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

Yaffle_II

Zebedeee wrote: »

I'd be interested to see how you get on with that. My VOA refused to hand over any information beyond 10 properties, and as they have information on ALL properties, we can see who that favours!

Hi Zebedee,

Did you ever do that 'How I did it' post that you mentioned in one of your earlier posts? I tried to find it but couldn't see it, I would be interested to see it if you did!

Yaffle

p.s. We have put together our evidence for our re-banding and are ready to send it off. Is it better to send an appeal against the notice of invalid proposal with it at the same time as we have not done this yet? As good as the original article is on challenging your band initially, it doesn't expand on what happens after they tell you to get stuffed!

p.p.s. my wife is worried that our loft conversion that would DEFINITELY make us a band B if we sold the house tomorrow may influence our appeal to be lowered to a band A. I have told her that it doesn't matter as we have been in the house since 1993 and we are arguing over the original banding and not what it might be now if we sold up! Please can someone re-assure her that the loft conversion doesn't matter yet!

everettian

Got my refund today its just short of £1200 quid , so a lot less than I was expecting.
But nonetheless better than a kick up the jacksy !
I telephoned my local CT office to see how they arrived at this figure and didn't realise the difference between banding's was a low as it is.
Eg: For 1997 the date I moved in, the difference between band C and B was just £30 a year, today its £150.

vivatifosi

Hi everettian,

I only got £300 for doing all the hard work... The people who lived there before most likely got over £2000. At least you pocket all the money!

AussieBrit_2

I followed the re-banding instructions after discovering that the flat-share I live in was a band above every other flat on our level and most of those in the building.

The flat is no different to any other so this seemed an open an shut case. Whilst all three tenants moved in on different dates (myself most recently in April 07), we applied as one and assumed there would be no problems.

After some delays in getting the details lodged, we were advised in writing that they could not consider our claim, as an appeal can only be made in the first 6months of becoming a tenant (council tax payer).

This seems very strange, and whilst we have a new flatmate moving in this month and can therefore get him to re-appeal on behalf of the flat, has anyone else come accross this problem??

Thanks

Yaffle_II

Zebedeee wrote: »

I'd be interested to see how you get on with that. My VOA refused to hand over any information beyond 10 properties, and as they have information on ALL properties, we can see who that favours!

I rang the local VOA today (Wolverhampton) to ask for the sales info and they said no as it was against data protection, so I insisted that i didn't want specific information on an address only general info for a postcode. They then put me through to a manager (who was in a totally different area, Stoke) who was as nice as pie and said ok I will send it to you. I also asked about the house codes and she explained what they meant and started to compare mine with the rest of the street. She laughed and gave up after 7 or 8 as they were all the same as mine except no.3 which I had already told her was different and was rightly in a band B! She still said ours might have been banded higher due to some other improvements which aren't represented in the code (like double glazing, central heating etc) but to send all my evidence and she will get someone to review it. Just got to wait for the info to arrive and see if it helps our case and then I will send it all, so it could be a few weeks or more til we hear anything. I'm more hopeful after speaking to her today as my wife spoke to someone else last time (not a manager though) who was a bit abrupt and not having any of it.

anteater

Hi, I'm looking for some advice. I've followed the advice on here regarding a revaluation request for my mum. She's been in her property since 1987 and it was banded at B. Having done all the checks suggested here I felt she had a very strong case for being rebanded to A - basically all the boxes were ticked (although not all similar neighbours were banded at A - most are, but some are B although these are probably wrongly banded too!). She duly rang Cannock Council up and they took the details over the phone (no problem with the six month rule), seemed really easy (although their records showed her as being in a 3 bed house with garage/off rd parking whereas she's in a 2 bed with no parking facility). They also asked her about improvements she'd made to the property after buying it but before 1991 - she was honest and said that she'd installed central heating & double glazing when she 1st moved in..

She's had the rejection notification back today saying that there is no appeal from here. It looks as if they are relying on the heating & glazing she had done to say that this increased the value of the property & therefore she cannot use her purchase price as a comparison, nor the prices of similar properties (which in 1991 may not have had central heating & double glazing).

