Council Tax

CIS

On one occasion I was very tempted to suggest to the solicitor that he should give me 50% of his fee as I was giving him legal info which he was going to convey to his client.

I've often felt like telling people to drop the solicitor and just come to us direct , at least then they'll the get the advice for free.

In a previous role I was worked in state pensions and it was the same with many accountants - get the advice for free and then sell it on to their clients.

Lewigreg081281

I have now sent a complaint to both the estate agents and Solcitiors who dealt with the purchase.

I have received the automated response from their internal complaints procedure, however both of the actual owners of the companies are going to be dealing with the matter (apparently).

The 7 days is up for the estate agents response tomorrow and the solicitors is Friday.

No doubt they'll both try and wriggle out of it or pass the book to each other.

Lewigreg081281

Further update:

I have made a good contact at the VOA who has been really helpful and my parents are looking to get some works done in order for it to be reassessed.

In the meantime I've had a reply from the estate agents basically blaming the solicitors and saying the sellers solicitor provided a Property Information form which states that if a property has undergone improvements then it's subject to a revaluation. Therefore they feel they have no responsibility on the matter.

Obviously they know of the legislation for them to state it in their response so i've gone back to them basically saying i find it totally unacceptable that they are in now way at fault. I strongly feel that they should make customer aware particularly when asked what banding the property is.

I rang the ombudsman and they have advised me to put the complaint through them and keep chasing the estate agents for a response. So far i've had to chase them as they have already broken the timescales in acknowledging and responding to the complaint. They just don't seem interested one bit.

I've also had a response from the solicitor denying that it's their fault too. Here's the response...

I will start with your email but then make a few more comments.

In the second paragraph of your email you state that your parents have been “severely let down and misadvised by your firm”. I therefore have to view the file on the basis of whether we gave your parents the wrong advice. I have to acknowledge that we actually didn’t give your parents any advice about rating bands. We did what I had understood had always been the responsibility of Solicitors in this instance and that is we investigated title, forwarded property information and other documentation to your parents and went through it with them, made necessary searches including local search etc and as result of that made sure that any planning consents etc were granted and building regulation approval and indeed completion certificate were also in place. As well as the initial planning consent for the erection of the building we were particularly interested in the “single storey rear extension” as mentioned in the Home Buyers Report and the particulars of the property. We noted that not only did the property have planning consent for “single storey extension to rear / side dwelling including demolition of existing garage” – planning consent XXXXXXXX but a building regulation approval and completion certificate in that respect, a copy of which you have supplied to me but which particularly describes the work as “single storey rear extension” application number XXXXXXX.

It appears from reading all the documentation that the problem here is that this “single storey rear extension” has had a “flag” put against it on the VOA website which doesn’t appear on the local search. It is therefore not a planning / building regulation issue (which is what Solicitors would normally look into) but a council tax issue. I have to say that Solicitors enquiries do not normally extend to checking the government website in respect of rate reviews.

I have then looked at the other documentation that we have on file and I attach a copy of the Sellers Property Information form. I have to acknowledge on that form section 9 – Changes to the Property - does refer to the extension and there is a note (this is tiny and I feel should have been advised at the time) that states “improvements can affect council banding following a sale”. It would appear therefore that the Valuation Office having had this flagged up took no action to re-value the property while the previous owners were in occupation but then did so following the sale on the premise that just because there was an extension which could be occupied separately from the building, notwithstanding that it didn’t have any rights of access or anything else that would make it separately saleable, it should be separately rated.

I note that later in your email as well as mentioning that your parents were distraught – which I fully understand as I am not dissimilar in age to them and acknowledge that this is probably their final move, you also state “when instructing a conveyancing Solicitor it is expected that they would have full knowledge and therefore be able to advise upon any relevant laws and legislations no matter how recent or new these may be”. I note what you say but neither ourselves nor the Surveyor in the Home Buyer Report had investigated the rates issue. I suppose the Surveyor would say it is not his responsibility and would consider the financial aspects of the existence of the single storey extension and the possibility of it being separately rated, and in my case I have to say that it isn’t something that we have previously been asked or expected to deal with. I also don’t think it is a matter for the Valuation Office to comment on whether we should be expected to or not – that would be down to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and our own guidelines under the Conveyancing Quality Scheme. I have to say that I cannot find anything to support the suggestion that we are obliged to check the valuation office website where there is an extension, as surprising as that may be to you.

I could go on at length because I am very concerned for you and your parents and have to express my surprise that the Council have chosen to deal with this matter in this way and then thrown the blame on to us. Nevertheless I also acknowledge that XXXXX has endeavoured to deal with the problem post completion after it was pointed out to you. She has spoken to XXXX and obviously he has his own agenda with regard to this matter and there is little we can do about that other than think laterally which is clearly what you have been doing on behalf of your parents, I note that after discussion with XXXXXXXXX you have two options as stated in page 3 of your email i.e. removing the external access points but keeping the hob and sink, or removing the hob and sink along with the water supply thereto together with the drainage to the sink but keeping the access. I guess that if the intention of your parents is merely to use the annexe for visitors etc then the latter would be better because the kitchen would be available for those visitors. It seems at least that you can keep plumbing supplied to the en-suite.

I have prepared notes and been through all these documents but am keeping this response simple. I summarise as follows:-

1 I acknowledge all you say and note yourself, your parents, the valuation office and presumably other agencies to whom you have spoken think that Solicitors should check the VOA website and advise with regard to rates and increased rates where there are extensions.

