Valuation Tribunal (to follow)

dfarry

Hi all, a while back I started THIS thread and received some very good advice... thanks!

Now that I have received the decision from my Valuation office I am seriously contemplating an appeal. To better understand the decision made by the listings officer I have just called him and he was helpful although was not prepared to tell me specifically what "evidence" he was using.

It would appear that in his opinion a detached house in my area, with a floor area of 179m2 would easily have achieved a sale price in excess of £120K in 1991. I asked if local factors are taken into consideration (of which I have a list of many negative factors) and he said "Most definitely, it is for those reasons that the house is a band F and not G". He conceded that the decision was subjective to some extent and was almost encouraging me to go to tribunal if I was not happy. In the documentation I was sent it included the sale values of five properties that have similar floor area's, all sold for between 122K and 195K between July 1990 and May 1991. The LO said this information was in the public domain because of an earlier appeal but he may have used other properties for comparison. My concern about using these properties for comparison is that they are in a totally different part of the town and one that is more popular due to it's close proximity to motorways and rail links.

I have used the Nationwide pricing index and got the following results:-
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A property located in Outer Metropolitan which was valued at £283000 in Q4 of 2009, would be worth approximately £97272 in Q2 of 1991. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This is equivalent to a change of -65.63%.[/FONT]

I pointed this "evidence" out to the LO and he said "No we don't consider that to be evidence"...... yeah no wonder!!

Frankly I think if I do appeal I don't stand a chance, the VOA seem to be overstating values predominantly based on the floor area, the consequence of which is that councils benefit significantly. But I can't bring myself to accept this decision when it is based on such crude assumptions and a selection of 1991 sale prices that themselves are not in the public domain (until the tribunal).

Other than highlighting factors that could negatively affect the sale value of the property. Pointing out the Nationwide price index I can't see what else I can do to provide evidence to support my claim. Unfortunately there are no similar houses in my immediate area to compare against.

lincroft1710

I pointed this "evidence" out to the LO and he said "No we don't consider that to be evidence"......

Because they use actual sales evidence rather than calculated estimate based on a selection of properties (which are only those mortgaged with Nwide) over a geographical area which is a lot larger than that of your home town.

the VOA seem to be overstating values predominantly based on the floor area

Comparing properties by floor area predates council tax, it was used for the old domestic rating system and is also still used for non domestic rates. Although it is a major, it is not the sole criterion.

the consequence of which is that councils benefit significantly

The consequence of which is that the VOA tries to compare like with like as near as possible.

and a selection of 1991 sale prices that themselves are not in the public domain

Every single CT band in the country is based on such information.

Frankly I think if I do appeal I don't stand a chance

Don't appeal then but stop moaning about VOA decision

But I can't bring myself to accept this decision

Are you really sure you don't want to appeal? It will take some of your time and perhaps a few pounds if you have to travel to hearing, but there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Either accept VOA decision and shut up about it or appeal, have your day in court (tribunal, being pedantic) and have an independent third party decide the matter. As I said above it won't cost you that much and there is an outside chance you could win.

dfarry

:cool:

As I said above it won't cost you that much and there is an outside chance you could win

Indeed, where there's a will there's a way.

dfarry

Well I am still moaning LinCroft1710!

I did appeal and about two weeks ago I had my tribunal hearing. I produced an information with lots of data, analysis, price comparisons and presented this myself. I felt I did a pretty good job getting across all my arguments in considered and reasoned way, afterwards the valuation officer even commented on how well I had done..... it was all very friendly and "civil".

I've now received the tribunal decision and my appeal was dismissed.

I'm not surprised, for starters pricing indices information was pretty much completely disregarded even though I presented aggregated information from three different sources. The data provided by the VO was for properties scattered over an area of about 2 miles square, the majority not in my opinion being comparable to my own home.

In their summary it was the the sale of one home about half a mile away, with a smaller area that sold for £127k in what the panel term as a period of a falling market (1993) that sealed the fate of my appeal.

Of course I disagree with the decision, the system of council tax is so flawed but I have now been through the process as it currently stands and lost - but I did at least put up a good fight....

Just have to tighten my belt a bit tighter to pay that £2000 a year bill!

lincroft1710

dfarry wrote: »

In their summary it was the the sale of one home about half a mile away, with a smaller area that sold for £127k in what the panel term as a period of a falling market (1993) that sealed the fate of my appeal.

