Validation of Rateable Value

Cardew

lincroft1710 wrote: »

There is/was no law which says occupiers need to notify the council of any changes to their properties in England and Wales (no idea if Scotland is different). However any proposed changes should accord with current planning and building regulation requirements.

I'm ex VOA and inspected many, many houses for council tax purposes and also during the old domestic rating days and found countless alterations not notified to councils. In 35 years I and none of my colleagues in many offices across the country have come across such a law.

I'm not aware that water companies need to be notified of alterations either. A few years ago we had an extension built and no-one told us we had to notify the water authority, our architect certainly didn't.

This from the Ofwat website:

If your property has changed significantly – for example if you have had an extension built or knocked down part of the house – your rateable value may no longer be valid.

This from a water company website where unmeasured charges based on RV will apply except:

(b) where a

household premises that is charged on an unmeasured basis is substantially altered;

I don't doubt you might have found lots of houses with improvements not notified to the council prior to 1990, however the owner most certainly should have been notified the council. Even the building of a garage was sufficient to get the RV increased.

IIRC since 1990 the bumpf from the water company with my bill, said that any substantial alterations, swimming pools etc had to be notified to the Water Company.

I am aware of several huge old houses that were almost derelict before 1990. Some had a 'peppercorn' RV and have since been modernised and are worth a fortune. If they notified the Water company I do not know;)

I had a lot of work done to a detached outbuilding and the water company made a site visit. I certainly didn't contact them and assumed that the planning department at the council did.

If you have the land it is perfectly possible to add two or more bedrooms to an old house and modernise it; are you suggesting that there is nothing to prevent it retaining the old RV?

lincroft1710

Cardew wrote: »

This from the Ofwat website:
If your property has changed significantly – for example if you have had an extension built or knocked down part of the house – your rateable value may no longer be valid.

This is misleading, do they in fact mean that as the house altered, you should switch to a metered supply as this would be fairer. The Valuation List is a legal document and any RV therein is valid until such time as it is changed, which of course it can't be (see below)


This from a water company website where unmeasured charges based on RV will apply except:

b) where a

household premises that is charged on an unmeasured basis is substantially altered;

Which only seems to suggest that the water company rather than the customer can decide which method the customer must use to pay for their water services.

I don't doubt you might have found lots of houses with improvements not notified to the council prior to 1990, however the owner most certainly should have been notified the council. Even the building of a garage was sufficient to get the RV increased.

No legislation existed/exists that forces an occupier to inform the council of improvements he has made. Legislation was introduced so that after 1 April 1974 RVs couldn't be increased unless the increase was more than £30 so the addition of a single garage and in some cases a double would not result in an increased RV. From that date RVs of existing properties could not be increased on account of installation of central heating.

IIRC since 1990 the bumpf from the water company with my bill, said that any substantial alterations, swimming pools etc had to be notified to the Water Company.

Just checked my water bill (Anglian Water), no mention of this.

I am aware of several huge old houses that were almost derelict before 1990. Some had a 'peppercorn' RV and have since been modernised and are worth a fortune. If they notified the Water company I do not know;)

I had a lot of work done to a detached outbuilding and the water company made a site visit. I certainly didn't contact them and assumed that the planning department at the council did.

If you have the land it is perfectly possible to add two or more bedrooms to an old house and modernise it; are you suggesting that there is nothing to prevent it retaining the old RV?

It has not been possible to alter Rateable Values from the 1973 Valuation List for over 20 years. The 1988 Local Government Act repealed the 1967 General Rate Act, with effect from 1 April 1990, so there was (and still is) no legislation in force which allows this to happen. The 1967 GRA was the legislation which allowed the 1973 VL to come into force and be maintained.

When I was in the VOA we had frequent calls from people for many years after April 1990 asking if we could lower the RV as there water bill was so high. They all got the same answer - NO!

Gothicfairy

Where did all the talk about altering the RV come from ?

The water companies do ask that you tell them of any major changes (50% altered or change of use is normally what they ask for) as that would mean the RV is no longer valid and they then install a meter or apply assessed charges.
The water company do have the right to decide how that household is billed and they often apply assessed charges until a meter can be fitted or extra work done.

Cardew

lincroft1710 wrote: »

It has not been possible to alter Rateable Values from the 1973 Valuation List for over 20 years. The 1988 Local Government Act repealed the 1967 General Rate Act, with effect from 1 April 1990, so there was (and still is) no legislation in force which allows this to happen. When I was in the VOA we had frequent calls from people for many years after April 1990 asking if we could lower the RV as there water bill was so high. They all got the same answer - NO!

There

We are in violent agreement!

You are saying exactly what I stated.

From 1973 which was the last general re-valuation in England until April 1990 the RV could be changed(increased or decreased) by the Council. Normally the increase would be if the house was extended and the council found out;) and could be bothered to do anything.

