We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Council Tax Rebanding SUCCESS stories
Comments
-
Property prices only fell 4% in our region, so there is a high probability that many properties went up in value. Note that the ROA stated that property prices fell, not that they fell in our area, or even that they fell by enough to change banding.lincroft1710 said:
My last 12 years of working in the VOA were spent dealing with CT appeals. As the VOA has details of 99.9% of property sales in the country, it was easy to see how house prices were falling between 1991 and 1993/4/5 by reference to actual property sales rather than using HPIs. If it is of any use to you, in my area we established the fall between 1991 and 1995 was around 25%.Analyst said:
"The housing market was subject to a fall in prices from 1991" That is all the decline stands on. The context is that the first sale of a similar property was 1995, so that is the only price evidence I could supply. Naturally it is less than the top of the lower band, and lower by enough to have been realistically below that band in 1991. You can make it any figure you like by applying a suitable index, national, regional, local etc would all give different answers.lincroft1710 said:
Can you quote what the VOA actually have said about HPI in their reply?Analyst said:lincroft1710 said:
The VOA use Gross External Area to measure houses, whereas developers and EAs use Gross Internal Area, thus there is an explainable difference. What are your reasons for believing the VOA have used an incorrect HPI (which are unreliable anyway and rarely used by the VOA)?Analyst said:The VOA are using incorrect house dimensions and house price index data (which is disallowed) to reject our request for a banding change.The VOA disallow the use of HPI because it is unreliable, but then use it as their main argument for rejecting a reduction in banding. Also the "smaller" house that has a lower banding is clearly a similar size from Google earth, the building plans and having been inside to look. It is not smaller, and if anything would sell for more than our property if it ever came on the market.
If the "smaller house" is of a similar size to yours, then the VOA may have undermeasured it and thus could be underbanded or they could have overmeasured yours. Only a site visit or viewing dimensioned builders' plans could determine which one was incorrectly measured or identified.0 -
Can you supply the VOA with evidence that property prices only fell in your area by 4% between 1991 and 1995 other than by reference to HPI?Analyst said:
Property prices only fell 4% in our region, so there is a high probability that many properties went up in value. Note that the ROA stated that property prices fell, not that they fell in our area, or even that they fell by enough to change banding.lincroft1710 said:
My last 12 years of working in the VOA were spent dealing with CT appeals. As the VOA has details of 99.9% of property sales in the country, it was easy to see how house prices were falling between 1991 and 1993/4/5 by reference to actual property sales rather than using HPIs. If it is of any use to you, in my area we established the fall between 1991 and 1995 was around 25%.Analyst said:
"The housing market was subject to a fall in prices from 1991" That is all the decline stands on. The context is that the first sale of a similar property was 1995, so that is the only price evidence I could supply. Naturally it is less than the top of the lower band, and lower by enough to have been realistically below that band in 1991. You can make it any figure you like by applying a suitable index, national, regional, local etc would all give different answers.lincroft1710 said:
Can you quote what the VOA actually have said about HPI in their reply?Analyst said:lincroft1710 said:
The VOA use Gross External Area to measure houses, whereas developers and EAs use Gross Internal Area, thus there is an explainable difference. What are your reasons for believing the VOA have used an incorrect HPI (which are unreliable anyway and rarely used by the VOA)?Analyst said:The VOA are using incorrect house dimensions and house price index data (which is disallowed) to reject our request for a banding change.The VOA disallow the use of HPI because it is unreliable, but then use it as their main argument for rejecting a reduction in banding. Also the "smaller" house that has a lower banding is clearly a similar size from Google earth, the building plans and having been inside to look. It is not smaller, and if anything would sell for more than our property if it ever came on the market.
If the "smaller house" is of a similar size to yours, then the VOA may have undermeasured it and thus could be underbanded or they could have overmeasured yours. Only a site visit or viewing dimensioned builders' plans could determine which one was incorrectly measured or identified.
