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

RichyRich

I can only go on the research I have done, and the valuation tribunal website clearly states that the burden of proof is on the appellant. How it works in practice may or may not be different but not being a property professional and never having been involved in the process previously I have little option but to go by what is written by the official sources. The valuation office paperwork is less than intuitive so all my knowledge has come from digging around myself, therefore uf it is incomplete or inaccurate I can only apologisr.

I take exception to the comment that I have a fixation with keeping information from the valuation office. In my dealings with them I have been informed that they are "adamant" of the property's band, that they will submit misleading measurements to the tribunal, have been misled as to the measuring conventions in use and been subjected to unconscionable delays when asking for information, to the point where such information arrived too late formy response to it to ve included in my submission. I have raised a complaint with the HMRC Serious Complaints Division about the conduct of the case officer concerned as I consider it amounts to gross impropriety, however, bearing in mind her questionablr conduct thus far I believe I have a legitimate concern that anything I disclose to her could be used for similarly nefarious means.

As fot getcst's comments, I quite clearly blamed "the system. , not VOA ot VTS staff. Iam sure that with few exceptions they are a hardworking and dedicated group of people. However from a customer service perspective, my own personal experience of dealing with them gas been nothing short of diar. I'm sure a lot of that is the fault of our leaders, but as above I think that the way our particular case officer has conducted herself has a lot to do with it on this occasion.

RichyRich

duplicate post

lincroft1710

As you have a flat the method of measurement that should be used is the Effective Floor Area, which will include living rooms, bedrooms and kitchen(s). It should exclude bathrooms, toilets, ensuites, halls, landings and stairs and any cupboards therein or thereon.

Clearly standards have changed since I was in VOA, or you have come across the rotten apple in a barrel. The caseworker should be upfront and above aboard and should not mislead the taxpayer nor cause distress through their actions or inactions. He/she is the representative of the Listing Officer and should be fair, reasonable and equal in any dealings with taxpayers. If your caseworker is as bad as you claim then I would have very little sympathy for her if she is subject to disciplinary action.

getsct

i thinks thats the case here, we are hardworking but we have to work to constantly changing guidelines. The agency is going through a transformation program that come 2015 will see the agency look completely different than it is now, with less offices, less staff and the abolition of groups to a business stream structure from this autumn onwards, so as you can see lincroft1710 and richyrich things are changing but not for the better of the taxpayer.

RichyRich

Thanks both for your help in navigating this procedure and I will let you know how we get on. I will be sending my submission to the VOA for the reasons you have pointed out and will be keeping my fingers crossed!

Cheers
rich

lincroft1710

getsct wrote: »

i thinks thats the case here, we are hardworking but we have to work to constantly changing guidelines. The agency is going through a transformation program that come 2015 will see the agency look completely different than it is now, with less offices, less staff and the abolition of groups to a business stream structure from this autumn onwards, so as you can see lincroft1710 and richyrich things are changing but not for the better of the taxpayer.

There's about 10 VOA offices closing within the next 12 months and quite a few people taking early retirement (like I did when 2007 CT Reval was cancelled).

getsct

agreed but thats just this year

Sooozie

I've lived in my 2 bed victorian terraced house for about 16 years, and have had 2 attempts so far at trying to get my band reduced from E to D. I firmly believe I'm in the wrong band. The VOA looked at it in detail a couple of years ago - so frustrating as they were not accepting any of my arguments, and were coming back with, well ... basically rubbish!. They suggested going to Tribunal, but I could not get hold of any 1991 info so I came to a halt.

My terrace is in a row of 4 (all E band) and there are no other comparable properties other than the other 3. I know for certain (from a neighbour who has lived here for 35 years) that none of the 4 were sold in 1991, or anywhere near that date!

I bought my house in May 1996 for £87,500 (surveyor's valuation £85,000). I had bought if from a developer - so my argument was that I was paying a premium for new decorations, carpets, new kitchen, bathroom, new heating system and boiler. When a premium is taking into account this places me in D band (upper limit £88,000). VOA were not accepting that, saying house prices had fallen since 1981, and they have evidence (but won't say what) that I am in an E band.

I have now found out:
1 The builder (who I bought my house from), paid £67,500 for it in December 1995 , firmly within D Band :
2 Another property 2 doors away (a maisonette with large grounds) was also sold for £67,500 on the same date in Dec 1995 (ie same price and same date!). That is banded as C.
3 Another property in the street (a semi) was sold in April 1995 for £75,000 - yet is D band.
4 there is a cul-de sac of 16 similar 2 bed victorian terraced props a couple of miles away . There have been sales of these houses in 1995, 2002 and 2006 (correspond with sale dates of my house and sales of one of the other 3 in my row) ... and the sale prices/ market values are as near as identical. All the houses in this other cul de sac are D Band.