Unfortunately with the VOA producing that sale as evidence, you had little chance of winning.

dfarry

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Unfortunately with the VOA producing that sale as evidence, you had little chance of winning.

Yes indeed... a blip, exception, anomaly or fool hardy buyer, who knows.. If it wasn't for that property it would be a much closer run thing I think... I am gutted despite fighting all the way... it's not just the principle with all the investigation I did I genuinely feel that my case was strong.

One of the funny bits was that I argued that my home is within the grounds of a school and college complex serving 5000 pupils, students and staff (plus associated vehicles, traffic and congestion). The panel decided in their conclusion that the VO had adequately compared my home to others that backed onto a single primary school. With decisions like that I don't think I ever stood a chance.

lincroft1710

dfarry wrote: »

I genuinely feel that my case was strong.

So did I!

As several of my former colleagues have said on numerous occasions, "You can never predict a Tribunal verdict".

dfarry

Hi again... and I hope Lincroft is still about...

Valuation Tribunal part 2!!

My appeal was dismissed again...

The reason I appeal again was due to a material change.... namely a 12.5 metre mobile phone mast placed outside my home (see pictures), just 15 metres away in fact! Suffice to say I never got anywhere with the council when I complained about it's closeness to my home but anyway...

In addition, there is a large residential development being started nearby and the only access will be along an access road, directly past my house. The junction here is already very busy but I have the traffic survey put together by the developer and the impact could be considerable.

Also I have a sub station just 10 metres from my home, unfortunately this is something I did not flag up in my first tribunal and clearly this could (like the mast) impact property prices, or at least be a big consideration for a future buyer.

In the case of my latest tribunal the panel said that the sub station could not be taken into account as it was not a material change (unlike the mast). This is frustrating as it clearly would of had some bearing on the original decision.

In the case of the development, the land has been prepared (flattened and screened off) but no actual building has started (but planning and everything is in place). The reason for this is because the local council are insisting that the builders first change the road junction outside my home to try to alleviate some of the problems caused by the increased traffic. Again another frustration, it will happen but they wont consider the merits of the development at this stage. The Valuation Officer even said to me "You have my number, as soon as they start digging that junction give me a call as that will be the material change you need". The Valuation Officer even said to the panel, perhaps this hearing is six months too early because there is a possibility that with this development my home might drop into band E. I also went over the other factors I mention previous like noise from the pub across the road (50 metres away), littering, traffic noise from the main A road but these were disregarded... again... they were not material changes.

The nail in the coffin seems to be the fact that the other property that sold for £127,000 in 1993 and is nearby (200 metres) although not impacted like I am by the factors above, would according to the Valuation Officer had been worth around £145K in Q2 1991..... but how does he know this?... In my first tribunal I put alot of work into house price indices and analysis... using various sources I felt I adequately demonstrated how my home would have sold for less than £120,001 based on the price I paid in 2009. But in the first tribunal the panel would not accept this evidence as they considered it unreliable and would only consider actual sale prices from around the time. Further to this I quoted a Chartered Surveyor who had told me that he was looking at diminution regarding a sub station and that he felt "5% (if not more)" could be the devaluation level. The panel in their considerations have taken the Valuation Officers £145K figure as an accurate representation of the nearby property if it had sold in Q2 1991 and basically considered that a 5% off that price would be insufficient to reduce the banding.

This is incredibly frustrating, especially around the £145K as I feel the goal posts are being moved by the panel using what at best is an estimate and yet would not consider similar data I provided that supported my case in the first tribunal.

Realistically it looks like I'll be going down the route of a third tribunal now once that residential development actually starts. I'm not arguing this because I can't or wont accept the decision but I've always felt that the jump from D to F was too great%

lincroft1710

Still here!

The approx 1991 value of your home was established at the first tribunal, the second can only look at the effect on the established value caused by the phone mast. From memory, in the area I dealt with, a 1993 sale at £127K would have indicated a 1991 value of about £155K.

I knew of no cases where the tribunal gave a reduction because of the proximity of the phone mast. So the outcome is not unexpected.

Third time lucky?

dfarry

Yeah... it's all good fun.... I guess

00ec25

dfarry wrote: »

Yeah... it's all good fun.... I guess

indeed, lets be positive, the extra tax collected through your rebanding has now been wasted by the council on tribunal proceedings instead of paying for care for the elderly in your borough or educating the kids in the school at your front door.