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

slewrings

further to my rants about CT meddling I am pleased to report that i am actually the winner and now receiving housing & CT benefit so they pay me- hurrah! If they had left well alone I would still be paying them.

Electric_Monk

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Are both your neighbours' houses exactly the same as yours?

They're not quite the same - some of the houses (like mine) have a little entrance hall so the front door sticks out by a metre or two, which must increase the total internal volume slightly. The houses also all seem to have different internal layouts, but same overall volume (my house and connected neighbour have a living room with the stairs in it, my neighbour on the other side of my driveway have a separate hallway with stairs - commented on how big my living room was!). A few of them (further away, not my immediate neighbours) have extensions, but obviously built after the bands were decided. Other than that the houses are all the same, fascia-wise different window decorations or designs, but all the same width/size and clearly built by the same company.

All this is what makes me unsure

lincroft1710

Sometimes the porch can make a difference. If in 1991 houses same size as yours were selling for £1/2K over B/C band break, but those same size as neighbour without porch selling £1k under it could explain difference. I have known this sort of thing happen.

Note I said could. This only one possible explanation. I would still contact Assessor and find out exactly why bands are different.

edphill

Hello all,

I am in a spot of bother with the potential rebanding of my house and promise you this isn't just me being lazy and not reading the article properly - it is actually quite an individual case. I will do my best to explain the situation and any help is greatly appreciated.

I own a house in a very old and small village where no two houses are the same or even similar. Ours is completely different from any of our neighbours so this counts out comparing my band with others nearby.

Secondly, the house is a bit odd, it was built in the 19th century but like many others has had bits added on here and there with the last addition being made in the 70s. This extension was separated from the rest of the house and is now a separate dwelling completely and falls into its own tax bracket and has separate deeds. We own and live in number 45 and the separate dwelling is owned by us but as a completely different entity as far as council tax goes. We rent that part out and the tenants sort out the council tax.

One owner occupied the house from 1950 - 1st September 2000 when he sold 45 for £150,000. The separate dwelling had been added on to the house and sold separately when it was built in the 70s. The owners before us bought both 45 and 47 in 2000 and 2001 respectively so they owned both but continued to rent out 47.

We bought 45 and 47 together for £395,000 on 2nd September 2003 and have lived in 45 since and let 47.

Our council tax is band F and I am not sure if this is slightly high. The last official figure we have for 45 individually (as we purchased 45 and 47 together without individual values) is £150,000 in Q3 of 2000. The Nationwide checker says that for the South West region this values the house in Q2 of 1991 at £98,524 which puts us comfortably into Band E. However, when I do a rough estimate of the breakdown of the value we paid (£300,000 for 45 and £295,000 for 47) in Q3 of 2003, the Nationwide tool values it at £121,020.

However, when we bought the house it had hardly been touched since the 50s and wasn't being used to its full potential. We have repainted and added an en-suite to one bedroom and a small loo/utility room downstairs. I am not sure if this would add value and be seen by the valuers in 1991 as the true value if the house was in a state of good repair - and therefore the house was undervalued when it was sold in 2000 and 2003?

I hope this makes sense to you and please let me know your thoughts. The only thing that gives me comfort is that if I do challenge the band, it is highly unlikely to go up as both values seem to hover around the high end of E / the low end of F.

All help and advice is greatly appreciated and thank you just for reading this far!

derektomblin

I have been successful in obtaining a refund for a lower band backdated to 1993/94. But I have been told by the Council that there is no provision for paying interest on the amount I have over paid. Can anybody advise if this is correct or should I be entitled to interest?

lincroft1710

derektomblin - this is correct insofar as CT legislation makes no reference to payment of interest on overpayments. If you are in England or Wales, the VOA in very, very exceptional circumstances will sometimes pay interest. But you would virtually have to prove that they had known for a long, long time that your band was wrong and did nothing about it. And it would still be at their discretion.

lincroft1710

Edphill - if you wanted to challenge your band, you would need to provide VOA with some evidence to back your case. Nationwide's prices are inaccurate by about 10%, usually their 91 figures are too low and their calculator puts your house in F based on on 2003 purchase price.

Best thing would be to check bands of village properties in E and F on VOA website, go have a look at them and see if you can draw any conclusions as to the correctness of your band or otherwise.

edphill

Many thanks for your advice Lincroft, I will certainly give it a go and keep you posted!

exvoperson

edphill wrote: »

Hello all,

I am in a spot of bother with the potential rebanding of my house and promise you this isn't just me being lazy and not reading the article properly - it is actually quite an individual case. I will do my best to explain the situation and any help is greatly appreciated.

I own a house in a very old and small village where no two houses are the same or even similar. Ours is completely different from any of our neighbours so this counts out comparing my band with others nearby.

Secondly, the house is a bit odd, it was built in the 19th century but like many others has had bits added on here and there with the last addition being made in the 70s. This extension was separated from the rest of the house and is now a separate dwelling completely and falls into its own tax bracket and has separate deeds. We own and live in number 45 and the separate dwelling is owned by us but as a completely different entity as far as council tax goes. We rent that part out and the tenants sort out the council tax.

One owner occupied the house from 1950 - 1st September 2000 when he sold 45 for £150,000. The separate dwelling had been added on to the house and sold separately when it was built in the 70s. The owners before us bought both 45 and 47 in 2000 and 2001 respectively so they owned both but continued to rent out 47.

We bought 45 and 47 together for £395,000 on 2nd September 2003 and have lived in 45 since and let 47.

Our council tax is band F and I am not sure if this is slightly high. The last official figure we have for 45 individually (as we purchased 45 and 47 together without individual values) is £150,000 in Q3 of 2000. The Nationwide checker says that for the South West region this values the house in Q2 of 1991 at £98,524 which puts us comfortably into Band E. However, when I do a rough estimate of the breakdown of the value we paid (£300,000 for 45 and £295,000 for 47) in Q3 of 2003, the Nationwide tool values it at £121,020.

However, when we bought the house it had hardly been touched since the 50s and wasn't being used to its full potential. We have repainted and added an en-suite to one bedroom and a small loo/utility room downstairs. I am not sure if this would add value and be seen by the valuers in 1991 as the true value if the house was in a state of good repair - and therefore the house was undervalued when it was sold in 2000 and 2003?

I hope this makes sense to you and please let me know your thoughts. The only thing that gives me comfort is that if I do challenge the band, it is highly unlikely to go up as both values seem to hover around the high end of E / the low end of F.

All help and advice is greatly appreciated and thank you just for reading this far!

Edphill

For further information on state of repair view the VOA website under publications-council tax manual. You need to distinguish between lack of repair and improvements.
Secondly the key evidence here is the 2000 sale. I dont know where you live but in many parts of England 1991 prices were similar to early 1997 prices. Try toning back to early 1997 to see what you get. As its only for 3 years the result should be a bit more accurate.
Hope this helps
ExVOperson

lincroft1710

exvoperson - in my area it was 1998, just shows how history is repeating itself re current house prices picking up.