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

sam1974_2

lincroft1710 said:

sam1974_2 said:

lincroft1710 said:

sam1974_2 said:

lincroft1710 said:

sam1974_2 said:

Does anyone know if the pre 1990 ‘Rateable Value’ of your house had any reflection on the way they banded for council tax ? 

My house had a Rateable value of 111.00 - which is still used for water rates and what  the community charge, or whatever it was called prior to council tax and poll tax, was based on. 

Very few sales on our street so hard to work out what 1991 prices would have been back then as all the neighbours had lived here for 50+ years and only recently started getting sold by their families when they’ve sadly passed away. 

Absolutely no connection whatsoever - the old RVs were based on 1973 rental values, CT is based on 1991 capital values. The RV was used to calculate the rates payable under the old well established domestic rating system. It was never used for the Community Charge (commonly known as poll tax).


If you can say why you think your band is too high, or how it compares with those of similar neighbouring properties, I may be able to give you further information.

Thank you. 

One of my elderly neighbours has the same Rateable Value for his water as I do - so was hoping that would help! 

His council tax banding is A, mine is C  🙄 All old terraced houses, built around 1865 with bits added on over the years. 

Elderly neighbours house is slightly smaller than mine as we’ve had a utility and cloakroom added downstairs - he lives a few doors away. 

My immediate neighbours is bigger than mine - an extension that’s took away half the garden! Band A. Sold recently, still a band A. 

Others in the street are a band B. Including one with a holiday let annexe 😳

If the bandings were done by a drive by, they all look the same size at the front so no idea how VOA work the bandings out.

Trying to get comparable’s to send to VOA for a revalue but it’s making my brain hurt as every house is similar but different bands 😕 and last thing I want to do is end up increasing the elderly neighbours bands as they’ve all lived here such a long time and don’t need the increased costs when they are in their 80’s and 90’s. 

If it is self contained the holiday annex should either be assessed for non domestic rating or exceptionally have its own CT band. 

It can take over 12 months before a band is increased following a sale. The VOA would know the sizes of the properties at the time the banding was done and this was passed on to the contractors who did the banding, however the VOA info may not have been up to date.


Yours may be overbanded the Band As underbanded, only the VOA would know and up to you and how keen you are to pursue this as to what you do next. 

Do you happen to know, if I rang VOA would they tell me what details they hold about our property, or not?  Really just to check they have the right size, number of bedrooms, etc, before escalating it to anything official. 

Yes, they should give you this info

Thank you - I might try that first then. 

westie2128

I’ve been waiting just over 7 weeks with the 2 month deadline being next week but obviously they will be closing for Christmas. 

For those that have asked for rebanding, did you hear back quickly or on the last day? 

What happens after their 2 month deadline? 

I’ve rang them to ask but just got told to ring back in the New Year if I’ve not heard by then. They couldn’t even tell me if anyone has looked at it yet as they don’t have access to the case handlers information as they are all working from home 

lincroft1710

westie2128 said:

I’ve been waiting just over 7 weeks with the 2 month deadline being next week but obviously they will be closing for Christmas. 

For those that have asked for rebanding, did you hear back quickly or on the last day? 

What happens after their 2 month deadline? 

I’ve rang them to ask but just got told to ring back in the New Year if I’ve not heard by then. They couldn’t even tell me if anyone has looked at it yet as they don’t have access to the case handlers information as they are all working from home 

There is little point in posting a the same query here when you already have your own thread.

westie2128

lincroft1710 said:

westie2128 said:

I’ve been waiting just over 7 weeks with the 2 month deadline being next week but obviously they will be closing for Christmas. 

For those that have asked for rebanding, did you hear back quickly or on the last day? 

What happens after their 2 month deadline? 

I’ve rang them to ask but just got told to ring back in the New Year if I’ve not heard by then. They couldn’t even tell me if anyone has looked at it yet as they don’t have access to the case handlers information as they are all working from home 

There is little point in posting a the same query here when you already have your own thread.

Sorry, thought someone might reply here. 

Apologies. 

westie2128

My decision came, denied! Conveniently dated 9 days ago so fit their deadline but emailed to me this morning. 

not sure if anyone can explain this to me, as plenty of neighbours on lower bands have sold in the last 10 years but still on a lower band than me. 

