📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Council Tax Cost Cutting: reduce your band and grab any discounts Discussion Area

1…132133135137138…550

Comments

  • Zebedeee
    Zebedeee Posts: 949 Forumite
    veggie4life wrote: »
    thanks masie the one thing i dont know when tracking back the houses value to 1991 is do i find the value of the half of the house i baught or the house as a whole as i only own half the house it is rather enigmatic

    I'm no expert either, but I'd say it is the value of the whole house that is important (as you are living in the whole house, I assume). The actual value of the property is the key, regardless of what you personally had to pay to live in it.

    HTH,

    Zebedee
  • guppy
    guppy Posts: 1,084 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    Dribble wrote: »
    ...

    The latest letter from them sums up a listing officer's conclusions with the usual point about there being no right of appeal. Trouble is - I find the wording quite confusing and would appreciate any comments from you worldly-wise contributers to this forum. The relevant wording runs as follows:

    "....your bungalow,which is representative of the level of sale price in **** Close,sold in early1997 for £99,950. At the same time the,sales of bungalows of a similar size to yours in **** Road were around the £75,000 to £77,000 mark. Smaller two bedroom bungalows in the same road were selling for £69,000 in1991. Adjusting for the differences in size indicates that to me the value of detached bungalows in the road in 1997 were not dissimilar in the value 1991.
    Applying this evidence to your own purchase price of £99,00 in 1997,I conclude that the value of your bungalow on 1 April 1991 would have been in the range £95,000 to £100,000 which is band E."

    I'm still struggling with the logic but assume my firm £75.000 sales figures in 1991 had gone 'down' and then 'up' in 1997 ????....and if so - What's that got to do with the price of bread ??... and what's the two bedroom property comparison all about ??

    The saga continues...

    Hi again Dribble,

    It sounds like they are arguing that the bungalows in the other street that you quoted as evidence are cheaper than yours, even though they are a similar size. Could they be older or in a less desirable area?

    Also, they are arguing that values in your area didn't increase much between 1991 to 1997.

    I.e. Your bungalow was worth £100K at 1997. The ones in the other street were worth £75K at this time.

    They probably don't have sales of the similar sized bungalows in the other street at 1991, so they have looked at sales of smaller ones in the same road.

    As the smaller ones were selling for £69K at 1991, they have concluded that bigger bungalows would have been worth more. Say around £75K+

    Using this evidence, they argue that values in your area didn't go up very much between 1991 and 1997 (check this with the House Price Calculator), meaning your bungalow would still be worth around 100K at 1991.

    This could be possible because house prices were falling from 1989 to 1994, and took a while to recover after that.

    Hope I haven't confused things further. The key fact seems to be: is your road or house more desirable than the other road you looked at? That seems to be what the VOA are saying.

    Obviously if that makes no sense given your knowledge of your area, take them to task about it.
  • mcguire6078
    mcguire6078 Posts: 7 Forumite
    Dribble wrote: »
    Please see my earlier post regarding my case. I was sent at least two standard letters...if you have a strong case, just keep persisting.......

    ...........................................................................................


    Hi mcguire6078

    Thanks for all those interesting posts. Like yourself,I have battled with and overcome the 'standard letters' and 'six month' ruling successfully and now communicate more reasonably with the VOA on the basis of debating the 'quality of the banding list'. Unfortunately MY listing officers are pretty rigid in their opinions and it's an uphill struggle.

    My problem is convincing 'em my new build 3-bed bungalow built in 1997 for Just under £100,000 would have been below the £88,000 (band D) figure in 1991. Mine,and a few similar new properties around me are all banded 'E'.
    I have firm proof of 1991 sales of similar properties in the area selling for £75,000 in 1991 which the VOA don't dispute.....but argue that my property has a larger floor area and would have cost more. I have pointed out that size is not relevant,that post-code situations etc determine value.(Using the VOA guidelines on their website) and that even had a slightly larger area property been used as a comparison at the time it would not have reaches the £88,000 band E tipping point..... No response.

    The problem is that houses built after 1991 have to be 'guesstimated'. I have referred the VOA to examples of tribunal decisions where these estimated values are discouraged when actual similar properties can be used for comparison.... No response.

    The latest letter from them sums up a listing officer's conclusions with the usual point about there being no right of appeal. Trouble is - I find the wording quite confusing and would appreciate any comments from you worldly-wise contributers to this forum. The relevant wording runs as follows:

    "....your bungalow,which is representative of the level of sale price in **** Close,sold in early1997 for £99,950. At the same time the,sales of bungalows of a similar size to yours in **** Road were around the £75,000 to £77,000 mark. Smaller two bedroom bungalows in the same road were selling for £69,000 in1991. Adjusting for the differences in size indicates that to me the value of detached bungalows in the road in 1997 were not dissimilar in the value 1991.
    Applying this evidence to your own purchase price of £99,00 in 1997,I conclude that the value of your bungalow on 1 April 1991 would have been in the range £95,000 to £100,000 which is band E."

