUY.
QV, a New Zealand-based property valuation service, utilizes an Automated Valuation Model (AVM) to estimate property values. AVMs use algorithms and data analysis to determine property values based on various factors like location, size, and recent sales data. QV's AVMs are part of their broader platform that provides property data and insights, including online reports and market trends
-
QV's Role in the Property Industry:
QV has been instrumental in leading industry change, including introducing online property data and the first AVM in New Zealand.
So banks like AVMs and QV provide them, first in NZ and they also do the Auckland CVs.
I rest my case your Honour...
Well done...QV do AVMs.
QV do CVs for councils.
They are two seperate things.
Not many major banks even use them for AVMs... Velocity & Corelogic are mostly.
Lol bye.
No
If your CV has increased - congrats, that's confirmation it's a great investment 🥂
Ergo if its decreased its a bad investment. Supido. Only specuvestor cares about CV. Yield.
A relative of mine had an increase of 5%.
Mine is up 5.2% but that will mean a much larger rate rise then people seeing the average 9% fall.
🥂 i feel dirty....
Please dispute your CV and ask for it to be as low as possible as you are against capital gains.
The value will be much higher once I have sub divided.... Funny but council do not seem to be aware of subdivision potential on rural property valuations.... no point paying higher rates unless necessary tho...
My CV is down 14%, but still higher than when I bought in 2021. (yes, I bought at the peak, after also selling at the peak)
My valuation dropped 27%
Just add in the inflation of the past few years and you have a 40-50% drop in real terms.
Something I was assured was completely impossible by the property addicts on here.
At least you rate rise will be smaller then mine.
Yes see the bag holding tossers on the poooperty "Investment" FB pages, still telling the last handfull of young, hopeful, new investors (New Cannon Fodder) - that property is the "best inflation hedge around" - Idiots, the lot of them.
Could not be a worst inflation hedge, then what property has been. Fools and their money have been parted and NZs 40-year property love affair, is done, finished.
Lots of Glendowie has seen the land valuation fall around 26-27%, which is probably fair,
the land was in general valued at about $2,7 to $2.9k per sq meter before and is now valued at around $2,1k to $2.3k per sq m
Was selling above $4,000 at the peak, if you own a bowl house and develop site, you are about 45-50% down since the peak as there is just no developer demand. The trouble was every site was being priced as if...
I know a really cool house on 1000 sq m its modern etc and has had 21% chopped off.... probably realistic but that is going to really impact the owners perception of value and limit offers, its not just this house its THE ENTIRE SUBURB
I see a house near me that sold for 4.5M in 2021 that now has a CV of 3.2M. Has to be a bit disappointing.
A 28% drop - not that far off your 22%.
Well, I always thought my CVs were a bit excessive and didn't pay anywhere near the 2021 CV. The example above was where actual money was paid over the 2021 CV. But then, the buyer may have made big capital gains previously. Awhile ago I remember commenting that I wouldn't "bat an eyelid" at a million dollar paper loss and now I am blessed with the opportunity to honour that claim.
To tell the truth, my bank currently estimates my property value at very near the value of the new CVs which is interesting. Been like that for some time.
Here come the vested interests to tell you to ignore them, good luck with that...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/council-valuations-are-past-their-use-by-…
if there is a lesson here, its get them out close to the date of value so they are actually a reflection of market value... unless they are not.
Dumb suggestion by that author, in that the only way to challenge one is to make comparisons with other 'like' properties - so the public needs that data publicly available for that purpose.
As I said above, if it was up to me, I wouldn't be setting rates based on a dollar value, but rather a set of factors - hence you end up with a numerical value (say on a 1-1000 scale) to calculate the General Rate. Nothing to do with dollar value of improvements or dollar value of land.
That would mean all/most sales would require an individual valuation if seeking a mortgage.
is that more like a poll tax?
No, not at all. The existing UAGC portion of rates mentioned above is similar to a poll tax. Setting rates based on the three proximity factors mentioned above actually reflects the access to public good benefits (public transport; public facilities; CBD development/infrastructure; etc.) provided by local government.
Worked in the UK. An extreme example of user pays.
I don't think it would happen in NZ, but a poll tax would count people in each household. At the moment two households can pay the same in rates, even if one has one person and the other ten people. Even though the bigger household will consume a lot more council services.
Agreed. Ultimate user pays in a way but politically a real issue.
Mike Hoskins busy telling everyone this am to ignore the cvs good old NZME
Wellington RVs were released a few months ago. Craig Lowe, managing director of Lowe & Co says they probably helped make the market a little more “liquid”.
“Wellington’s lost 25% since the peak, and, of course the ‘brain’ doesn’t do 25% very well. It’s a quarter. People were in absolute shock, even though people know everyone else’s RV has also dropped by 25%.
“But [the new valuations] did help in expectation management for the sellers. The reality is that money was gone anyway. The buyers were never there to pay more than the RV.
“On an individual basis, RVs are quite meaningless. And while it’s true and accurate that the overall market has dropped by that amount, it doesn’t mean that is what your property is worth. The RV dropping hasn’t changed its value, but it has made it [the reality of the current market] more visceral for owners. And therefore I would argue it has probably helped make the market a little more liquid in Wellington as people are more realistic.”
The money was never there in the first place, unless someone was willing to pay it. This is the funny part for those who saw huge increases in value, where they now see a 'loss' of something they never had.
They had that gain, they just did not walk away from the gaming table with gain in hand... now that gain is not there anymore...
IT WAS REAL its just they choose not to realize it at the peak.
Now people are grieving that 3-800k that could have been, that would have made retirment easier etc...
Grief takes time to work through.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.