The implication would be that if the VOA stated property prices fell it would be relevant to the area in which the subject dwelling was situated. A fall in property prices after the antecedent valuation date would not lead to a band reduction.If you are querying your Council Tax band would you please state whether you are in England, Scotland or Wales0 -
I can't get any pre 1995 prices for the area. The properties are self build and I would not trust the valuation provided by the owner when they were built, even if I could get them.lincroft1710 said:
Can you supply the VOA with evidence that property prices only fell in your area by 4% between 1991 and 1995 other than by reference to HPI?Analyst said:
Property prices only fell 4% in our region, so there is a high probability that many properties went up in value. Note that the ROA stated that property prices fell, not that they fell in our area, or even that they fell by enough to change banding.lincroft1710 said:
My last 12 years of working in the VOA were spent dealing with CT appeals. As the VOA has details of 99.9% of property sales in the country, it was easy to see how house prices were falling between 1991 and 1993/4/5 by reference to actual property sales rather than using HPIs. If it is of any use to you, in my area we established the fall between 1991 and 1995 was around 25%.Analyst said:
"The housing market was subject to a fall in prices from 1991" That is all the decline stands on. The context is that the first sale of a similar property was 1995, so that is the only price evidence I could supply. Naturally it is less than the top of the lower band, and lower by enough to have been realistically below that band in 1991. You can make it any figure you like by applying a suitable index, national, regional, local etc would all give different answers.lincroft1710 said:
Can you quote what the VOA actually have said about HPI in their reply?Analyst said:lincroft1710 said:
The VOA use Gross External Area to measure houses, whereas developers and EAs use Gross Internal Area, thus there is an explainable difference. What are your reasons for believing the VOA have used an incorrect HPI (which are unreliable anyway and rarely used by the VOA)?Analyst said:The VOA are using incorrect house dimensions and house price index data (which is disallowed) to reject our request for a banding change.The VOA disallow the use of HPI because it is unreliable, but then use it as their main argument for rejecting a reduction in banding. Also the "smaller" house that has a lower banding is clearly a similar size from Google earth, the building plans and having been inside to look. It is not smaller, and if anything would sell for more than our property if it ever came on the market.
If the "smaller house" is of a similar size to yours, then the VOA may have undermeasured it and thus could be underbanded or they could have overmeasured yours. Only a site visit or viewing dimensioned builders' plans could determine which one was incorrectly measured or identified.
The implication would be that if the VOA stated property prices fell it would be relevant to the area in which the subject dwelling was situated. A fall in property prices after the antecedent valuation date would not lead to a band reduction.
As I am working backwards, a larger fall in property prices would be required to push the property into its current band.0 -
Where did you get the figure of a 4% fall from 1991 to 1995?Analyst said:
I can't get any pre 1995 prices for the area. The properties are self build and I would not trust the valuation provided by the owner when they were built, even if I could get them.lincroft1710 said:
Can you supply the VOA with evidence that property prices only fell in your area by 4% between 1991 and 1995 other than by reference to HPI?Analyst said:
Property prices only fell 4% in our region, so there is a high probability that many properties went up in value. Note that the ROA stated that property prices fell, not that they fell in our area, or even that they fell by enough to change banding.lincroft1710 said:
My last 12 years of working in the VOA were spent dealing with CT appeals. As the VOA has details of 99.9% of property sales in the country, it was easy to see how house prices were falling between 1991 and 1993/4/5 by reference to actual property sales rather than using HPIs. If it is of any use to you, in my area we established the fall between 1991 and 1995 was around 25%.Analyst said:
"The housing market was subject to a fall in prices from 1991" That is all the decline stands on. The context is that the first sale of a similar property was 1995, so that is the only price evidence I could supply. Naturally it is less than the top of the lower band, and lower by enough to have been realistically below that band in 1991. You can make it any figure you like by applying a suitable index, national, regional, local etc would all give different answers.lincroft1710 said:
Can you quote what the VOA actually have said about HPI in their reply?Analyst said:lincroft1710 said:
The VOA use Gross External Area to measure houses, whereas developers and EAs use Gross Internal Area, thus there is an explainable difference. What are your reasons for believing the VOA have used an incorrect HPI (which are unreliable anyway and rarely used by the VOA)?Analyst said:The VOA are using incorrect house dimensions and house price index data (which is disallowed) to reject our request for a banding change.The VOA disallow the use of HPI because it is unreliable, but then use it as their main argument for rejecting a reduction in banding. Also the "smaller" house that has a lower banding is clearly a similar size from Google earth, the building plans and having been inside to look. It is not smaller, and if anything would sell for more than our property if it ever came on the market.
