Allowances on old Rating system vs Council Tax

dusty1

I hope someone out there can assist me in this query:

As a result of the publicity given to Martin's Council Tax topic, I began to question the way in which the Council Tax was set up and how it differed from the old rating system. Previously with the rates, the semis along the road where I live had three different levels of rates according to the facilities available. Most of the houses had a driveway each allowing access to their garages at the end of the drive. All of these properties paid the same rates. Four other semis - of which ours is one - had one drive between 2 houses. These 2 drives were too narrow to allow a car to be parked on them without obstructing the neighbour's access to the back of their properties. These 4 semis paid a lower level of rates. One other property at the end of the road with more land to the side paid the highest rates. All of this seemed fair and equitable. The Council Tax has not taken any account of the different facilities and now all the properties are on the same band. I am also doubtful if any of these properties reached the market value for Band B in 1991 as property prices in this area were sluggish at the time. However, I am unable to confirm this now. One thing I am sure of is that properties with shared drives will sell for a lower price than their neighbours with individual drives. This seems to have been the case when one of these semis was sold in 2000.

Any ideas on whether I could take this further with my local Council? They may be unwilling to change the banding if I cannot prove the market values in 1991, but could I have grounds for requesting an annual rebate instead?

hodgester

no. rates was based on individual property values. Council Tax is based on a band of values. a shared driveway wouldn't have made so much of a difference as to effect your band unless the property's that did have their own drive were borderline-band cases.

You could ask the Valuation office (not the council) for a reconsideration if there is evidence to suggest the above.

Rebate? Absolutely no chance. Every billing year, people phone up for rebates based on all kinds of assumptions, such as they haven't used the fire brigade, they nor any of their kin are at school, they haven't seen plod in their neighbourhood and the bin men are tardy. Those calls are the highlight of the year

dusty1

Thanks hodgester for your response.

I didn't really hold out much hope of a rebate, as such, I was looking at it as more as an annual adjustment should the Council be unwilling to change my banding. I think your explanation of the difference between the way rates used to apply and the way the Council Tax moved to "banding" properties quite revealing. As the rates took account of the "rateable value" of a property and the Council Tax, as the successor to the maligned "Poll Tax" does not, then something must be wrong somewhere. The reality is that a shared drive, which is very restricting on those affected, does reflect adversly on the market value of the properties affected right now, just as as it did then. My recollection is that none of the properties where I live reached Band B values in 1991 and those properties with shared drives lagged behind their neighbours. As there are a good number of small terraced houses and cottages in this area, which would have merited Band A in 1991, it may have been considered that the larger semis with garages should have had a higher band as they would certainly have sold for more than their smaller neighbours - if not necessarily reaching beyond the limit for Band A. Unfortunately, as there were very few house sales around that time, and none at all from those in properties with shared drives, I am at a loss to know how to check my facts. I have used the site recommended using today's prices and it seems a very rough and ready calculation. However, I was able to get nearer to 1991 prices using the price achieved by the seller of one of the properties with a shared drive and this brought the market value down below band B.

I do not know where this leaves me now, as I do think the banding is unfair, particularly as a number of properties have added extensions and conservatories in the interim. I appreciate these anomalies may well be taken into account at the time of the next revaluation.

Your suggestion to look to the Valuation Office for an opinion does seem a better solution. What facts would I need to prove here as our old paperwork is no longer available?

Many thanks for your reply and apologies for the rambling reply.