Banding differences can exist between properties that are now similar but which were of a different standard in April 1993 when council tax was introduced.  This often occurs when a property is modernised, i.e. it has had improvements, which usually include a new bathroom, new kitchen, double-glazing and central heating.  A property that had been modernised when the bandings were originally undertaken may well be in a higher band than a property of similar size that had not been modernised at the time.  If a property is improved after April 1993 I am not able to increase the banding to reflect these improvements unless the property is sold (including a sale of the freehold ground rent) or a general revaluation of all properties takes place.  This restriction explains why some properties in your area are in a lower band than others, in spite of the fact that most have now been modernised and are of a similar standard.

I have looked carefully at the pattern of bandings in your area and I can confirm that it upholds the tonal evidence to support your properties banding. The evidence of sales in the area, as bandings are based on evidence of actual sales, again satisfies that the banding of your own property is a fair reflection of values that would have applied in the area on 1 April 1991.

westie2128

westie2128 said:

My decision came, denied! Conveniently dated 9 days ago so fit their deadline but emailed to me this morning. 

not sure if anyone can explain this to me, as plenty of neighbours on lower bands have sold in the last 10 years but still on a lower band than me. 

Banding differences can exist between properties that are now similar but which were of a different standard in April 1993 when council tax was introduced.  This often occurs when a property is modernised, i.e. it has had improvements, which usually include a new bathroom, new kitchen, double-glazing and central heating.  A property that had been modernised when the bandings were originally undertaken may well be in a higher band than a property of similar size that had not been modernised at the time.  If a property is improved after April 1993 I am not able to increase the banding to reflect these improvements unless the property is sold (including a sale of the freehold ground rent) or a general revaluation of all properties takes place.  This restriction explains why some properties in your area are in a lower band than others, in spite of the fact that most have now been modernised and are of a similar standard.

I have looked carefully at the pattern of bandings in your area and I can confirm that it upholds the tonal evidence to support your properties banding. The evidence of sales in the area, as bandings are based on evidence of actual sales, again satisfies that the banding of your own property is a fair reflection of values that would have applied in the area on 1 April 1991.

Just wondering if anyone can shed any light. See above reason for not lowering my banding. 

But 1 neighbours band has been lowered as appears on VOA with effective from date. House identical to mine. 

House adjoining mine is lower band as are several others in the street. 

VOA gave me details they hold on property. Their size is over by 15 ish square meters and they’ve got no modernisation details listed on mine (it’s blank) yet are using that as a point to not rebrand!  But saying mine is higher banding as modernised when others might not have been. 

And only 2 sales on property, 1 in 1979 and one is 2019 when we purchased. It’s modernised now, because we’ve done it!

obviously outside the 6 months but they looked at it, said no and no right to appeal, their decision is final etc. 🤦🏻‍♀️

Penguinloz

westie2128 said:

westie2128 said:

My decision came, denied! Conveniently dated 9 days ago so fit their deadline but emailed to me this morning. 

not sure if anyone can explain this to me, as plenty of neighbours on lower bands have sold in the last 10 years but still on a lower band than me. 

Banding differences can exist between properties that are now similar but which were of a different standard in April 1993 when council tax was introduced.  This often occurs when a property is modernised, i.e. it has had improvements, which usually include a new bathroom, new kitchen, double-glazing and central heating.  A property that had been modernised when the bandings were originally undertaken may well be in a higher band than a property of similar size that had not been modernised at the time.  If a property is improved after April 1993 I am not able to increase the banding to reflect these improvements unless the property is sold (including a sale of the freehold ground rent) or a general revaluation of all properties takes place.  This restriction explains why some properties in your area are in a lower band than others, in spite of the fact that most have now been modernised and are of a similar standard.

I have looked carefully at the pattern of bandings in your area and I can confirm that it upholds the tonal evidence to support your properties banding. The evidence of sales in the area, as bandings are based on evidence of actual sales, again satisfies that the banding of your own property is a fair reflection of values that would have applied in the area on 1 April 1991.

Just wondering if anyone can shed any light. See above reason for not lowering my banding. 

But 1 neighbours band has been lowered as appears on VOA with effective from date. House identical to mine. 

House adjoining mine is lower band as are several others in the street. 

VOA gave me details they hold on property. Their size is over by 15 ish square meters and they’ve got no modernisation details listed on mine (it’s blank) yet are using that as a point to not rebrand!  But saying mine is higher banding as modernised when others might not have been. 

