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

Mr_F

Hi there,

I have had an ongoing, and very fruitless and frustrating, discussion with the VOA after my house was rebanded from C to E when we bought it. It has had a large extension built, courtesy of the previous owner, and the VOA seem to believe it has almost doubled in value as a result! I am trying to work out if going up by two bands is common, as it seems unlikely that the property's value would have gone up by a percentage exceeding the percentage increase in size.

I have gone through the formal appeal process, and subsequently had the VOA look at the banding informally, and both times all I get is, "we believe band E to be correct," with no justification or rationale.
Does anyone have any experience in persuading the VOA to give justification for their decision please? I understand that they have to do this if we go to tribunal, but I would rather leave that as a last resort (though I am still pretty confident that an objective assessment of the evidence would place us in band D).

I have done a lot of research into this, and obtained sold house prices for all properties in the vicinity from 1995, and in my road specifically from the 1980s, and all show that band E for my property is an outlier by some margin! I cannot get the VOA to comment on this, however...

I should note that if they have enough justification to persuade me that they are correct, I shall happily accept the high banding - my issue is really that they seem able to act as judge, jury, and jailer without providing me with a sound argument for their decision.

Any advice appreciated - thanks in anticipation

CIS

Mr_F wrote: »

Hi there,

I have had an ongoing, and very fruitless and frustrating, discussion with the VOA after my house was rebanded from C to E when we bought it. It has had a large extension built, courtesy of the previous owner, and the VOA seem to believe it has almost doubled in value as a result! I am trying to work out if going up by two bands is common, as it seems unlikely that the property's value would have gone up by a percentage exceeding the percentage increase in size.

I have gone through the formal appeal process, and subsequently had the VOA look at the banding informally, and both times all I get is, "we believe band E to be correct," with no justification or rationale.
Does anyone have any experience in persuading the VOA to give justification for their decision please? I understand that they have to do this if we go to tribunal, but I would rather leave that as a last resort (though I am still pretty confident that an objective assessment of the evidence would place us in band D).

I have done a lot of research into this, and obtained sold house prices for all properties in the vicinity from 1995, and in my road specifically from the 1980s, and all show that band E for my property is an outlier by some margin! I cannot get the VOA to comment on this, however...

I should note that if they have enough justification to persuade me that they are correct, I shall happily accept the high banding - my issue is really that they seem able to act as judge, jury, and jailer without providing me with a sound argument for their decision.

Any advice appreciated - thanks in anticipation

I would expect that the VOA will simply answer that they have applied a valuation which is appropriate to the size of the property based on the area.

A 2 band increase where there's been a large extension is not unheard of, especially if a property was already close to the top of band C originally. If that was the case then there's only a £20k difference between top of a C and bottom of an E - a large extension could feasibly add that value.

lincroft1710

Mr_F wrote: »

I have done a lot of research into this, and obtained sold house prices for all properties in the vicinity from 1995, and in my road specifically from the 1980s, and all show that band E for my property is an outlier by some margin! I cannot get the VOA to comment on this, however...

Any advice appreciated - thanks in anticipation

1995 house prices in many areas were about 25% below those of 1991. 1980s house prices are of little use. Because of an outdated confidentiality rule, the VOA cannot disclose sale prices of dwellings they are using to support the band increase until a Tribunal date has been set. So the best move is just wait and see what evidence they are putting forward.

Extensions which increase a dwelling's value by 40% could easily increase a CT band from Band C to Band E.

Mr_F

Thanks both for your replies.

I should have made it more clear that I have retrieved all sold house prices from 1980 onwards for my road (not just from the 1980s!), showing that we would originally have been at the lower end of band C, if the trend is to be believed. The sale prices in my location tally very well with the Nationwide HPI for the area, certainly between 1990-1993, which is helpful to try to estimate a 1991 price.

I appreciate that if we were at the top of band C then a 30% increase would push the value to band E, but from the bottom of band C to what I am told is "the middle of band E" sounds a bit hard to believe.

Thanks again for your replies.

lincroft1710

Mr_F wrote: »

Thanks both for your replies.

I should have made it more clear that I have retrieved all sold house prices from 1980 onwards for my road (not just from the 1980s!), showing that we would originally have been at the lower end of band C, if the trend is to be believed. The sale prices in my location tally very well with the Nationwide HPI for the area, certainly between 1990-1993, which is helpful to try to estimate a 1991 price.

I appreciate that if we were at the top of band C then a 30% increase would push the value to band E, but from the bottom of band C to what I am told is "the middle of band E" sounds a bit hard to believe.

Thanks again for your replies.

Nationwide HPI prices are inaccurate and tend to undervalue 1991 prices, so if you have extrapolated 1991 prices using it, the results may not be accurate. I presume you are using the current size of your home when looking for comparable sales as using the pre-extension size will be of no help