I keep finding so much evidence that I am overbanded - and they do not take it on board.

I'm yet to go back with this new info .. I think they may say they have looked at it enough and will not review it again.

Surely they must have access to this 1995 info when looking at it in the past and chose "not" to take it into account?

Any advice on strategy/ tactics for my last go (.. or comments in general) will be gratefully received.

Thanks!

lincroft1710

1995 sales info is of little help, especially in the case where the property has been improved since that sale. Sales at later dates also aren't that helpful, the VOA will tend to look at 1991 sales of similar properties as near geographically to yours as possible. In the area I worked 1995 prices were 20% to 25% below those of 1991 and didn't reach 1991 levels until 1997/8. The surveyor's valuation of £85K in 1996 would suggest a value in excess of £88K in 1991. House prices "a couple of miles away" are not often good evidence. If the house had been modernised and/or improved, this can be reflected in the CT valuation.

Unfortunately you chose not to proceed to a Tribunal hearing when you had the opportunity. Had you done so, the VOA would have shown you any 1991 evidence they had, they are only allowed to disclose 1991 sales evidence where there is to be a Tribunal hearing.

I think you'll probably get a response along the lines of "This matter has already been thoroughly investigated on two previous occasions and the evidence you are now putting forward still does not convince me that your house is in the wrong band".

Sooozie

Many thanks, Lincroft1710, for reading my post and the reply.

Having lived here for 16 years, and knowing the properties around here well (sizes, values over the period, bands etc), I just feel overall that our 4 terraces are overbanded. If ours are correct, then the majority appear incorrect! There is another 2 bed maisonette for sale right now a few doors away (market value about the same/ or even higher than my property may expect to achieve, and it's not been structurally altered), that is a C band. I know that we are supposed to look at 1991 values, but taking one street you may expect values to rise comparatively. There are just so many examples.

I take on board your comment about the Tribunal - I had alot going on at the time, so not the time/ headspace to look into it. Also with knowing that none of the 4 terraces were sold at anytime around 1991, and also knowing that there are no other nearby comparable properties to look into (,,, and if there were, then what are the chances of them being sold in 1991!), then I did not know how/ where I could obtain any 1991 information to support my case.

I appreciate the nationwide indexes are "crude" and not liked by the VOA ... but using this, my property only appears to need a value of approx £84k in 5/96 to fall under the £88k valuation in 1991 (and so a D Band).

Anyway, some Qs ( ... if you do not mind answering them, thanks!):

1 Do you know if it is acceptable, when valuing the property, to deduct a premium for new furnishings etc paid for in the value? I think I have read that it is .. but can't find the detail on it now! My property was not altered/ enlargened - merely "done-up", so it's overall character was not changed beyond cosmetics. Effectively I was paying a premium for:
- brand new boiler (say £1500)
- brand new carpets thoughout (say £2,000)
- new (modest, MFI!) kitchen and being fitted etc (say £2,500 - I don't know!)
- new bathroom suite (say £2000 - again don't know)
-redecoration/ painting outside and in (say £3000)
- premium for being "clean" and "new ie not lived in" (not sure how much .. but is worth something!)

... you get the picture!

So I probably paid (easily) at least £10k in the price just for this. These are depreciating items, so not long lasting/ permanent value enhancing improvements. As with a new car, their value will drop as soon as they are used So my argument was that this should be taken into account in considering the value, and a reduction made for it, which then drops me down to D band. ... I do not believe I need very much of a reduction to drop down to D band.

Am I barking up the wrong tree ?? !

2 Also, the 1995 value is (relatively) close in time to the 1991 value ... so should this not be of importance (with an adj for market moevment)?

3 Even if the "doing up" of my house pushes the value up, so it increases the band, should my property not have been "D" band originally, and then a formal review and banding increase take place? (I'm not sure of the process with these things!)

Anyway, just shows there is so much ambiguity with the current system, and too much down to personal judgements of the VOA officers.

If there are no ideal 1991 comparables, it raises the Q which is better - to use an ideal comparable sale from a slightly later year (and adjust the prices for market movement), or a far from ideal property comparable sale from 1991 and make some sort of adjustment for whatever factors differ. My layperson's opinion thinks the former!

Thanks again!