And only 2 sales on property, 1 in 1979 and one is 2019 when we purchased. It’s modernised now, because we’ve done it!

obviously outside the 6 months but they looked at it, said no and no right to appeal, their decision is final etc. 🤦🏻‍♀️

If you believe the area they have for your property is incorrect, then ask for a second review stating you believe the area is incorrect. However, how are you measuring the area of your property? As houses are measured externally rather than internally for Council Tac, which could account for the difference, if you're measuring internally. There is no right to appeal, but you do have the right to request a second review. However, if they think yours is correct, they may increase your neighbours. 

westie2128

Penguinloz said:

westie2128 said:

westie2128 said:

My decision came, denied! Conveniently dated 9 days ago so fit their deadline but emailed to me this morning. 

not sure if anyone can explain this to me, as plenty of neighbours on lower bands have sold in the last 10 years but still on a lower band than me. 

Banding differences can exist between properties that are now similar but which were of a different standard in April 1993 when council tax was introduced.  This often occurs when a property is modernised, i.e. it has had improvements, which usually include a new bathroom, new kitchen, double-glazing and central heating.  A property that had been modernised when the bandings were originally undertaken may well be in a higher band than a property of similar size that had not been modernised at the time.  If a property is improved after April 1993 I am not able to increase the banding to reflect these improvements unless the property is sold (including a sale of the freehold ground rent) or a general revaluation of all properties takes place.  This restriction explains why some properties in your area are in a lower band than others, in spite of the fact that most have now been modernised and are of a similar standard.

I have looked carefully at the pattern of bandings in your area and I can confirm that it upholds the tonal evidence to support your properties banding. The evidence of sales in the area, as bandings are based on evidence of actual sales, again satisfies that the banding of your own property is a fair reflection of values that would have applied in the area on 1 April 1991.

Just wondering if anyone can shed any light. See above reason for not lowering my banding. 

But 1 neighbours band has been lowered as appears on VOA with effective from date. House identical to mine. 

House adjoining mine is lower band as are several others in the street. 

VOA gave me details they hold on property. Their size is over by 15 ish square meters and they’ve got no modernisation details listed on mine (it’s blank) yet are using that as a point to not rebrand!  But saying mine is higher banding as modernised when others might not have been. 

And only 2 sales on property, 1 in 1979 and one is 2019 when we purchased. It’s modernised now, because we’ve done it!

obviously outside the 6 months but they looked at it, said no and no right to appeal, their decision is final etc. 🤦🏻‍♀️

If you believe the area they have for your property is incorrect, then ask for a second review stating you believe the area is incorrect. However, how are you measuring the area of your property? As houses are measured externally rather than internally for Council Tac, which could account for the difference, if you're measuring internally. There is no right to appeal, but you do have the right to request a second review. However, if they think yours is correct, they may increase your neighbours. 

Thank you for replying. 

Ah I see, yes I’m using internal measurements from estate agents plan and EPC which agree with each other, bar 2 metres, didn’t realise it was different. So if I measure the width and depth  of house x floors, is this correct? 

At the moment I’ve asked them to clarify, as they’ve said mine must have been modernised which it wasn’t and no marker for modernisation on the details they hold for my house and that they increase neighbours banding when sold, which they haven’t for any of them even after many sales, so to clarify why the decision is no when both of their points are mute if invalid. 

Without sounding harsh to neighbours, if my band is correct and theirs is wrong then why should they be paying less anyway, but like I said, one neighbour had her band lowered after she purchased and asked for a review. So a yes to her, same house in size, style, age, but a no to mine. Doesn’t make sense!

lincroft1710

westie2128 said:

Penguinloz said:

westie2128 said:

westie2128 said:

My decision came, denied! Conveniently dated 9 days ago so fit their deadline but emailed to me this morning. 

not sure if anyone can explain this to me, as plenty of neighbours on lower bands have sold in the last 10 years but still on a lower band than me. 

Banding differences can exist between properties that are now similar but which were of a different standard in April 1993 when council tax was introduced.  This often occurs when a property is modernised, i.e. it has had improvements, which usually include a new bathroom, new kitchen, double-glazing and central heating.  A property that had been modernised when the bandings were originally undertaken may well be in a higher band than a property of similar size that had not been modernised at the time.  If a property is improved after April 1993 I am not able to increase the banding to reflect these improvements unless the property is sold (including a sale of the freehold ground rent) or a general revaluation of all properties takes place.  This restriction explains why some properties in your area are in a lower band than others, in spite of the fact that most have now been modernised and are of a similar standard.