    I'm still struggling with the logic but assume my firm £75.000 sales figures in 1991 had gone 'down' and then 'up' in 1997 ????....and if so - What's that got to do with the price of bread ??... and what's the two bedroom property comparison all about ??

    The saga continues...

    Hi unfortunately size is everything for the VOA; they will use this as a definitive measure (or delaying tactic).

    Your big issue is that all similar properties are in the same band. Even though the banding figure to a certain degree has been guessed. This will not be in your favour (I’m being honest). The argument could be made that the banding is fair and consistent with similar properties (I am assuming that you live in a street where all properties are similar and new. Mine, and a few similar new properties around me are all banded ‘E’

    However, do not give up. What you effectively need to do is see the evidence of how they achieved the banding. The main point seems to be that your property was of such a size to place it in a particular band/valuation for your local area (VOA observation). Ask them for this evidence....

    1. Write back with listed points of all answered questions (you seem to have a few).

    2. Request if they could please arrange an inspection of your property to confirm they have the correct information and size of the property.

    3.Call their bluff and request the area sizes of the similar properties (FOI Act).

    4. Mention that you would like to see evidence of house price sales used. Advise them that you are aware that this is protected under the Data Protection Act however, could they write to the current owners and ask permission for the information to be released. A case went to the ombudsman and this point was raised. The ombudsman found that this was a reasonable request and the VOA could have written to the present home owners.

    Each street normally has a "key" property as a standard point of valuation and banding plus any subsequent sales (check the manual) ask if this method was used.

    Good luck.
  • Dribble_2
    Dribble_2 Posts: 23 Forumite
    mcguire6078 wrote: »
    Hi unfortunately size is everything for the VOA; they will use this as a definitive measure (or delaying tactic)......

    .......However, do not give up. What you effectively need to do is see the evidence of how they achieved the banding.
    Thanks for all that,mcguire6078 (and guppy too) It has changed the way I was about to respond to them.

    For the benefit of anyone with similar problems I'll add a few more items of information about my situation... :

    My 1997 built bungalow is a part of a small estate built literally in a field at that time. Naively,we new occupants trusted the designated E bandings we were given even though other large,four bedroomed houses were rated the same. No other local properties were situated in the postcode district so working out 1991 values now involves comparing the new properties with existing adjacent town suburbs.

    The eight bungalows affected were banded E when practically ALL other nearby bungalows within about half a mile are banded D. Proof of firm 1991 sales around £75,000 for 3-bed bungalows and around £65,000 for 3-beds were forwarded to the VOA but rejected for SIZE reasons.(A difference of 25 sq/m....they DID provide the figures for addresses submitted)

    I have suggested to them that the larger area would not have affected the values enough to reach the £88,000 e-banding level in 1991 but have received no comments.

    Since asking advise from you all I have located advertisements in the local 1997 newspaper (Public library) indicating the VOA quoted figures may be suspect and bungalows in the area were selling at around £95,000 (Not the £75,000+ figure they are using to make a point)

    So,yes - DEFINITELY need to force their hand for proof of evidence they use.

    Keep on keepin' on !
  • kateab
    kateab Posts: 2,824 Forumite
    Hello

    Need a bit of help. I've decided to look into whether my house is incorrectly banded. I bought it in 1999 and it was put in band E. I've looked at the VOA site before now and for all the 4 bed houses on this road, they have all been valued at band E, even tho mine is smaller than others due to it having an integral garage - others don't have this, have more frontage and may have double garages.

    I have done the calcuation on HPI and it puts my house as being valued firmly into band D in 1991. So far, so good.

    My problem is last year, I had a conservatory put on the house as we now have small children and need extra space for toys! This might have potentially put this into the band above had it been constructed in 1991. Will this affect my chances of being successful? Or will they accept that the conservatory is recent addition (after all, I had to get a letter from the planning dept stating that it was within our permitted development rights!)

    tia

    kateab
    Definitely NOT the blogger at Katie and the Kids, OK?
  • Maisie
    Maisie Posts: 1,343 Forumite
    kateab Any extensions you have made will not be taken into account until the house is sold.

    The council tax bands cover a wide range of values so even though your house is smaller it may come into the bottom of the banding and may be correct.
    Look at archived library records (property sales , same house as yours) and other evidence as detailed on this thread. You can't go on the calculator alone. Voa won't accept that.

    There's loads of good information here and anyone starting the rebanding process should read through the posts. They will give you a firm grounding and point you in the right direction for a successful (hopefully!) rebanding claim.
    Good luck. Maisie
  • trops
    trops Posts: 55 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    Hi everyone

    I have tried to read as many of the previous posts as possible, but with so many, it takes forever.
    Wonder if anyone can help me? I applied to the VOA for a reduction in my Parent's banding and had a letter from them stating they were out of the 6 month time limit, so therefore my claim was not valid.
    So I wrote again, sending them copies of the house price banding in 1991 and other relevant information and why I disagreed with their outcome.
    (Some of the properties on my Parent's Road are band B and some including next door's are band A.)
    I then received a letter back from them explaining that some properties have been challenged and others haven't, so they believe a stage has been reached where enough bandings have been agreed so that is what they go on for the future. They believe that my Parent's house is of similar size,age and location as others around it, so that is why the band is to stay at B.