Decreases were normally as a result of an application by the house holder - noisy motorway built nearby etc.

After April 1990, as you say, no mechanism existed to alter the RV, and it was only the water companies that used the RV that was extant in April 1990 The much unloved Poll Tax gave way to the Council Tax and you can get your banding altered.

The original Water Privatisation bill gave the water companies 10 years to come up with a solution to stop charging on the RV. It was envisaged that metering would become compulsory.

However that 10 years was extended and then a political decision made that the change to a meter would impinge on some of the less well off - large families in low RV properties - and nothing changed.

In 1990 it was also envisaged that the 'problem' of unmetered properties would get smaller as the water companies have the power to insist on a meter whenever there is a change of occupant(owner or tenant). Some companies enforce that provision, others for some reason do not.

Anyway, that is not the point of this 'discussion. I have given references above from Ofwat and a water company that indicate that when an extension/alteration is carried out the water companies do not need to charge you on the basis of an RV - and of course there is no mechanism to change the RV.

Are you seriously suggesting that if you altered an old derilict property with a 'peppercorn' RV of say £50 into a Band H 8 bed property, that the water charges are allowed to remain based on that £50 RV?

If you don't believe I am correct, give a water company a Call(on behalf of a friend!!) and enquire.

EDIT
You have changed your post substantially, but where have I suggested post April 1990 that it was possible for either the council or water company to alter an RV?

lincroft1710

Cardew wrote: »

From 1973 which was the last general re-valuation in England until April 1990 the RV could be changed(increased or decreased) by the Council.

VOA not council

Anyway, that is not the point of this 'discussion. I have given references above from Ofwat and a water company that indicate that when an extension/alteration is carried out the water companies do not need to charge you on the basis of an RV - and of course there is no mechanism to change the RV.

My own experience would suggest that some water companies are more rigorous than others in this aspect.

Are you seriously suggesting that if you altered an old derilict property with a 'peppercorn' RV of say £50 into a Band H 8 bed property, that the water charges are allowed to remain based on that £50 charge?

I wouldn't claim to have any insight into the thought processes of water companies, if legislation permits then no doubt they can use whichever method they prefer.

I don't know that much about what the water companies get up to, I can only really comment on rating/council tax legislation. We used to get fed up of them referring their customers to us after Apr 1990 when they knew perfectly well we couldn't alter RVs.

Gothicfairy

"We used to get fed up of them referring their customers to us after Apr 1990 when they knew perfectly well we couldn't alter RVs."

and the reason they do that is because they get fed up of being shouted at and blamed for the RV rate and the amount the customer has to pay when it is nothing at all to do with them...Can't say I blame them to be honest

Cardew

lincroft1710 wrote: »

I don't know that much about what the water companies get up to, I can only really comment on rating/council tax legislation. We used to get fed up of them referring their customers to us after Apr 1990 when they knew perfectly well we couldn't alter RVs.

Most of the posts on here about RV are not attempting to get the RV changed. They are, like the OP in this thread, seeking verification that the RV the companies are using is correct and not some figure plucked out of the ether. Typically a post will say I am in a small A band 2 bed tce and my Mum lives in a C band 4 bed semi and has a lower RV than myself - they just do not appreciate how RV was assessed way back in 1973.

Many people also do not appreciate how water companies are funded. They are allowed to raise £xmillion in revenue in 5 year batches; this determines their charges.

This is why water companies do not actively pursue people who should be removed from RV based charges because of extensions etc. It is not a means of raising additional revenue as if they took the time and effort to search for culprits and raised an extra £xthousand pounds from these people, their other revenue is reduced to compensate.

lincroft1710

Cardew wrote: »

EDIT
You have changed your post substantially, but where have I suggested post April 1990 that it was possible for either the council or water company to alter an RV?

I may have misinterpreted your post but it was this part:

If you have the land it is perfectly possible to add two or more bedrooms to an old house and modernise it; are you suggesting that there is nothing to prevent it retaining the old RV?

lincroft1710

Cardew wrote: »

It is not a means of raising additional revenue as if they took the time and effort to search for culprits and raised an extra £xthousand pounds from these people, their other revenue is reduced to compensate.

Anglian Water could certainly save revenue by stop writing to me every 2 months and trying to get me to take out water pipe supply cover with Homeserve.

lincroft1710

Gothicfairy wrote: »

"We used to get fed up of them referring their customers to us after Apr 1990 when they knew perfectly well we couldn't alter RVs."

and the reason they do that is because they get fed up of being shouted at and blamed for the RV rate and the amount the customer has to pay when it is nothing at all to do with them...Can't say I blame them to be honest

But I do blame them! They knew nothing could be done and just passed the buck, so the customer wasted even more time and money on a fruitless phone call.