I have looked carefully at the pattern of bandings in your area and I can confirm that it upholds the tonal evidence to support your properties banding. The evidence of sales in the area, as bandings are based on evidence of actual sales, again satisfies that the banding of your own property is a fair reflection of values that would have applied in the area on 1 April 1991.

Just wondering if anyone can shed any light. See above reason for not lowering my banding. 

But 1 neighbours band has been lowered as appears on VOA with effective from date. House identical to mine. 

House adjoining mine is lower band as are several others in the street. 

VOA gave me details they hold on property. Their size is over by 15 ish square meters and they’ve got no modernisation details listed on mine (it’s blank) yet are using that as a point to not rebrand!  But saying mine is higher banding as modernised when others might not have been. 

And only 2 sales on property, 1 in 1979 and one is 2019 when we purchased. It’s modernised now, because we’ve done it!

obviously outside the 6 months but they looked at it, said no and no right to appeal, their decision is final etc. 🤦🏻‍♀️

If you believe the area they have for your property is incorrect, then ask for a second review stating you believe the area is incorrect. However, how are you measuring the area of your property? As houses are measured externally rather than internally for Council Tac, which could account for the difference, if you're measuring internally. There is no right to appeal, but you do have the right to request a second review. However, if they think yours is correct, they may increase your neighbours. 

Thank you for replying. 

Ah I see, yes I’m using internal measurements from estate agents plan and EPC which agree with each other, bar 2 metres, didn’t realise it was different. So if I measure the width and depth  of house x floors, is this correct? 

At the moment I’ve asked them to clarify, as they’ve said mine must have been modernised which it wasn’t and no marker for modernisation on the details they hold for my house and that they increase neighbours banding when sold, which they haven’t for any of them even after many sales, so to clarify why the decision is no when both of their points are mute if invalid. 

Without sounding harsh to neighbours, if my band is correct and theirs is wrong then why should they be paying less anyway, but like I said, one neighbour had her band lowered after she purchased and asked for a review. So a yes to her, same house in size, style, age, but a no to mine. Doesn’t make sense!

Providing your home has a rectangular floorplan then width x depth x number of floors is correct. Use the same formula for any extensions of a permanent construction.


The following are possible (but not definite) explanations of what may have occurred. 


In the early days of CT, there was a directive from VOA Head Office that where a dwelling had been sold and improvements had been made by a previous owner, the CT band should not be increased unless the improvements would put the value of the house at least towards the middle of the next band. 


It is not unknown for the VOA to change their mind about the the correctness of having reduced a band. Often this is where a second person, who may be more knowledgeable of the area or is more thorough in their investigations has found evidence which suggests the original band was correct. When this has happened, in some cases the VOA has reinstated the original band, in others, the band has not been increased.


If the original band is not reinstated, it often means the VOA believe the original band was correct, but it would be difficult to prove convincingly at a Tribunal. However a decision would probably be made not to reduce the bands of similar neighbouring dwellings.

westie2128

lincroft1710 said:

westie2128 said:

Penguinloz said:

westie2128 said:

westie2128 said:

My decision came, denied! Conveniently dated 9 days ago so fit their deadline but emailed to me this morning. 

not sure if anyone can explain this to me, as plenty of neighbours on lower bands have sold in the last 10 years but still on a lower band than me. 

Banding differences can exist between properties that are now similar but which were of a different standard in April 1993 when council tax was introduced.  This often occurs when a property is modernised, i.e. it has had improvements, which usually include a new bathroom, new kitchen, double-glazing and central heating.  A property that had been modernised when the bandings were originally undertaken may well be in a higher band than a property of similar size that had not been modernised at the time.  If a property is improved after April 1993 I am not able to increase the banding to reflect these improvements unless the property is sold (including a sale of the freehold ground rent) or a general revaluation of all properties takes place.  This restriction explains why some properties in your area are in a lower band than others, in spite of the fact that most have now been modernised and are of a similar standard.

I have looked carefully at the pattern of bandings in your area and I can confirm that it upholds the tonal evidence to support your properties banding. The evidence of sales in the area, as bandings are based on evidence of actual sales, again satisfies that the banding of your own property is a fair reflection of values that would have applied in the area on 1 April 1991.

Just wondering if anyone can shed any light. See above reason for not lowering my banding. 

But 1 neighbours band has been lowered as appears on VOA with effective from date. House identical to mine. 

