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

sokuryoku

Yes. Sorry about that and thank you for the tip.
Will do.
Sincerely

Problems_2

Sorry - don't know how to post this as a new thread so I am sending it as a "post reply" ...

Hi, PLEASE can anyone advise...

In 1993 we purchased a building plot which had planning permission granted fwith a "LOCAL OCCUPANCY" clause, which meant that the property could ONLY ever be occupied/owned by LOCAL people or people MOVING INTO THE AREA TO WORK, etc. We are local people.

We built our 4 bedroomed house, and moved into it with our family in autumn of 1994. We duly contacted the valuation office, etc., to let them know the property was now habitable...

When we moved into the property in autumn 1994, we had it valued for mortgage purposes at approx. £85,000 .... Imagine our horror however, when we were duly informed that our property had been banded in Band F !!!!!!!! We immediately complained, explaining in detail about the LOCAL OCCUPANCY CLAUSE meant that the open-market value of our property was at least 20 % less than our immediate neighbours (who both had 4 bedroomed houses in band F)...

HOWEVER, we were told by the Valuation Agency that they did NOT RECOGNISE the LOCAL OCCUPANCY CLAUSE when banding a property etc....

We still live in our home, and recently were told that we could check all the bandings of all the properties in our village, by looking on the Valuation agency website....

IMAGINE OUR DISGUST AND HORROR, to discover that a 6 bedroomed house, approx. 400 yards away from ours, with a garden TWICE the size of ours, is in Band E !!!!!! And also another house, approx. 600 yards away, with 5 bedrooms and a huge garden, is also in Band E !!!!!!!!!!

One of our immediate neighbours has recently put their Band F home on the market at £410,000.

We have recently had ours valued, and because of the local occupancy clause, it was valued at approx. £310,000.

Well, we have now contacted the local Valuation Office 3 weeks ago, and were told that we had no right of appeal as we have lived in the property for 14 years. But we were advised that they WOULD "check" our banding to make sure it is the correct band. BUT if they decide it IS in the correct band, then there is NOTHING FURTHER WE CAN DO... WE HAVE REITERATED TO THEM WHAT WE WERE TOLD 14 years ago - that they WOULD NOT take into account the Local occupancy clause. BUT WE FEEL THEY SHOULD BECAUSE THE LOCAL OCCUPANCY CLAUSE DEFINATELY DECREASES THE VALUE OF OUR HOME BY APPROX. 20%.

We are now extremely angry after now discovering too that these other "near neighbours" of ours are only in Band E's, and they are LARGER more attractive properties WITHOUT A LOCAL OCCUPANCY CLAUSE...

N.B. Our home is the ONLY house in our village of approx. 150 properties that has a LOCAL OCCUPANCY CLAUSE, yet we are in one of the highest bands for the whole village...

PLEASE FOLKS - what do you think please? Do we stand a good chance? We are now writing a detailed "report" to the person at the Vaulation office who is handling our case, giving all the many examples of why we feel we are DEFINATELY in the wrong band...

many thanks for reading this, and look forward to receiving any thoughts please....

lincroft1710

Problems - I have known cases where agricultural occupancy restrictions, selling annexe separately restrictions and restrictive covenants which have affected CT bands, but they don't always affect the band. However during 35 yrs working at VOA I never came across a local occupancy clause and there is nothing specific in CT law which would cover it. Who has the power to enforce the clause if you attempted to break it by selling your house to an outsider. It may not even be enforceable, so would have no effect on band.

If VOA have already taken a stand on an issue, it is unlikely that they would change their mind. Your comparison with houses with more bedrooms and larger gardens is more useful, although these houses may be underbanded.

guppy

Problems,

I have not heard of such a planning condition before (though I am no planning expert). Have you checked with the planning department to find out the exact nature of the restriction - how is "local" defined? Obviously the smaller the number of people that fall within the "local" area, the smaller the potential market for the house, and the lower the price.

Also, are you sure that the restriction isn't some kind of restrictive covenant made by a past vendor of the land? These are generally ignored for council tax, and are often difficult to enforce anyway.

Assuming it is a planning condition:

Take a look at the VOA's Council Tax Manual here:

http://www.voa.gov.uk/instructions/chapters/council_tax/council_tax_man_pn/c-ct-man-pn1.htm#P154_8298

Paragraph 4.9 states:

Easements, rights of way and planning restrictions are all 'incumbrances' in the widest sense of the word, but cannot be lifted by the unilateral action of the vendor. They therefore fall outside this valuation assumption that the dwelling is sold free from any such incumbrances as existed at the relevant date, with the result that such restrictions CAN be reflected in the valuation. Rentcharges, mortgages liens and the like must NOT be reflected in the valuation.

