CT rebanding refused- Help Please!

rubia1409_2

My mother lives in one of 6 identical houses, on identically sized plots of land, all built at exactly the same time. She went through the process of checking the council tax bandings for the houses and discovered that 3 of the houses were band E, whilst the other three, including hers were band F. She applied for a rebanding but has just received a letter saying that she is in the correct band. The basis of this letter seems to be that as my Mum had a small living room extention put on her house in 1979, it is worth more than the three houses that are band E. This seems very unfair as two of the band E houses have subsequently had large double storey extentions put on their houses, which have added extra rooms and doubled the size of the kitchens. They have also added conservatories all of which makes their houses worth far more than my mum's!

The letter says she can't appeal, but is there any way of challenging this decision. What should our next step be?

Thank you in advance for any help you are able to give:)

Red_dog_Sam

Appeals are only available when a formal proposal to alter the banding has been rejected. Unfortunatley, there are only a limited number of scenarios that allow a formal proposal in the first place and what's been mentioned here so far doesn't seem to fit into those categories. More info here:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/YourlocalcouncilandCouncilTax/CouncilTax/DG_10037424

Valuations are based on the market value at 1st April 1991 and properties extended after that only face a revaluation if they are sold when the new owner may find themselves in a higher band than the original owner. That may well be why the other properties are in a lower band despite having been extended since. If they are sold, they could be increased to match your mother's.

lincroft1710

rubia1409 wrote: »

My mother lives in one of 6 identical houses, on identically sized plots of land

But they're not identical houses. By your admission 3 out of the 6 have been extended.

I agree it seems a little unfair that her band is higher for what you say is a "small" extension. However if the external area of this extn is say 10 sq m, then this may easily push the 1991 value into the next band. If the extn is less than 5 sq m, then I would contact VOA again and say you don't think that the extn is large enough to push the house into the next band.

They may still disagree though.

rubia1409_2

The extention is very small. It's big enough to fit a sofa and and arm chair in, but that's about it, I'm not sure of the exact size in feet or meters. It was just to make a small living room a little bigger and more usable.

So really, the mistake my Mum made was having the extention done in 1979. If she had waited until after 1991 she could theoretically have doubled the size of the house by extending it, and stayed in the lower tax band? Have I got that right? If so, that seems very very unfair.

All the houses in the street, except my mum's have been resold at one time or another, including the very altered ones in the lower bands; both of which were sold after 1991. It seems to have had no effect on the council tax banding for them though.

Red_dog_Sam

You do have it right. A house extended after the initial valuation exercise could theoretically double in size and stay in the lower band until it is sold. That's caught out some buyers whose own bills were unexpectedly bigger than the vendors. The Valuation Office (VOA) get told about improvements to properties so they can revalue when the property changes hands. Properties extended and sold since would've been subject to such a re-assessment. If they have remained in lower bands it is the opinion of the VOA (fair or otherwise) that even taking into acount the extensions, the higher market value as at 1st April 1991 would not force the property into a higher band.
One consideration could be whether the building in the are has in any way detracted from the value of your mother's house - a huge extension overlooking the house or garden that wasn't there before might do that and if so, would it do so to the extent that the property could be considered for band E? Such a "material change" in the vacinity of a property does give grounds for a formal rebanding proposal.

rubia1409_2

Unfortunately the building that has been done on the other houses does not overlook my mum's house. We have measured the extension and it is just over 11 m sq, much smaller than the two storey extension put on last year by one of the band E properties!

rubia1409_2

Just to add, we have estimated the value of my mum's house in 1991 using Martin's estimator, and the prices the other houses sold for post 1991. According to this, we should all be in band F. Does this mean that the other properties have successfully appealed their banding as they are in a lower band? According to the estimator, the houses would have all been worth between £126000 and £134000 in 1991, and I cannot believe that my mother's extension would have been enough for her to remain in band F whilst the others were dipped to band E! I'm confused!!

agrinnall

rubia1409 wrote: »

Just to add, we have estimated the value of my mum's house in 1991 using Martin's estimator, and the prices the other houses sold for post 1991. According to this, we should all be in band F. Does this mean that the other properties have successfully appealed their banding as they are in a lower band? According to the estimator, the houses would have all been worth between £126000 and £134000 in 1991, and I cannot believe that my mother's extension would have been enough for her to remain in band F whilst the others were dipped to band E! I'm confused!!

Well, if the others had their houses revalued at just below the upper limit of band E then it's pretty likely that the extension on your mother's house would cause hers to be valued in band F. The boundary between CT bands has to come somewhere.

lincroft1710

rubia1409 wrote: »

So really, the mistake my Mum made was having the extention done in 1979. If she had waited until after 1991 she could theoretically have doubled the size of the house by extending it, and stayed in the lower tax band? Have I got that right? If so, that seems very very unfair.

Not quite as although CT is based on property values as at 1 Apr 1991, the date used for the physical state of the dwelling is 1 Apr 1993 or date of last sale whichever is later.

CT was not in existence in 1979, the decision to introduce it was not made until 1991/2. Your mother did not make any mistakes, she wanted to enlarge her property and enjoy the extra space. She couldn't foresee that CT would be introduced, she couldn't foresee 1991 house prices and nor could she foresee what the values each CT band would encompass.

rubia1409_2

I thought I'd post an update on my mum's situation, as so many of you took the time to reply and help me out.
After my mum's request for a rebanding was refused, she wrote to the council and said she was unhappy with the decision. They wrote back saying that they were of the opinion that the extension would have increased the value of her house enough to put it in a different band to the other houses. This means that in the council's opinion, the extension added about £40 000 to the price of the house! My Mum wrote back again, saying she was still unhappy, and the council replied saying that they would investigate her claim further.

By this time my mum was getting really angry with the situation, so she wrote to her MP, who passed her letter on to Baroness Hanham. My mum got quite a "snotty" (my mum's words!) reply from her, more or less saying too bad! So by this time she had virtually given up hope of getting the banding changed.
Then about two weeks ago, she got a letter from the council apologising! They said her banding was wrong, and would be back-dated to 1993! She got the cheque today!

So, to anyone else out there, it's worth taking the time to challenge the decision your council makes. For the price of a few stamps, you could be successful too!

Thank you once again to everyone who took the trouble to reply to my problem in the first place.