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

lincroft1710

blackfive - what you haven't said is what band you are in. The reason I asked about prices was that with this info I may be able to give you some useful advice.

lincroft1710

spangles39 - because of band widths it is possible to have 2 and 3 beds in same band. Although being over a shop would tend to lower a flat's value, it could be that the 91 value of a flat in your block is around say £41K whereas in the block opp it could be £51K, thus keeping both blocks in B.

My guess is that seeing your block comprises rented flats, a comparison has been made using sales of 2 bed flats in nearby wholly residential blocks. As you are outside 6 month time limit you've got a bit of work to do as you will have to supply VOA with evidence to support your claim that band is wrong. I suggest you look at 2 bed flats in council blocks and other flats over shops to see if you can find any in Band A or even poorer privately built blocks.

If you can find some 2 bed Band A flats then write to VOA with the info. There's no guarantee that VOA will accept comparison with council flats but it is worth trying.

lincroft1710

Jrussell88 - just write to VOA (Eng & Wales) or Assessor (Scot) and ask them to review band on evidence of the other houses being in lower band. No guarantee your band will be reduced but worth a try.

spangles39

lincroft1710 wrote: »

spangles39 - because of band widths it is possible to have 2 and 3 beds in same band. Although being over a shop would tend to lower a flat's value, it could be that the 91 value of a flat in your block is around say £41K whereas in the block opp it could be £51K, thus keeping both blocks in B.

My guess is that seeing your block comprises rented flats, a comparison has been made using sales of 2 bed flats in nearby wholly residential blocks. As you are outside 6 month time limit you've got a bit of work to do as you will have to supply VOA with evidence to support your claim that band is wrong. I suggest you look at 2 bed flats in council blocks and other flats over shops to see if you can find any in Band A or even poorer privately built blocks.

If you can find some 2 bed Band A flats then write to VOA with the info. There's no guarantee that VOA will accept comparison with council flats but it is worth trying.

Thanks Lincroft.

I did look on land valuation site and Council flat blocks in our area are all banded A, (apart from one block which has been revalued at B...i think they had work done) They are probably the nearest equivalent to our block as the block opposite was purpose built and a lot newer. Thank you for your advice.

Spangles

guppy

blackfive wrote: »

The sale price of the brand new property in 1996 was only just into the band the property is currently within. But its a known fact that new properties always sell at a premium above the market value. This was aptly demonstrated by a couple of properties being sold on the open market a few months later for around 7.5% less than paid when new. Its the open market value the the CT Band is supposed to be based on for a property that's extant.

Hello,

I think I see what you're getting at. I'm not sure its possible to say people pay above "market value", but there is an argument (for Council Tax purposes at least) that the value of any fittings included in the price be deducted from the prices paid. This would include any carpets, curtains, washing machine etc.

I believe Vivatifosi used this argument at a Tribunal.

If the house was built post-1993, it would be valued based on its physical circumstances at that time, i.e. valued as a brand new house.

If 7.5% difference would put you in a lower band, the banding must be very borderline. If that's the case, you might be in with a chance if you can make a decent argument. Ultimately though, you still need 1991 evidence, 1996 sales are indicative, but don't really prove anything.

Good luck

pampam

Quick question.
I receive Council Tax Benifit.
If I were successful in getting my home rebanded would I get the refund or would it go to my local council?
Any advice appreciated
Thanks
Pam

lincroft1710

As the council does the refunding they would calculate how much (if anything) was due to you, being based on what you may have overpaid.

vivatifosi

guppy wrote: »

Hello,

I think I see what you're getting at. I'm not sure its possible to say people pay above "market value", but there is an argument (for Council Tax purposes at least) that the value of any fittings included in the price be deducted from the prices paid. This would include any carpets, curtains, washing machine etc.

I believe Vivatifosi used this argument at a Tribunal.

If the house was built post-1993, it would be valued based on its physical circumstances at that time, i.e. valued as a brand new house.

If 7.5% difference would put you in a lower band, the banding must be very borderline. If that's the case, you might be in with a chance if you can make a decent argument. Ultimately though, you still need 1991 evidence, 1996 sales are indicative, but don't really prove anything.

Good luck

Hi blackfive and guppy,

That's pretty much the crux of the argument I used and with my neighbours we received over £110k of refunds once all cases were settled.

In terms of the 1996 price I would look try to get the original sales evidence for the house. Many people keep the sales particulars for new properties, so if you are new there, ask around your neighbours, that's what I did. I was able to put together a portfolio that showed that in addition to the purchase price for the house, additional items were priced in to the sale price. Where these are part of the fabric of the house - such as a better fitted kitchen, a turfed lawn, they cannot be included in an attempt to show a lower actual price. However if they aren't part of the fabric of the house they are fair game. That means any non-built in white goods, any free standing furniture, curtains, curtain rails, carpets, vinyl flooring, even £80 bathroom mirrors! For each house we were able to put a list together that ranged from a couple of £100s of extras up to in some cases, over £2k of extras. Also "service" incentives, such as stamp duty paid, free solicitors fees, can also be stripped out.

Incidentally, at my tribunal they were less swayed by the "the house is second hand therefore it is worth less" argument, than by the effort of pricing in why it cost more. Giving people tangible evidence counts for a lot, so if you can show this it is worth it.

A separate issue that we negotiated separately was that as our garages were in blocks, not part of the curtilage of the houses, they should be excluded from the sales price. That knocked off about another £3k.

I then found a similar new estate built in 1991 and marketed at the time of the formation of the Antecedent Valuation Date of April 1st 1991. Again, using the above arguments and pricing from the time (from sales ads in the local paper), I was able to show that those houses either were, or should have been, in the lower band. Using price evidence from newspapers from 1994 onwards (1994 was the year our house was built), I could show how the two estates reached similar prices. I also found a series of houses that there were plenty of (generally ex-local authority models) to show how house prices were trending in the local area and that in 1994 house prices locally were recovering.

This wasn't an easy case to prepare, and you really have to do your homework, nevertheless it can be done. Please feel free to pm me if I can help further.

vivatifosi

blackfive wrote: »

I'm wondering if the VOA comes under any ombudsman I could contact if require to take this further as a last resort?

The VOA as a body comes under the Parliamentary Ombudsman. You will not be able to appeal directly to them, but you may be able to get your MP to. If you have an argument about the amount of information they are releasing, you should contact the Information Commissioner, which you can do yourself. The Information Commissioner is used to answering questions about the VOA and you should be able to find examples on their website.

lincroft1710

vivatifosi - blackfive is well out of time for an appeal. He's already asked for band reduction and VOA have said no. I've asked him twice what the 96 sale price was, his actual band and any subsequent sales so that I might be ableto give him further advice, but I'm still waiting.