I still think she has a case and that they haven't considered her property properly. By my calculations her property wasn't even borderline but was £4-5k below the £40,000 Band A ceiling, and many of the houses opposite which are similar are in Band A . Any advice would be appreciated - is there a mechanism to get to a Tribunal even though they have said that there is no appeal?

stardelight

anteater wrote: »

Hi, I'm looking for some advice. I've followed the advice on here regarding a revaluation request for my mum. She's been in her property since 1987 and it was banded at B. Having done all the checks suggested here I felt she had a very strong case for being rebanded to A - basically all the boxes were ticked (although not all similar neighbours were banded at A - most are, but some are B although these are probably wrongly banded too!). []She duly rang Cannock Council up and they took the details over the phone (no problem with the six month rule), seemed really easy (although their records showed her as being in a 3 bed house with garage/off rd parking whereas she's in a 2 bed with no parking facility). They also asked her about improvements she'd made to the property after buying it but before 1991 - she was honest and said that she'd installed central heating & double glazing when she 1st moved in..

She's had the rejection notification back today saying that there is no appeal from here. It looks as if they are relying on the heating & glazing she had done to say that this increased the value of the property & therefore she cannot use her purchase price as a comparison, nor the prices of similar properties (which in 1991 may not have had central heating & double glazing).

I still think she has a case and that they haven't considered her property properly. By my calculations her property wasn't even borderline but was £4-5k below the £40,000 Band A ceiling, and many of the houses opposite which are similar are in Band A . Any advice would be appreciated - is there a mechanism to get to a Tribunal even though they have said that there is no appeal?

Hi, I would suggest you ring, your Valuation Office directly, as they are the ones that do the banding, and not the local council. Its the VO that direct your local council as to what band you should be in for council tax purposes.
I rand my VO yesterday, had not problem.

Star:

vivatifosi

Hi AussieBrit,

I'm not too knowledgeable on this part of CT so I will try and answer you from what I do know and hope that someone with more knowledge will come and fill in the gaps. I have seen someone challenge their CT in the past but they weren't successful as they were married to the previous appellant so this was not successful. However if the new person is a new named tenant and not related, then hopefully you will have more luck. If you are renewing a short term assured tenancy on a six month or shorter lease, you may also find that your landlord can do it.

exvoperson

vivatifosi wrote: »

Hi AussieBrit,

I'm not too knowledgeable on this part of CT so I will try and answer you from what I do know and hope that someone with more knowledge will come and fill in the gaps. I have seen someone challenge their CT in the past but they weren't successful as they were married to the previous appellant so this was not successful. However if the new person is a new named tenant and not related, then hopefully you will have more luck. If you are renewing a short term assured tenancy on a six month or shorter lease, you may also find that your landlord can do it.

A person is liable for CT if he is a resident of the dwellingand has a either a contractural licence to occupy the whole or part of a dwelling or is a secure tenant of the whole or part. If you all have the same right to occupy then you should all be jointly liable to pay CT. As the regs state the words 'or part of a dwelling' then a new tenant moving in should have a right to appeal as he has a liability to pay.

darich

stardelight wrote: »

Hi,
As the title says, my local library does not archive property sales for the year of 1991!!!:rolleyes: I was really surprised, as i thought they would have them on microfilm somewhere.
So, can anyone direct me as to where else i can look in order to obtain this information.
I've even rang a couple of estate agents in the local area, and even they only go back 6 years.
Thankyou.

If you live in Scotland then you can get all the info you need from the Register of Scotland website. It costs for every search but you can find the dates of every house before you pay for the price information. The date info is free but it costs for the price.
I used it to get all the info for my challenge. I recently asked the Assessors office for evidence of the value of my house being banded E instead of D. They simply replied saying that i can get the info from that website and that's where they got their info.
Strange thing is there are 3 houses all identical to mine within 200m and they all sold for 60k in may 94, aug 94 and nov 96.
So for the assessor to claim my house which is identical to those was worth more than 58k in apr 1991 is surprising to say the least.

I'm about to send another letter off to them and ask them to prove it rather than point me to a website.