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

jamesiebabie

tarinilie wrote: »

Hi Fungas,

It may be difficult to get interest unless the VOA have been negligent.

Say for example there was a row of identical houses all at band D.

If one person appealed 5 years ago and had their band reduced to band C the VOA should have done what is known as 'consequentials' and reduced all the identical houses.

If this wasn't carried out and 5 years later you appealed in one of the houses getting it reduced to a band C you could argue the VOA should have done the reduction along with all the identical houses years ago and I would advise you to ask the VOA for compound statutory interest of 8% for the period between the original house being rebanded and present.

They should pay up .

Don't bother hassling the council it's the VOA who might be at fault.

however if they have now just come to the opinion that your band is incorrect - it would be argued that they have not been negligent.
You perhaps should have appealed earlier etc. / they can't be expected to band 20 odd million dwellings accurately etc so in the latter case I think you would find it difficult to claim any compensation

tarin

Tarin,

Just a quickie, the VOA will not pay the 8%, they will only pay the amount that you are actually out of pocket, plus a little for a matter of goodwill. The VOA do not have to pay compensation, but it would look bad if they didn't.

stphnstevey

We bought a property that has been extended. Looking back through the banding history, the banding increased one place after the extention was built.

I contested this when we bought it, but the valuation officer eventual got back to me and said who thought it was the correct banding due to the increase in value due to the extention.

However the bandings were based on 1991 prices. How can they change my banding based on what the price was in 1995 (when the extention was completed)?

PS - They have asked me to sign to withdraw my proposal. From the letter, it looks like it will go to a tribunal if I don't. Should I just let it run it's course?

tarinilie

hi there ,

in your example they would look at the house based at 1991 prices as if the extention existed at that date and how that effects price. etc.

If an improvement is carried out, a subsequent purchaser has the dwelling valued with the advantage of the improvement at 1991 prices etc

tarin

tarinilie

jamesiebabie wrote: »

Tarin,

Just a quickie, the VOA will not pay the 8%, they will only pay the amount that you are actually out of pocket, plus a little for a matter of goodwill. The VOA do not have to pay compensation, but it would look bad if they didn't.

sure I see what you say but surely if someone is negilent then a claimant has grounds to receive just damages etc so they do have to pay out.

They are not exempt from the civil duty to pay compensation when they have been negligent - no-one can absolve themself from that duty - can they ??

pingua

How has the house price increase affected it all??

Like if prices had not risen so much the houses that are getting moved up to higher bands now would not be??

Does it work like this or not ?? Or do those calculator things work it all out taking that into account??

guppy

tarinilie wrote: »

sure I see what you say but surely if someone is negilent then a claimant has grounds to receive just damages etc so they do have to pay out.

They are not exempt from the civil duty to pay compensation when they have been negligent - no-one can absolve themself from that duty - can they ??

I don't think they'd accept it as "negligence" in the legal sense of the word. More like "incompetent enough to be a bit embarrassing". Even professional "exact" valuations for mortgages etc. are allowed quite a margin of error before they're considered "negligent". The council tax bands are quite wide but the VOA might just say a house was borderline...

Good luck

Cali_2

Hi, I wonder if anyone can advise me what to do next in my attempts to reduce my council tax banding. I have followed the advice given on this website, and elsewhere, and written to the Valuation Joint Board for my county - Ayrshire in Scotland. In reply I received a letter advising me that my proposal for alteration of the valuation list is invalid because it was not made within the period "laid down by statute", i.e. within 6 months of the original banding. I am absolutely convinced that my banding is wrong AND I know that one of my neighbours has sucessfully had his reduced. I am also fairly sure that he did this outwith the 6 months period, indeed years later. Posting in hope

Freakyleaky

Just a note to let you know that after filling in the on line appeal to the voa, a nice old chap called round today to tell me that my house had been mistakenly listed as detached instead of semi since 2005. he has rebanded it and said I will get a rebat for the overpayment and an ammnded bill for the remainder of this year!
Big thanks to this site for pointing me in the right direction!!

Maisie

Freakyleaky wrote: »

Just a note to let you know that after filling in the on line appeal to the voa, a nice old chap called round today to tell me that my house had been mistakenly listed as detached instead of semi since 2005. he has rebanded it and said I will get a rebat for the overpayment and an ammnded bill for the remainder of this year!
Big thanks to this site for pointing me in the right direction!!

Freakyleaky.

Well done! That's great.

Makes you wonder how much wrong information voa hold and that's probably the reason for so many incorrect bandings.

Enjoy your rebate.

Maisie

tarinilie

guppy wrote: »

I don't think they'd accept it as "negligence" in the legal sense of the word. More like "incompetent enough to be a bit embarrassing". Even professional "exact" valuations for mortgages etc. are allowed quite a margin of error before they're considered "negligent". The council tax bands are quite wide but the VOA might just say a house was borderline...

Good luck

sure I can see a professional valuation having a degree of margin of error - no problem it's not an exact science etc . However, if a row of 10 identical houses were all band D and say one was reduced at valuation tribunal to a C 5 years ago then the VOA should have reduced all the other identical houses.

If they didn't this is a negligence in respect of an administrative procedure - ie not carrying out consequential changes. Arguably this doesn't involve the 'science/ art of valuation'

They couldn't argue that the identical houses were a different value could they ? In this scenario I think they are prima facie negligent ( duty of care, breach, damage etc ); the valuation process is not something that is challenged (admin only!) and so I would argue they should cover all reasonable damages. I can't see why statutory interest wouldn't be the starting point.

I'm also still puzzled why it occurs automatically in respect of non domestics irrespective of any fault.

tarin