If the "smaller house" is of a similar size to yours, then the VOA may have undermeasured it and thus could be underbanded or they could have overmeasured yours. Only a site visit or viewing dimensioned builders' plans could determine which one was incorrectly measured or identified.
The implication would be that if the VOA stated property prices fell it would be relevant to the area in which the subject dwelling was situated. A fall in property prices after the antecedent valuation date would not lead to a band reduction.
As I am working backwards, a larger fall in property prices would be required to push the property into its current band.If you are querying your Council Tax band would you please state whether you are in England, Scotland or Wales0 -
Nationwidelincroft1710 said:
Where did you get the figure of a 4% fall from 1991 to 1995?Analyst said:
I can't get any pre 1995 prices for the area. The properties are self build and I would not trust the valuation provided by the owner when they were built, even if I could get them.lincroft1710 said:
Can you supply the VOA with evidence that property prices only fell in your area by 4% between 1991 and 1995 other than by reference to HPI?Analyst said:
Property prices only fell 4% in our region, so there is a high probability that many properties went up in value. Note that the ROA stated that property prices fell, not that they fell in our area, or even that they fell by enough to change banding.lincroft1710 said:
My last 12 years of working in the VOA were spent dealing with CT appeals. As the VOA has details of 99.9% of property sales in the country, it was easy to see how house prices were falling between 1991 and 1993/4/5 by reference to actual property sales rather than using HPIs. If it is of any use to you, in my area we established the fall between 1991 and 1995 was around 25%.Analyst said:
"The housing market was subject to a fall in prices from 1991" That is all the decline stands on. The context is that the first sale of a similar property was 1995, so that is the only price evidence I could supply. Naturally it is less than the top of the lower band, and lower by enough to have been realistically below that band in 1991. You can make it any figure you like by applying a suitable index, national, regional, local etc would all give different answers.lincroft1710 said:
Can you quote what the VOA actually have said about HPI in their reply?Analyst said:lincroft1710 said:
The VOA use Gross External Area to measure houses, whereas developers and EAs use Gross Internal Area, thus there is an explainable difference. What are your reasons for believing the VOA have used an incorrect HPI (which are unreliable anyway and rarely used by the VOA)?Analyst said:The VOA are using incorrect house dimensions and house price index data (which is disallowed) to reject our request for a banding change.The VOA disallow the use of HPI because it is unreliable, but then use it as their main argument for rejecting a reduction in banding. Also the "smaller" house that has a lower banding is clearly a similar size from Google earth, the building plans and having been inside to look. It is not smaller, and if anything would sell for more than our property if it ever came on the market.
If the "smaller house" is of a similar size to yours, then the VOA may have undermeasured it and thus could be underbanded or they could have overmeasured yours. Only a site visit or viewing dimensioned builders' plans could determine which one was incorrectly measured or identified.
The implication would be that if the VOA stated property prices fell it would be relevant to the area in which the subject dwelling was situated. A fall in property prices after the antecedent valuation date would not lead to a band reduction.
As I am working backwards, a larger fall in property prices would be required to push the property into its current band.0 -
I think you are going to struggle to convince the VOA there is any merit in your caseAnalyst said:
Nationwidelincroft1710 said:
Where did you get the figure of a 4% fall from 1991 to 1995?Analyst said:
I can't get any pre 1995 prices for the area. The properties are self build and I would not trust the valuation provided by the owner when they were built, even if I could get them.lincroft1710 said:
Can you supply the VOA with evidence that property prices only fell in your area by 4% between 1991 and 1995 other than by reference to HPI?Analyst said:
Property prices only fell 4% in our region, so there is a high probability that many properties went up in value. Note that the ROA stated that property prices fell, not that they fell in our area, or even that they fell by enough to change banding.lincroft1710 said:
My last 12 years of working in the VOA were spent dealing with CT appeals. As the VOA has details of 99.9% of property sales in the country, it was easy to see how house prices were falling between 1991 and 1993/4/5 by reference to actual property sales rather than using HPIs. If it is of any use to you, in my area we established the fall between 1991 and 1995 was around 25%.Analyst said:
"The housing market was subject to a fall in prices from 1991" That is all the decline stands on. The context is that the first sale of a similar property was 1995, so that is the only price evidence I could supply. Naturally it is less than the top of the lower band, and lower by enough to have been realistically below that band in 1991. You can make it any figure you like by applying a suitable index, national, regional, local etc would all give different answers.lincroft1710 said:
Can you quote what the VOA actually have said about HPI in their reply?Analyst said:lincroft1710 said:
The VOA use Gross External Area to measure houses, whereas developers and EAs use Gross Internal Area, thus there is an explainable difference. What are your reasons for believing the VOA have used an incorrect HPI (which are unreliable anyway and rarely used by the VOA)?Analyst said:The VOA are using incorrect house dimensions and house price index data (which is disallowed) to reject our request for a banding change.The VOA disallow the use of HPI because it is unreliable, but then use it as their main argument for rejecting a reduction in banding. Also the "smaller" house that has a lower banding is clearly a similar size from Google earth, the building plans and having been inside to look. It is not smaller, and if anything would sell for more than our property if it ever came on the market.
If the "smaller house" is of a similar size to yours, then the VOA may have undermeasured it and thus could be underbanded or they could have overmeasured yours. Only a site visit or viewing dimensioned builders' plans could determine which one was incorrectly measured or identified.
The implication would be that if the VOA stated property prices fell it would be relevant to the area in which the subject dwelling was situated. A fall in property prices after the antecedent valuation date would not lead to a band reduction.
As I am working backwards, a larger fall in property prices would be required to push the property into its current band.If you are querying your Council Tax band would you please state whether you are in England, Scotland or Wales0 -
Local Borough Council: Barnet
Council Tax Band Before: F
Council Tax Band After: E
Amount refunded: £6,160 (21 years)
Annual saving going forward: £500
In contact with Barnet council as the effective date issued by the VOA is from 1993 so missing 7 years worth of refunds.
Also, surely there must be interest accrued?0 -
Some councils seem to put a limit on the number of years for which they refund, but I believe there is no legal basis for such action.AstroJay112 said:Local Borough Council: Barnet
Council Tax Band Before: F
Council Tax Band After: E
Amount refunded: £6,160 (21 years)
Annual saving going forward: £500
In contact with Barnet council as the effective date issued by the VOA is from 1993 so missing 7 years worth of refunds.
Also, surely there must be interest accrued?
Similarly there is no legal basis for any interest to be paid on refund of overpaid CT, so councils will not pay interest on refunds.If you are querying your Council Tax band would you please state whether you are in England, Scotland or Wales0 -
Wiltshire County Council
Previous band - G
Now in band -F
Refund: £3,327.70 ……!!!!!!!
saving per year from now approx £350..Slightly sceptical, I looked at the rest of the streets council tax bands to find that our house was the only one in band G. As we moved in almost 10 years ago, I thought that there was little if any chance of a refund but I sent an email to the VOA saying that I should have done this on moving in but wasn’t aware of the fact that I could and that I now was aware of my right to do so.Got a holding email back and it went quiet for a couple of months. On the date I was told that a decision would be made, we received a letter from Wiltshire council re-rating the house and detailing a £300+ refund for each year that we have owned the house.Money transferred into our bank two days after receiving the letter!
Probably made about £100 per word in my email enquiry!Well worth the effort … thankyou Martin!0 -
Just spoke to Barnet Councillincroft1710 said:
Some councils seem to put a limit on the number of years for which they refund, but I believe there is no legal basis for such action.AstroJay112 said:Local Borough Council: Barnet
Council Tax Band Before: F
Council Tax Band After: E
Amount refunded: £6,160 (21 years)
Annual saving going forward: £500
In contact with Barnet council as the effective date issued by the VOA is from 1993 so missing 7 years worth of refunds.
Also, surely there must be interest accrued?
Similarly there is no legal basis for any interest to be paid on refund of overpaid CT, so councils will not pay interest on refunds.
They agreed to refund back to 1993.
Revised figures below:
Local Borough Council: Barnet
Council Tax Band Before: F
Council Tax Band After: E
Amount refunded: £7,140 (28 years)
Annual saving going forward: £500
Thank you so much, Martin and the participants of this forum!
1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards