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

Zebedeee · 22 July 2008 at 2:01PM

Hi suedix. Wow! I've never heard of that before. I'm pretty sure that under the usual council tax legislation they cannot demand money from the past as long as you paid your council tax in full at the rate it was demanded at the time. Did they say it was because the property has been rebanded, or is there any other explanation? I hope someone else who knows a bit more about the finer points of this legislation comes on and gives you a more precise answer on this. Must be very frustrating for you.

Zebedeee

vivatifosi · 22 July 2008 at 2:43PM

Hi suedix,

You are really unlucky! You aren't in Brighton are you? Just checking as it would really suck if they were asking you for money the same time as the same council was telling Grace that she couldn't have hers back beyond six years...

My understanding is that council tax debts are "statute barred" if they remain unpaid for a period of 6 years without the council chasing them and getting paid. This is under the Statute of Limitations. However, the council will probably argue that this is a new debt, in that the VOA has only just informed them of the debt as a result of the recent band change. Many councils do in practice repay debts to ex-occupiers where the band has gone down, so will probably argue that it cuts both ways.

If the band has only recently gone up, then the present home owner has a six month window to appeal the upward banding. You could always suggest that they use their right to a tribunal to appeal the decision...

vivatifosi · 22 July 2008 at 2:50PM

Hi regular posters, it's my turn to ask a question!

I've got another 14 houses going to appeal. Have found out that some have allocated parking, but it is not in the curtilage. Can I discount any intrinsic value for this from the price in the same way as I can for a garage?

Thanks!

guppy · 22 July 2008 at 7:00PM

vivatifosi wrote: »

I've got another 14 houses going to appeal. Have found out that some have allocated parking, but it is not in the curtilage. Can I discount any intrinsic value for this from the price in the same way as I can for a garage?

Hi

I'd be interested to hear exvoperson's opinion, but my instinct is, that these shouldn't be discounted

That's not to say you can't try though!

I think the reason that garages are excluded is because historically they would have been rated separately, but they are now exempt if used solely for domestic purposes under the CT legislation.

If the main house has the benefit of a right to park in the space, I would assume the value of that right would be attributed to the house and would be shown on the deeds. On the other hand, if the space is owned on a separate freehold (like some garages), then it might be possible to argue it should be treated in the same way as a garage.

The most relevant bit of the VOA instructions is here, but it only refers to "communal car parking areas".

http://www.voa.gov.uk/instructions/chapters/council_tax/council_tax_man_pn/c-ct-man-pn1w.htm#TopOfPage

A garage which is physically separated from the house with which it is enjoyed by a main road will not comprise a dwelling in its own right or be regarded as forming part of the house (dwelling) as it would have formed a separate hereditament for the purposes of the General Rate Act 1967. Similarly a garage situated within the curtilage of a block of flats will not comprise part of a dwelling if for the purposes of the 1967 Act it would have formed a separate hereditament. The value of any such garage should not be reflected directly in the value of the individual dwelling.

Communal facilities such as car parking areas, gardens, communal lounges at a block of flats or sheltered housing development will not generally comprise a dwelling in their own right the value of such facilities should be reflected in the market values of the individual units.

Either way, you might be able to argue that not having a driveway and having to walk from a parking area to the house might detract from the value of the house compared to a more convenient set up...

admsroy · 22 July 2008 at 10:29PM

[I have tonight sent to the Chief Execute's Office, London a claim for Compensation and Interest for the gross negligence of all the 8 different Listing Officers, 2 Tribunal Officers and the Tribunal Commitee and 4 Ombudsman officers and the Ombudsman--Ann Abraham.
Thanks for the tip, Guppy.

quote=guppy;12251703]I would now consider making a formal complaint and possibly a claim for compensation for your time and for the upset this has caused.

I cannot conceive why it would take 30 letters before someone even bothers to come to look at your property. Especially since your arguments have now been vindicated.

Given the number of letters, I imagine your case has already been dealt with by the most senior people in the local office. Your experience suggests they are arrogant, incompetent, or both. Personally I wouldn't want them dealing with any subsequent complaint. I'd suggest writing to the Chief Executive's Office in London.

You may also be able to claim interest, either back to 1993 or at least until when the error was brought to the LO's attention.

Good luck

[/quote]

exvoperson · 23 July 2008 at 9:16AM

suedix wrote: »

Help?!