Also see paragraph 4.10 which covers planning assumptions in more detail. If your house was first assessed for CT in 1994, any planning conditions should be considered in the value.

However, given your house has never been sold, and market evidence from houses with such conditions is likely to be very rare, I feel you face some difficulty in proving how this condition affects value. This goes for the previous valuers too (e.g. the mortgage valuation). Any valuation in this case will be highly subjective, it really is a matter of opinion.

For what its worth, in my opinion, I can't see such a restriction making a huge difference, many people move within their local area, trading up or down, and even a small discount from the unrestricted value might appear tempting to them...say 10%. Plus there is the hope of getting the restriction lifted, depending on the attitude of the council and the specific circumstances.

Anyway, planning restrictions should be taken in to account under the regulations. Complain to the Listing Officer personally if your local VO are not interpreting the law correctly.

vivatifosi

I'm going to defer to lincroft and guppy's expertise on all matters valuation and planning. However, to add my tuppenceworth, I thought you might be interested that I used to have a house with the same clause and it was a restrictive covenant.

I live in Hertfordshire, and the house I bought was a local authority property. The authority put the clause on a number of houses that were in either villages where the housing stock was rare and the number of incomers from outside of the areas were pushing the original villagers out, or where the house was in an area of outstanding natural beauty/highly desirable area, where the effect was effectively the same, even if the local population was a bit larger.

Incidentally, I had no trouble selling my house on, or getting market value for it, and sold it to someone that met the same criteria.

So, I'd be inclined to find out who had put the condition on the land and whether or not they enforce the clause. The one on my house was 20 years old when I sold and I know that nobody else observed the clause if it was in their deeds (and their houses were identical and also ex-authority). I say that because my next door neighbours one side were from Ghana and the other from China - neither of which under any stretch of the imagination could be classed as local!

Problems_2

Many thanks folks for replying to my query...

It is DEFINATELY a PLANNING restriction. We live in a National Park area, and it was the Parks Authority who issued the planning consent subject to this "Local Occupancy Clause" - I have today contacted the local Planning Board to find out exactly which "clause" it is and I have been advised it is a Section 106. They are going to phone me back later, when they have located our file, to read out to me EXACTLY what the Clause says... so I will keep you informed later on what they advise...

Guppy, you wrote "Anyway, planning restrictions should be taken in to account under the regulations. Complain to the Listing Officer personally if your local VO are not interpreting the law correctly." Sorry, but please can you advise where the "Listing Officer" is based - will it be at the local VO, or somewhere else?

Many thanks...

We are going to send the local VO a written "dossier" on why we feel we have been incorrectly banded and also send them aeriel view maps of each property we are using as "examples" to our own.

We discovered late yesterday ANOTHER property, which is just right across the road from us - a HUGE 4/5 bedroomed farmhouse/barn conversion which was converted in approx. 1998. It is twice the size of our property, and stands in approx. almost an acre of grounds - and it is ALSO Banded in band F, exactly what we are banded in !!!!

As I say, I will write back later on with the exact section 106 wording...

many thanks & kind regards

lincroft1710

So that's why I've never come across it before, it's a National Park Authority restriction. Two questions: 1) How can/would they enforce it if you sold your house? 2) Does 1998 converted barn opposite have similar restriction?

Each VO Group Office has a Listing Officer and name/address can be found on VOA website www.voa.gov.uk. The group office may not be the one that actually deals with the place you live, it may be another office in the group. LOs usually delegate this sort of work anyway, so if you want him to deal with it personally you'll have to ask him.

One final point. Can you remember when you made the original request for a lower band in 1994, was it treated as an appeal, with a Valuation Tribnal hearing or did you just write asking them to look at the band.

vincit_veritas

I just wonder if it might be more productive not to argue the "local occupancy" issue at all, but to pursue the line that there are other nearby homes of greater market value in a lower CT band, and therefore your banding constitutes an error in the listing which must, by the VOA's own rules, be corrected?

guppy

Problems wrote: »

I have today contacted the local Planning Board to find out exactly which "clause" it is and I have been advised it is a Section 106.

This should be taken in to account in the valuation, and S.106 agreements are specifically mentioned in the VOA instructions above

Since you're in a national park, there might well evidence of properties with similar conditions changing hands on the open market, try and find out about these to get some evidence to help your case. Maybe the estate agent who valued your property has knowledge of some similar cases?

cheetara_2

I have been living in my flat for almost a year and the council have only just banded it (as it is a new build) they have sent me a bill asking for back pay for the year? Can they do this if the property hasn't been banded until now? Can they legally make people back pay in this situation? Any advise would be really appreciated!