House adjoining mine is lower band as are several others in the street. 

VOA gave me details they hold on property. Their size is over by 15 ish square meters and they’ve got no modernisation details listed on mine (it’s blank) yet are using that as a point to not rebrand!  But saying mine is higher banding as modernised when others might not have been. 

And only 2 sales on property, 1 in 1979 and one is 2019 when we purchased. It’s modernised now, because we’ve done it!

obviously outside the 6 months but they looked at it, said no and no right to appeal, their decision is final etc. 🤦🏻‍♀️

If you believe the area they have for your property is incorrect, then ask for a second review stating you believe the area is incorrect. However, how are you measuring the area of your property? As houses are measured externally rather than internally for Council Tac, which could account for the difference, if you're measuring internally. There is no right to appeal, but you do have the right to request a second review. However, if they think yours is correct, they may increase your neighbours. 

Thank you for replying. 

Ah I see, yes I’m using internal measurements from estate agents plan and EPC which agree with each other, bar 2 metres, didn’t realise it was different. So if I measure the width and depth  of house x floors, is this correct? 

At the moment I’ve asked them to clarify, as they’ve said mine must have been modernised which it wasn’t and no marker for modernisation on the details they hold for my house and that they increase neighbours banding when sold, which they haven’t for any of them even after many sales, so to clarify why the decision is no when both of their points are mute if invalid. 

Without sounding harsh to neighbours, if my band is correct and theirs is wrong then why should they be paying less anyway, but like I said, one neighbour had her band lowered after she purchased and asked for a review. So a yes to her, same house in size, style, age, but a no to mine. Doesn’t make sense!

Providing your home has a rectangular floorplan then width x depth x number of floors is correct. Use the same formula for any extensions of a permanent construction.

The following are possible (but not definite) explanations of what may have occurred. 

In the early days of CT, there was a directive from VOA Head Office that where a dwelling had been sold and improvements had been made by a previous owner, the CT band should not be increased unless the improvements would put the value of the house at least towards the middle of the next band. 

It is not unknown for the VOA to change their mind about the the correctness of having reduced a band. Often this is where a second person, who may be more knowledgeable of the area or is more thorough in their investigations has found evidence which suggests the original band was correct. When this has happened, in some cases the VOA has reinstated the original band, in others, the band has not been increased.

If the original band is not reinstated, it often means the VOA believe the original band was correct, but it would be difficult to prove convincingly at a Tribunal. However a decision would probably be made not to reduce the bands of similar neighbouring dwellings.

Thank you for your reply - reading through this thread, I was hoping you might pop up! 

Sorry also meant to ask - it is normal for “Regional Valuation Unit Head Wales & West” to cover Warwickshire as surely they have no idea of the area? 

This was what they said in their decline letter - not sure if you can make sense of it?  I’m struggling to understand their reasoning when they’ve never increase any bandings when sold and there have been quite a lot! And then saying mine was higher as modernised but their own records show no comments next to modernisation and I know 99.9% the old man who lived here when bandings were first done never let anyone in the property ever (he lived like a hermit in squalor, filth and hoarding). 

We ourselves replaced the 70’s pea-green kitchen, the 30+ year old bathroom and had all the electrics, heating and plumbing done. 

I’ve also sent them property prices for our road dating back to 1995 showing that they were all selling for 30-35k (presumably difference between modernised and not) I believe property prices in warwickshire were back up to ‘91 levels by early ‘97 and the Victorian terraces never dropped much anyway, around 4-6% as they are so cheap in comparison anyway. 

Banding differences can exist between properties that are now similar but which were of a different standard in April 1993 when council tax was introduced.  This often occurs when a property is modernised, i.e. it has had improvements, which usually include a new bathroom, new kitchen, double-glazing and central heating.  A property that had been modernised when the bandings were originally undertaken may well be in a higher band than a property of similar size that had not been modernised at the time.  If a property is improved after April 1993 I am not able to increase the banding to reflect these improvements unless the property is sold (including a sale of the freehold ground rent) or a general revaluation of all properties takes place.  This restriction explains why some properties in your area are in a lower band than others, in spite of the fact that most have now been modernised and are of a similar standard.

I have looked carefully at the pattern of bandings in your area and I can confirm that it upholds the tonal evidence to support your properties banding. The evidence of sales in the area, as bandings are based on evidence of actual sales, again satisfies that the banding of your own property is a fair reflection of values that would have applied in the area on 1 April 1991