We have just received notification from our local council that we owe them £60+ for council tax for a flat we rented 15 years ago! Seems the current tenants have applied for it to be re-banded and it has gone up a band. This has been back-dated to 1993. We are expected to pay this within 14 days. Can they legally demand this money? :mad:

Cant understand why the VOA have gone back to 1993 with an increase. If it was a simple mistake and the flat was in too low a band then the increase will be limited to when the list was altered. I assume there was no relevant transaction as it was a council flat but again if there was a 'right to buy' transaction it would be date limited. Do you know why the banding was increased?

Regards

ExVOperson

exvoperson · 23 July 2008 at 10:05AM

guppy wrote: »

Hi

I'd be interested to hear exvoperson's opinion, but my instinct is, that these shouldn't be discounted That's not to say you can't try though!

I think the reason that garages are excluded is because historically they would have been rated separately, but they are now exempt if used solely for domestic purposes under the CT legislation.

If the main house has the benefit of a right to park in the space, I would assume the value of that right would be attributed to the house and would be shown on the deeds. On the other hand, if the space is owned on a separate freehold (like some garages), then it might be possible to argue it should be treated in the same way as a garage.

The most relevant bit of the VOA instructions is here, but it only refers to "communal car parking areas".

http://www.voa.gov.uk/instructions/chapters/council_tax/council_tax_man_pn/c-ct-man-pn1w.htm#TopOfPage

A garage which is physically separated from the house with which it is enjoyed by a main road will not comprise a dwelling in its own right or be regarded as forming part of the house (dwelling) as it would have formed a separate hereditament for the purposes of the General Rate Act 1967. Similarly a garage situated within the curtilage of a block of flats will not comprise part of a dwelling if for the purposes of the 1967 Act it would have formed a separate hereditament. The value of any such garage should not be reflected directly in the value of the individual dwelling.

Communal facilities such as car parking areas, gardens, communal lounges at a block of flats or sheltered housing development will not generally comprise a dwelling in their own right the value of such facilities should be reflected in the market values of the individual units.

Either way, you might be able to argue that not having a driveway and having to walk from a parking area to the house might detract from the value of the house compared to a more convenient set up...

Hello All

A tricky question!

If the parking is communal and you can park where you want or can, then their is no question that the parking will be reflected in the value of the property. However if the car spaces are numbered and each person has a defined space then it could be treated the same as a garage in a separate block. The case will be stronger if each space has a lockable access post with the keyholder being the actual occupier.

I know of car spaces separately assessed but also know of similar car spaces being lumped together in a separate assessment (this being for business rates but the principle is the same for CT.)

I would need to do some reseach to come up with a case either for or against the argument so if you could give me a few more details and I would come back to you in a few days.

All the best

ExVOperson

vivatifosi · 23 July 2008 at 1:03PM

Hi guppy and exVOperson,

Thought I'd give you a bit more info on the parking. It is very random. It was only when we went to the Land Registry for the deeds to show adopted highway we noticed little green rectangles around the estate. These are exclusions from our communal (resident's company) land. So you will have a row of spaces that are not adopted that belong to the residents with a couple of spaces owned mid or end of the row, with no seeming rhyme or reason. In addition there seems to be one space missing from the adopted plots as well. I would hazard a guess that when another developer started developing on adjacent land in competition and offering spaces within the curtilage that sales went down. Our developer would then have had to counter by offering spaces that would previously had been deemed as communal for ownership. So anyone moving in early in the build has no parking, those that moved in later do, and they could be next door neighbours! However my thought is that as it isn't in the curtilage and would seem to have an implied value (by way of making the house more saleable), then it may be something that I may want to see if I could get excluded from the value.

Clear as mud?!

spark1 · 23 July 2008 at 2:27PM

Anyone had this happen to them :

Got rebanded from D to C December 2007,( after finding this site

went for interest on refunded money, took my claim all the way to the Adjudicators Office (still on going). Received a letter today from my local VOA claiming a mistake had been made in reducing the Band from D to C in the first instead. Conclusion the listing officer is now obliged to alter banding to correct their earlier error. They have sales evidence to confirm values at 1 April 1991. Any advice please guys.

Tony

vivatifosi · 23 July 2008 at 4:19PM

Hi Tony,

Sorry to hear that! Mistakes do happen, but I would ask for proof. I'd cite the Freedom of Information Act and write to them and ask them to show how they arrived at the fact that it was a mistake.

I would also suggest that you ask to take the matter to a Tribunal (if I'm not mistaken you should have a right if they've rebanded upwards within the past six months, but not sure how this works if they argue that the band is technically unchanged). A tribunal will give you the right to have your case independently assessed and test the strength of the VOA's primary evidence (ie actual sales data from 1991). If you do go to tribunal you will need to build a counter-argument, but if you look back through the site and ask questions of us, we should be able to help you cover that.

Good luck!

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

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free