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

lincroft1710

VOA disregard indices as they were never used to set the original bandings at start of CT in 1993 and actual 1991 sales are considered better evidence than hypothetical calculations, which may only have a small database.

The only price that matters is the 1991 price, with perhaps 1990 and 1992 prices being of some relevance, However if it could be shown that there was good reason why a particular dwelling's sale price in later years was well below that of similar dwellings in the locality (other than it was a repo or in poor repair) then there could be a case for a lower band. I don't know the area you're in nor the type and accom of your home, but your purchase price does seem low. Up to 1997 prices were below those of 1991, after that date my experience was to try to ignore contemporary newbuild prices as they were just soaring. Looking at a 1989 house which had sold in 1991 and again say in 2003 with a similar spec/style/type 2003 newbuild, would lead one to believe that the 2003 should be in a higher band than the 1989. Fortunately common sense tended to prevail, so the 2003 build had the same band as the 1989 house.

Since I retired from VOA there may have some procedural changes. When I was there along with the VOA evidence would have been a letter informing the taxpayer that they had a right to ask the VOA for details of 4 sales of properties they care to nominate, or as many as VOA had listed if they were offering more than 4 in evidence. However if you asked for the 1991 sale of 1 High St, and there was no 1991 sale of 1 High St, you could not have a substitute. Also VOA held sales details would in 99% cases have no plot details. Since 2006 the info received by VOA is in a completely different format, so plot details may be included. The VOA when measuring houses for CT and previously for the old rating system did not measure plots.

Before an appeal gets to VT stage, VOA should have looked at all the evidence and if they thought the evidence favoured the taxpayer they should have settled the case on that basis. If the evidence is inconclusive then they should either give taxpayer the benefit of the doubt or present all the evidence to VT so that VT can make a determination. Although it may not have happened in your case and it is not supposed to happen, I think it would be naive to suggest that cherry picking evidence has never happened.

On the other hand I have been present when taxpayers have blatantly lied at a VT hearing (I'm not suggesting you have) and I have won cases where I've presented very weak evidence.

The VT comprises human beings. Being human beings they are fallible and not always logical. Unfortunately whereas in the days of domestic rating, there were VTs, then Lands Tribunal and on really serious legal matters Court of Appeal and House of Lords, with CT there is really only VT as appeal to High Court is only for about 1% of cases.

slipons

I think everyone would agree that public access to limited 1991 records where you are literally guessing where a sale had taken place is grossly unfair and borders on illegal. If the govenment are not going to revalue properties, they should at least change the procedure to allow full access to 1991 records should you have a VT agreed.

In my opinion the listing officer did not behave in a manner that was fair to the taxpayer and to be honest did not attempt to get into any dialogue with myself. I find the fact that you cannot take this to a higher court frankly astounding.

My summary of how i am left feeling with this whole situation is;

1. The VOA officers (at least in my area) are not willing to enter into a dialogue, nor do they have the interests of fairness and the taxpayer at heart. I would advise everyone to meet their VOA listing officer in person to go through your evidence.
2. The only evidence that is worth taking into a valuation tribunal is 1991 sales data
3. The VOA have full access to this data.
4. Taxpayers have no real way of accessing this data in a meaningful manner unless you are willing to knock on everyones door in your local area and ask if they had a 1991 sale. WHICH I STRONGLY RECOMMEND EVERYONE FACING A TRIBUNAL DOES.
5. Do not bother with house price indices, the VT have a standard answer to discount it.
6. Do not bother with recent sales data, the VT have a standard answer to discount it.
7. Do not bother with newpaper evidence from 1991 for sale properties, it will not stand up against VOA evidence of real sales unless it was the exact same property configuration on the same street / estate. It may be useful to identify properties for you to knock on doors (as per point 4)
8. Do not bother arguing a small garden / plot size has affected the value of your property, the VT have a standard answer to discount it.

Good luck to everyone.

lincroft1710

There is no legal right for public access to house prices therefore they can be no bordering on the illegal. Only recently did the Land Registry allow access to prices (now back to 1994) and I don't know if it was Parliament approved or LR had sufficient powers to allow access. When CT was being introduced VOA had to petition Parliament to allow house price details to be released to appellant taxpayers. I think there was some form of longstanding confidentiality agreement that LR and the old Stamps Office had with buyers and sellers which kept house prices confidential.

Parliament, or in fact various Parliaments have had 18 yrs to review the system. I think economics has played a part in restrictions which have been put in place throughout CT and the appeals procedure. I believe the idea was to make CT a financially effective tax collecting method and thus anything which added costs was to be kept to a minimum. It is quite costly for the VOA to take a case to VT, preparation of each case takes several hours. If a taxpayer wanted details of every 1991 sale in the area, that info would take a lot of time and money to supply.

If the facts are as you say then I do find your caseworker's attitude unusual and untypical. He is supposed to behave in a fair manner, but this does not mean side with you, and should also enter into dialogue, although he does not have to initiate it. VTs used to ask taxpayers if they had talked with VOA.

In the old domestic rating days very few cases actually went beyond VT, even fewer on pure valuation. Most went on legal or technical rating matters. It may have been the thought of paying costs at a higher court that kept this number low.

With regard to items 5 - 8, these are acceptable as evidence and reasons for a lower band, and depending on the case or quality of VOA evidence may persuade a VT that you deserve a reduction. The VOA won't always have good 1991 evidence for every case.

I'm sorry you are not happy how things have turned out and you think the system has failed you. I believe you can take matters up with the VT if you consider your case was not properly dealt with, but I think this is more about procedure and conduct of the hearing rather than how the decision was reached.

miffy93

I'll try to keep the story short if I can.

Moved into the house in Jan 2000 & have just had an extension built (April 2011).

Doing a few checks it looks like the band should have been band C in 2000.........however we pay as a band D.

A few other houses with similar extensions are also a band D, however there are quite a few around us on band C (next door for example)

My question - Should I contest the fact that we've been paying a band D price for 11 yrs & therefore ask for a rebate, knowing that we are probably now at the right band (with having the extension built) and would therefore remain as a band D.

Or will this get me nowhere?

Thanks in advance.

shine1290

Can I get a template for appeal for my council tax rebanding? Anybody can help me pls. Thanks

lincroft1710

miffy 93 - CT law says you cannot increase a band on account of building work carried out by current owner after Apr 1993. Therefore it could be interpreted that your band is correct as it reflects the value of your house and was not increased because of the building works. I'm ex VOA and this is the line I would have taken.

However it seems that current thinking looks at the property at the date you bought it (providing it was after 1 Apr 1993). So it may be worthwhile asking even if the answer is no. The worst they could do would be to find out that next door's extn was done by a previous owner or was pre 1 Apr 1993 and increase their band.

mitzy2010

Hi i have recieved the form today to claim for my dad. im confused as to which reason he needs to tick to challenge the band. He is an E band and wants to challenge because he has the smallest bungalow in the road (by far), and all the other bungalows/houses are also an E. Sorry if im sounding silly, just need some advice pls

miffy93

lincroft1710 wrote: »

miffy 93 - CT law says you cannot increase a band on account of building work carried out by current owner after Apr 1993. Therefore it could be interpreted that your band is correct as it reflects the value of your house and was not increased because of the building works. I'm ex VOA and this is the line I would have taken.

However it seems that current thinking looks at the property at the date you bought it (providing it was after 1 Apr 1993). So it may be worthwhile asking even if the answer is no. The worst they could do would be to find out that next door's extn was done by a previous owner or was pre 1 Apr 1993 and increase their band.

Thanks for the advice, will give it a go.

Don't suppose you can point me in the right direction of a decent letter template?

lincroft1710

miffy 93 -

Dear Sir

COUNCIL TAX BAND: (your address)

My Council Tax Band is currently Band D but my neighbour at (their address) is Band C as are several other houses of the same type in the street. Would you please therefore check that my band is correct and if it is not would you please reduce it accordingly. I have been the occupier since 2000.

Yours Faithfully.

(your signature)

shine1290

lincroft1710 wrote: »

miffy 93 -

Dear Sir

COUNCIL TAX BAND: (your address)

My Council Tax Band is currently Band D but my neighbour at (their address) is Band C as are several other houses of the same type in the street. Would you please therefore check that my band is correct and if it is not would you please reduce it accordingly. I have been the occupier since 2000.

Yours Faithfully.

(your signature)

:hello:
Thanks