Mr_F

Hi again lincroft1710,
Thanks for your reply.
I am in an interesting position - the property is a 1950s semi-detached ex-council house, originally 2 beds but now extended to 4 beds with integral garage. In the local area there are absolutely no comparable properties; all properties with a similar floor area are detached, much older, and in much more desirable parts of the local area, and thus worth a lot more (typical sales prices indicate a band E property would fetch around 1.5 to 2x what I could ever get for mine).
So what I am trying to determine is where in band C the property originally sat (i.e. high, mid, low) and how much of a % increase in value the extension is supposed to have added to get me to the middle of band E.
I have plotted all property sales in my area on a graph, with date on the x-axis and sale price on the y axis, and they follow the Nationwide HPI for the region pretty closely. I recognise the HPI may inherently be inaccurate, but if the sales in my area clearly follow the trend then it doesn't seem unreasonable to use it! Note I haven't extrapolated anything - all the data I am using are well within the bounds of the data set.
If the VOA's valuation of a property is based solely on size, then I have no problem accepting their banding, but if it is genuinely based on 1991 value then I question what happens to a property that has a ceiling limit to what it could ever be worth, even with a huge increase in size.
My approach is thus to look at the effect of the extension (hypothetically in 1991), in % increase of property value vs % increase in floor area, and try to derive some relationship between these two things.

lincroft1710

Mr_F wrote: »

Hi again lincroft1710,
Thanks for your reply.
I am in an interesting position - the property is a 1950s semi-detached ex-council house, originally 2 beds but now extended to 4 beds with integral garage. In the local area there are absolutely no comparable properties; all properties with a similar floor area are detached, much older, and in much more desirable parts of the local area, and thus worth a lot more (typical sales prices indicate a band E property would fetch around 1.5 to 2x what I could ever get for mine).
So what I am trying to determine is where in band C the property originally sat (i.e. high, mid, low) and how much of a % increase in value the extension is supposed to have added to get me to the middle of band E.
I have plotted all property sales in my area on a graph, with date on the x-axis and sale price on the y axis, and they follow the Nationwide HPI for the region pretty closely. I recognise the HPI may inherently be inaccurate, but if the sales in my area clearly follow the trend then it doesn't seem unreasonable to use it! Note I haven't extrapolated anything - all the data I am using are well within the bounds of the data set.
If the VOA's valuation of a property is based solely on size, then I have no problem accepting their banding, but if it is genuinely based on 1991 value then I question what happens to a property that has a ceiling limit to what it could ever be worth, even with a huge increase in size.
My approach is thus to look at the effect of the extension (hypothetically in 1991), in % increase of property value vs % increase in floor area, and try to derive some relationship between these two things.

VOA will have taken the approach "semi det house now x sq m in town/village/suburb of y, any 1991 sales or agreed appeals?" and thus applied the band.

lincroft1710

Mr_F wrote: »

Hi again lincroft1710,
Thanks for your reply.
I am in an interesting position - the property is a 1950s semi-detached ex-council house, originally 2 beds but now extended to 4 beds with integral garage. In the local area there are absolutely no comparable properties; all properties with a similar floor area are detached, much older, and in much more desirable parts of the local area, and thus worth a lot more (typical sales prices indicate a band E property would fetch around 1.5 to 2x what I could ever get for mine).
So what I am trying to determine is where in band C the property originally sat (i.e. high, mid, low) and how much of a % increase in value the extension is supposed to have added to get me to the middle of band E.
I have plotted all property sales in my area on a graph, with date on the x-axis and sale price on the y axis, and they follow the Nationwide HPI for the region pretty closely. I recognise the HPI may inherently be inaccurate, but if the sales in my area clearly follow the trend then it doesn't seem unreasonable to use it! Note I haven't extrapolated anything - all the data I am using are well within the bounds of the data set.
If the VOA's valuation of a property is based solely on size, then I have no problem accepting their banding, but if it is genuinely based on 1991 value then I question what happens to a property that has a ceiling limit to what it could ever be worth, even with a huge increase in size.
My approach is thus to look at the effect of the extension (hypothetically in 1991), in % increase of property value vs % increase in floor area, and try to derive some relationship between these two things.

Three things have now come to mind.

1. Any sale between council and 1st owner should be ignored as it is not an open market sale.

2. Similarly any repossession sales

3. If you have used them to source the info, Zoopla prices are not accurate.

reecekari

Dear all,

Hi am looking to apply for a review, but wanted to ask a quick question hope this is not too silly.

I bought my flat 12 years ago and the cost of it is substantially lower than the market value now. Going on this value I should be in a lower banding. Can I ask for a review or will this now be looked at the market value now?

With the market value now I will not change banding. Nor will this affect my neighbours.

Sorry it's just I dont get it?

It should of been set to Band B on the cost of my flat 12 years ago, should this not have stayed the same?

Perhaps I'm being thick?

Just I'm not consuming anymore Council resources then what I did 12 years ago. Just the value of my property has gone up.

Perhaps I am looking at this from a silly angle?

Thank you

Regards

Reece

CIS

reecekari wrote: »

Dear all,





I bought my flat 12 years ago and the cost of it is substantially lower than the market value now. Going on this value I should be in a lower banding. Can I ask for a review or will this now be looked at the market value now?

With the market value now I will not change banding. Nor will this affect my neighbours.

Sorry it's just I dont get it?

It should of been set to Band B on the cost of my flat 12 years ago, should this not have stayed the same?

Perhaps I'm being thick?

Just I'm not consuming anymore Council resources then what I did 12 years ago. Just the value of my property has gone up.

Perhaps I am looking at this from a silly angle?

Thank you

Regards

Reece

Council Tax bands are not based on usage, that is not a consideration of the way the system works. The system is based on property value only.

I bought my flat 12 years ago and the cost of it is substantially lower than the market value now. Going on this value I should be in a lower banding

Valuation is based on open market value, if you bought above/below that then what you paid is disregarded and the value would used based on a deemed value at 01 April 1991.