    From reading the other threads, this also seems to be a standard letter that the VOA office send out, but my problem is now, I have already sent all the documents and my reasons why I believed it should be lowered and I really don't know what other reasons to give now apart from repeating myself to them.
    I don't think they would appreciate reading a copy of the reasons I gave before.
    Sorry for babbling on, but wondered if anyone else who has been in this situation, has had any success after this 'standard' letter? Or maybe someone could just suggest where I go from here?

    Thanks for the help
    if i had known then what i know now
  • Zebedeee
    Zebedeee Posts: 949 Forumite
    trops wrote: »
    Hi everyone

    I have tried to read as many of the previous posts as possible, but with so many, it takes forever.
    Wonder if anyone can help me? I applied to the VOA for a reduction in my Parent's banding and had a letter from them stating they were out of the 6 month time limit, so therefore my claim was not valid.
    So I wrote again, sending them copies of the house price banding in 1991 and other relevant information and why I disagreed with their outcome.
    (Some of the properties on my Parent's Road are band B and some including next door's are band A.)
    I then received a letter back from them explaining that some properties have been challenged and others haven't, so they believe a stage has been reached where enough bandings have been agreed so that is what they go on for the future. They believe that my Parent's house is of similar size,age and location as others around it, so that is why the band is to stay at B.

    From reading the other threads, this also seems to be a standard letter that the VOA office send out, but my problem is now, I have already sent all the documents and my reasons why I believed it should be lowered and I really don't know what other reasons to give now apart from repeating myself to them.
    I don't think they would appreciate reading a copy of the reasons I gave before.
    Sorry for babbling on, but wondered if anyone else who has been in this situation, has had any success after this 'standard' letter? Or maybe someone could just suggest where I go from here?

    Thanks for the help

    Have a look a mcguire6078's post above #1352. It is suggested that you can request they come and have a look at your house. It is very easy for them to assume that all the houses in a street are the same, but as we know that is not necessarily the case. If you get them to come and have a look you will meet a 'real person' and you can put your evidence to them personally. It may spark something off.

    I also found it did no harm to restate your reasons in a letter more than once. It reminds them that you are not going to give up easily and might prompt some action on their part.

    HTH

    Zebedee
  • Daisy_Bell
    Daisy_Bell Posts: 186 Forumite
    Just an update folks. After the stock letters, I wrote back to the VOA with photographs and further evidence to support my claim of there being a great difference in the sizes of the 3 and 4 bed properties in our road (though still not being able to get any information on actual house price sales of 3 bed properties for 1991 I must admit) but still claiming I thought our house should be in Band C rather than D. I quoted their own words back at them - namely that they had evidence of sales of both 3 and 4 bed properties between 1990 and 1993 and that they therefore thought the banding was correct. So I asked to see that evidence under the FOI Act. About a week later I got a letter back saying that they would review the banding again. This was on 23rd May. (I also got a letter from somewhere else about the Freedom of Information Act which was neither here nor there!) I have phoned them again asking if someone could actually come out and see the properties, as I don't really see how a review can possibly be carried out without this! I am now waiting for the person dealing to come back to me! We have an Invalidity Notice of Appeal (Out of Time) towards the end of this month, which I haven't cancelled yet (as they requested me to, because I can't possibly win they said) just on principle! :wall:

    "Common Sense is really not so common!"
  • Maisie
    Maisie Posts: 1,343 Forumite
    Daisy_Bell wrote: »
    Just an update folks. After the stock letters, I wrote back to the VOA with photographs and further evidence to support my claim of there being a great difference in the sizes of the 3 and 4 bed properties in our road (though still not being able to get any information on actual house price sales of 3 bed properties for 1991 I must admit) but still claiming I thought our house should be in Band C rather than D. I quoted their own words back at them - namely that they had evidence of sales of both 3 and 4 bed properties between 1990 and 1993 and that they therefore thought the banding was correct. So I asked to see that evidence under the FOI Act. About a week later I got a letter back saying that they would review the banding again. This was on 23rd May. (I also got a letter from somewhere else about the Freedom of Information Act which was neither here nor there!) I have phoned them again asking if someone could actually come out and see the properties, as I don't really see how a review can possibly be carried out without this! I am now waiting for the person dealing to come back to me! We have an Invalidity Notice of Appeal (Out of Time) towards the end of this month, which I haven't cancelled yet (as they requested me to, because I can't possibly win they said) just on principle! :wall:


    Daisy Bell.

    It's a never ending battle with voa!! I'm having a tough time with them too.

    Good luck and hope it all works out for you.

    Maisie
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.8K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.1K Life & Family
  • 257.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture