House prices down 30-50%...why not rates?

motorguy

saverbuyer wrote: »

It’s worth pointing out that some commentators (RICS, several estate agents and media commentators) suggest we are now at 2003 pricing levels and still falling (15%+ last year). For anyone getting RV set on a new build I would seriously be looking to challenge the valuation if you’re unhappy. I know people who have done exactly this. You can provide comparable to LPS. No point paying for ridiculous rates like some here have mentioned just so you can have a meaningless rateable value. 2005 is the point of reference. All properties on the list and indeed newly rated properties are based on their value in 2005.

I'm surprised by this as other people in this thread - and in my experience - are saying that they wont revalue?

saverbuyer

pgilc1 wrote: »

I'm surprised by this as other people in this thread - and in my experience - are saying that they wont revalue?

It is completely possible. You have to provide LPS with the relevant facts to support your case. The key being comparables. If you know of similar specification properties build around 2004 - 2005 check their RV. If there are significant swings you should present this to LPS as evidence. It doesn't really matter that prices are now at 2003-1004 levels because 2005 is the reference point for setting RV on all properties. If your new valuation is much higher that you would have expected the house to sell for in exactly 2005 you can get it revalued. As with all government departments I think the key here is to do the work for them and provide all the evidence possible to support you case.

Of course if you believe the RV will always be over 400k the exercise (at the moment though with budget cuts and the possible of the rates cap being removed) will be largely pointless because rates are capped.

saverbuyer

A.L.D.A wrote: »

If we want lower rates we have to ensure our councils spend less! Perhaps time for a reconsideration of what councils do?

I couldn't agree with this more. I personally think our local council are an unnecessary section of government. I remember reading a few years back it costs 400 million per year for our councils to operate. If we're honest apart from the local bin collection very few of us will even deal with this level of government. It seems to be mostly there to provide public sector employment for non-jobs like traveller support offers and community development co-ordinators.

We have very little scrutiny over our councils. I know mines appears to be run by the council officers with numerous dodgy land deals going on during the boom in mine.

doublee

saverbuyer wrote: »

I couldn't agree with this more. I personally think our local council are an unnecessary section of government. I remember reading a few years back it costs 400 million per year for our councils to operate. If we're honest apart from the local bin collection very few of us will even deal with this level of government. It seems to be mostly there to provide public sector employment for non-jobs like traveller support offers and community development co-ordinators.

We have very little scrutiny over our councils. I know mines appears to be run by the council officers with numerous dodgy land deals going on during the boom in mine.

What a total ignorant statement!
What about Leisure Cenres, Parks and playing fields, street cleaning, births, deaths, marriages, dog wardens, pest control, food safety.
I could go on an on about the things we take for granted!

saverbuyer

doublee wrote: »

What a total ignorant statement!
What about Leisure Cenres, Parks and playing fields, street cleaning, births, deaths, marriages, dog wardens, pest control, food safety.
I could go on an on about the things we take for granted!

It isn't really ignorant. I've rarely if ever used any of the other services. We don't take anything for granted. We pay for the services through a significant rates bill. Is it wrong to ask "can these services be provided cheaper somewhere else? Are synergies available with other levels of government?" There are people out there who would rather not subsidise some of the services above because we make little if any use of them. It's about value for money, and I'm not alone in thinking we don't get it at council level.

highrisklowreturn

doublee wrote: »

What a total ignorant statement!
What about Leisure Cenres, Parks and playing fields, street cleaning, births, deaths, marriages, dog wardens, pest control, food safety.
I could go on an on about the things we take for granted!

LOL


Leisure centres, which are subsidised by the taz payer but which are still more expensive than private gyms, public parks for which there is no need, deaths dogs wardens (lol), what a load of sh it. You're simply paying for boxes to be ticked and gay rights equality officers and stop deluding yourself that your rates give you any type of service:money:

warmhands.coldheart

highrisklowreturn wrote: »

LOL


Leisure centres, which are subsidised by the taz payer but which are still more expensive than private gyms, public parks for which there is no need, deaths dogs wardens (lol), what a load of sh it. You're simply paying for boxes to be ticked and gay rights equality officers and stop deluding yourself that your rates give you any type of service:money:

Leisure centres, which are subsidised by the tax payer but which are still more expensive than private gyms because there are far far too many of them due to continued community segregation, public parks for which there is a need, for our kids to play in, for people to relax in, walk in and enjoy what a load of sh it if you think otherwise. Stop deluding yourself that your rates give you all the services you want but then they give us all something of what we want!!

doublee

saverbuyer wrote: »

It isn't really ignorant. I've rarely if ever used any of the other services. We don't take anything for granted. We pay for the services through a significant rates bill. Is it wrong to ask "can these services be provided cheaper somewhere else? Are synergies available with other levels of government?" There are people out there who would rather not subsidise some of the services above because we make little if any use of them. It's about value for money, and I'm not alone in thinking we don't get it at council level.

The point is, pepole dont know they use half of it, not just the public facing services such as leisure centres or parks.
We would all be the first to complain if our streets werent cleaned, the cemetries not maintained or we came down with food posining because nobody was inspecting our local take away for food hygiene etc.

saverbuyer

warmhands.coldheart wrote: »

Leisure centres, which are subsidised by the tax payer but which are still more expensive than private gyms because there are far far too many of them due to continued community segregation, public parks for which there is a need, for our kids to play in, for people to relax in, walk in and enjoy what a load of sh it if you think otherwise. Stop deluding yourself that your rates give you all the services you want but then they give us all something of what we want!!

My issue is that if we got rid of all the money wasting crap and all the useless non-job we would be able to get lots of what we want. Perhaps if councils employed some private sector cost cutting we wouldn't have small business failing because they can't afford the business rates. Maybe we'd have actual functioning high streets without all those voids.

doublee

saverbuyer wrote: »

My issue is that if we got rid of all the money wasting crap and all the useless non-job we would be able to get lots of what we want. Perhaps if councils employed some private sector cost cutting we wouldn't have small business failing because they can't afford the business rates. Maybe we'd have actual functioning high streets without all those voids.

The cost cutting was supposed to come in the proposed reform of local government forNorthern Ireland, reducing the councils from 26 to 11.
But as usuall our politicians couldnt agree! The NI executive couldnt agree on the new boundaries of the councils.