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

lincroft1710

angi - you may well find that it is now not possible in law to make any appeal against a pre 2005 Welsh CT band. I've had a brief look at Valuation Office Agency website regarding CT in Wales and it only appears to refer to 2005 CT bands.

exvoperson

Lincroft

Just been dwelling on a valuation issue and I wonder if you came across the situation whilst in the VO.

My query is that we have to value a property as at 1 April 1991. We assume it has been fully marketied beforehand and sold on the 1st. ie offer made and contracts exchanged on the same day.

If the VO had a comparable that completed on 1st April 1991 the offer was probably made 2 to 3 months earlier. Given that it was a rapidly falling market in 1991, very similar to today, then it could be argued that if the same property was offered on the market on 1st April its value/price could be a few percent lower. Have you ever come across this argument.

regards

ExVOperson

exvoperson

On the question of using a relevant valuation tribunal decision to make an appeal I submit the following VT decision which may be of interest if you intent to use this route to make a valid appeal.

I appealed on a property in my home town referring to a VT decision on some modern eco friendly terraced townhouses in the same town. My property was a 3 bed 1970's bungalow. My argument was that the evidence (sales in Langport) used in the originating VT case was relevant to the latest appeal property. This lead me to the opinion that its banding was wrong and hence the reason for the appeal.

The VO were of the opinion that this ground for appeal could only be used where both properties were the 'same class of dwelling' ie a decision on a 3 bed eco town house could only be used to appeal on other 3 bed? eco town houses

The VT in their decision threw out the VO case stating 'any dwelling or class of dwelling can be compared' and 'an individual has a protected right to challenge the band ascribed rather than the view of the listing officer that the right is restricted to those of a similar design or class'

I was able to show that there was a 'casual link' between the originating VT decision and the formation of an opinion in my mind that the banding was wrong.

The VO indicated they would appeal to High Court. However the time limit to appeal has now lapsed.

For full decision see VTS website Somerset VT case 3325500883/186c/5 Tree Tops The Hill Langport TA10 9PU

Regards

ExVOperson

vivatifosi

exvoperson wrote: »

It does raise the very important question of whether 1990-1995 sales should be available. Unless anyone else has already done it I will contact the FOI commissioner to see what he says.

Please do exvoperson!

Incidentally my understanding having asked questions of the data provider is that the data wasn't made available pre 1995 because it wasn't available electronically, rather than there being a confidentiality issue.

vivatifosi

exvoperson wrote: »

I was able to show that there was a 'casual link' between the originating VT decision and the formation of an opinion in my mind that the banding was wrong.

The VO indicated they would appeal to High Court. However the time limit to appeal has now lapsed.

Wow, have just read the tribunal notes on that. I have to say that IMO it goes down as the most interesting invalidity tribunal note ever! I'm interested that it never went to High Court, but also seem to remember hearing that tribunals don't set precedents, so I'm now curious to hear whether others can make a valid appeal off of the back of it.

What happened to the subsequent appeal?

lincroft1710

exvoperson - yes this 4/91 date of sale v. date price agreed has occurred, I certainly agreed a reduction with one taxpayer who was able to prove that although sale was in 4/91, price had actually been agreed either 8 or 9/90, which in our area would have been about 5% above 4/91 prices and the sale was only just over band break. That was the exception though, we would normally argue that the legislation referred to date of sale, not date of negotiations and if a house actually changed hands for £100,000 on 1/4/91 then that was its value at that date.

Regarding the Lamport case. I don't think VOA should have changed their mind about validity. Had we accepted a similar proposal as valid, I personally would have allowed it to stand, it refers to VT decision on a nearby dwelling and taxpayer using similar reason for reduction. Also by taking it to VT could (as has possibly happened) cause precedent. The rating case used by VOA is a complete non starter. Although it's a matter of interpretation I'm not surprised you won, the VOA case was weak.

Well it won't open the floodgates, but it will now allow a trickle through.

vivatifosi

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Well it won't open the floodgates, but it will now allow a trickle through.

Martin's been quiet on the subject of Council Tax for a while, I wonder if he will look at things like this and the 1995 data becoming available potentially setting precedents? That could potentially open the floodgates if he does another update. Bet you're both glad you're not still there...

lincroft1710

viva - if govt had done right thing and let 2007 revaluation go ahead we wouldn't be in this mess and I would still be there, . I was only able to take early retirement because VOA had to lose staff. Parliament's intention in 92/93 was to try to limit the number of appeals and save income taxpayers money, hence 6 month time limit. Hasn't worked has it?

Although it's not a "problem" as such, there will be a lack of suitable VT decisions which can be used, and they also have a 6 month time limit. The one that exvo's client quoted was very specific. Some years ago at VT we had a represented invalid, which VT confirmed invalidity. Clerk to VT suggested that taxpayer could resubmit proposal quoting valid VT decision. Trouble was only VT reduction decision in past 6 months was for a disability and reduced band was still higher than Mr Invalid's!

vivatifosi

lincroft1710 wrote: »

viva - if govt had done right thing and let 2007 revaluation go ahead we wouldn't be in this mess and I would still be there, . I was only able to take early retirement because VOA had to lose staff. Parliament's intention in 92/93 was to try to limit the number of appeals and save income taxpayers money, hence 6 month time limit. Hasn't worked has it?

Never has a truer word been said! I would not have needed to make any appeals (had the 2007 reval gone ahead) because it would have been clear that my house would have gone down a band anyway, as would all of the others, because all that's happened locally is that our new houses became old houses and aligned themselves with the correct pricing levels for the same house type. 1991 prices have no link to current reality, come from a time when mass databases weren't in place and are a total PITA for both the VOA and the appellant.

Another example of civil servants having to work their butts off at the whim of politicians. No doubt your former colleagues over at VAT are feeling similarly aggrieved at having a change in VAT brought in over such a short time. Sometimes you have to wonder what planet those in charge live on.

lincroft1710

Civil servants' lot - playthings of the politicians.