Council tax 6-month out of time appeal

JOHNGT

We are both Band G. The band was £106K to £212K in 1991. We are in a conservation area so houses have not been extended - they are pretty much as they were 20 years ago. Their land is also 10 times the size of my plot. The floor area of their house is at least twice the floor area of mine (and they have a large number of rooms more than mine).

There are also 6 band Fs which are worth more than mine (based on actual sale and valuation prices), again all within 150m radius. And there are 2 Band E's which are the same external dimensions as mine and have land two times the size of my plot.

Even to someone who is not a surveyor, the anomalies are blatant.

lincroft1710

JOHNGT wrote: »

We are both Band G. The band was £106K to £212K in 1991. We are in a conservation area so houses have not been extended - they are pretty much as they were 20 years ago. Their land is also 10 times the size of my plot. The floor area of their house is at least twice the floor area of mine (and they have a large number of rooms more than mine).

There are also 6 band Fs which are worth more than mine (based on actual sale and valuation prices), again all within 150m radius. And there are 2 Band E's which are the same external dimensions as mine and have land two times the size of my plot.

Even to someone who is not a surveyor, the anomalies are blatant.

Anomalies, yes, but it seems some of these houses are underbanded. Although they are inaccurate did you try one of the house price calculators as a rough check to find 1991 price for your home?

JOHNGT

Yes, used Nationwide data - monthly index for all Scottish properties and quartely index for old and detached Scottish properties (these latter two only available quarterly).

All three indices show the April 1991 price based on what I paid in 1994 to be less than the £106,000, and so in Band F.

Assessor said that he had local data for stone built properties which valued it just above £106,000 but despite repeated requests, he will not supply that data to me. I would like to get my hands on this data because the area he is drawing from is relatively small and the number of sales of stone built houses between 1991 and 1994 will also be small. Therefore, I think that his data will be statistically unreliable because of the small number of sales.

I have not asked for the data under Freedom of Information yet but my guess is that they will probably refuse on the 'costs more than £600' rule. They have been extremely difficult to deal with from the start. Perhaps they are tightening up due to cuts in local council budgets? Regardless, the whole situation is unfair. Either I am paying too much or another 9 people are underpaying.

ManicMum

Plus how does it work that my house is Band E yet so is my parents. My house is valued around £150k yet there's is £450k. Both 3 beds but mine (the cheaper one) is detached yet my parents is a semi. It is in different part of UK but weren't the bands all set the same? I mean, surely in 1991 mine would have been worth a lot less than theirs meaning I should be a D at the most,according to my calculations.

Who in government is responsible for this fiasco? I feel a letter coming on.
:mad:

System

Would the 6-month rule work the other way round? Supposing the council discovered your house had been under-rated for 20 years?
They would not be allowed to appeal to the valuer because they were out of time?

lincroft1710

JOHNGT wrote: »

Yes, used Nationwide data - monthly index for all Scottish properties and quartely index for old and detached Scottish properties (these latter two only available quarterly).

All three indices show the April 1991 price based on what I paid in 1994 to be less than the £106,000, and so in Band F.

Assessor said that he had local data for stone built properties which valued it just above £106,000 but despite repeated requests, he will not supply that data to me. I would like to get my hands on this data because the area he is drawing from is relatively small and the number of sales of stone built houses between 1991 and 1994 will also be small. Therefore, I think that his data will be statistically unreliable because of the small number of sales.

I have not asked for the data under Freedom of Information yet but my guess is that they will probably refuse on the 'costs more than £600' rule. They have been extremely difficult to deal with from the start. Perhaps they are tightening up due to cuts in local council budgets? Regardless, the whole situation is unfair. Either I am paying too much or another 9 people are underpaying.

FOI does not apply in such cases. The sales information used by VOA and Assr. was supplied to them in confidence and parliament had to approve divulgence of this info for CT appeals. This sales info can only be divulged when a valid appeal has been made.

It doesn't matter how few sales occurred, any relevant open market sale of a dwelling of similar type and size to the appeal dwelling is good evidence.

lincroft1710

ManicMum wrote: »

gosh, that must be frustrating.

I heard they just did a drive round to value the houses. If they valued them today, they'd probably just use Google earth. How do we know they didn't give their Mum's or their mate's houses a lower banding? To say you can't challenge it just sucks.

VOA have details of virtually every house built and this info was available to the agents who did the original banding. I think 10% of their bandings were quality controlled. Because the then (Tory) govt wanted the job done asap and for as little as possible it was impossible to qc a bigger percentage. From memory at least one agent was "sacked".

BTW, I understand the 6 month rule was introduced as an "economy measure", appeals are costly and the then govt. did not want the situation which could have happened with domestic rating whereby appeals could be made at any time.

Finally I should point out that even though I'm ex VOA, any post I make is (I hope!) explanatory based on my experience and understanding and does not imply my belief (or otherwise) in the fairness or user friendliness of any legislation or procedure.

lincroft1710

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Would the 6-month rule work the other way round? Supposing the council discovered your house had been under-rated for 20 years?
They would not be allowed to appeal to the valuer because they were out of time?

CT legislation allows incorrect bands to be corrected at any time, and effective dates of reduced bands can be backdated to the start of CT or when the dwelling was first assessed.

All the 6 months time limit means that after this time, although a request may be made for a lower band, if refused, it cannot be determined by a Valuation Tribunal (E and W) or Valuation Assessment Committee (Scot)

lincroft1710

ManicMum wrote: »

Plus how does it work that my house is Band E yet so is my parents. My house is valued around £150k yet there's is £450k. Both 3 beds but mine (the cheaper one) is detached yet my parents is a semi. It is in different part of UK but weren't the bands all set the same? I mean, surely in 1991 mine would have been worth a lot less than theirs meaning I should be a D at the most,according to my calculations.

Who in government is responsible for this fiasco? I feel a letter coming on.
:mad:

Prices have not changed by the same percentage for different parts of the country, nor for different house types. Your home does seem to be overbanded, but in the same breath your parents' seems underbanded.