2 My own professional organisation does not require us to do this and the paperwork which as stated above referred to a “single storey extension” didn’t point us in the direction of checking the rates situation.

3 I don’t want to appear unhelpful or unsympathetic because I am hopefully both those things. I would like to help you and I sympathise with your parents.

4 I can’t make any admission on behalf of our firm to the effect that we have done anything wrong or uphold your complaint for the reasons given, even though I take on board what you say.

I am happy to discuss this matter with you if you would care to arrange an appointment or alternatively would advise you to take independent advice from another Solicitor to see whether they agree with me. I am not sure that the Ombudsman would take the matter much further because he would normally deal with complaints about service provided by Solicitors, lack of contact etc. There is none of this here. It is effectively a question by you as to whether we have fully exercised our duty of care to your parents and whether we should have investigated and advised about the issue of council tax banding.

I look forward to hearing from you.


I am not sure where I stand everyone is blaming each other, all I know is that my mum and dad should have been informed somewhere along the line.

I have been told by the VOA and council that it's common procedure that if a property has undergone improvements it's subject to an assessment. Surely someone should have communicated this to my parents, I myself along with nearly everyone I've spoken with didn't know of this issue.

The solicitor states "It would appear therefore that the Valuation Office having had this flagged up took no action to re-value the property while the previous owners were in occupation" From what i have found out it seems common procedure for this to happen and the solicitors sound shocked at this?

They also state...

'1 I acknowledge all you say and note yourself, your parents, the valuation office and presumably other agencies to whom you have spoken think that Solicitors should check the VOA website and advise with regard to rates and increased rates where there are extensions.

I never stated this at all I merely pointed them to the VOA site to look at a similar property which was flagged up as per my parents would/should have been at the time. I simply said surely solicitors should be advising of this information to clients.

I've been told the VOA specifically publicise this info to solicitors and estate agents for them to pass onto clients.

I'm going to put another response together and then ask for the solicitors final response before taking it to the ombudsman. I did this with the estate agents and although they have denied it having to do with them the branch manager was apparently having a meeting with the owner today to discuss the matter.

Any advise or solicitors that can clarify on the matter?


Thanks

CIS

The solicitor states "It would appear therefore that the Valuation Office having had this flagged up took no action to re-value the property while the previous owners were in occupation" From what i have found out it seems common procedure for this to happen and the solicitors sound shocked at this?

That's the way it must be done - the valuation office will place a marker against a property but they can't revalue it until there has been a change of ownership either through a transfer of the property or a sale.

Lewigreg081281

I know that's what I've been told its common procedure for it to happen upon sale. It's just weird (worrying) the solicitors appear to be shocked at how it works.

Surely they should advise to their clients. I'm just afraid everyone is going to squirm there way out of it all.

CIS

I know that's what I've been told its common procedure for it to happen upon sale.

Its not so much that it's common procedure, its something the VOA have to do. Whether they actually change the band or not is another matter.

Surely they should advise to their clients. I'm just afraid everyone is going to squirm there way out of it all.

I would expect you would need to take a civil case to fight it.

jennifernil

It sounded to me like it was the fact the VOA have banded it separately that they found surprising.

As the property details did state that there had been an extension, and that a revaluation was a possibility, all the information was given. The problem is that your parents did not ask any questions regarding this.

I am very surprised to hear that so many people have no idea that improving/extending a property, and thus increasing its value, can lead to a change in its CT band.

If your parents had known that, would they still have purchased the property?

Lewigreg081281

Thanks for the replies,

If my parents would have known it was going to be banded a band A then no they wouldn't have gone through with it and they'd have seriously reconsidered if they'd have known that it would change from a C to a D to be honest.

From the way the solicitor has worded it to me sounds like they don't know that the VOA have to re-assess upon a sale. The solicitors have worded it as though they didn't take any action to change it in the past - that's because that can't until it's sold. This is the worrying bit for me and makes me think they don't know the legislation.

Having not purchased a property for over 30 years i find it hard to believe that they are at fault. I feel it's a solicitors job to bring potential issues to the forefront during the purchase.

I've had a search about on google etc and there are many posts pointing towards it being something a solicitor should advise of. I suppose I just need to find out for sure.

Either way I am going to go to the ombudsman about it.

jennifernil

Council tax only came in in 1991 I think, so about 22 years ago. Since then, we have been involved in the purchase of 2 properties, on neither occasion did the solicitors take anything to do with any aspect of CT, so they are probably correct in saying that it is not something they usually investigate.

Before CT there were Rates, and if you extended or improved your property your Rates increased immediately. When CT came in, I remember receiving information regarding, amongst other things, how extensions etc would be dealt with, i.e. that rebanding would only be carried out on change of ownership.

I cannot believe that any solicitor would be ignorant of this fact!

So you may have some grounds to complain that they had not brought this to your parents attention. However the information was there for them to read and query themselves, so that may not get them anywhere.

A move from a C to a D band is an extra £127 in our area, £171 including water and waste, have you checked how much they will have to pay? Would an extra £150/£200 really have been a deal-breaker?

The business with banding the extension separately is another matter, and something which you seem to have dealt with now. This is something which most people would be unaware of.

We ourselves have what we call a "granny flat" in our house in so far as there is an area in the house that was built, when the house was built (25 years ago), for my Mother to use. This consists of a lounge with a full kitchen off it, a bedroom, and a bathroom. To get to it you have to enter through our front door and use the (only) staircase as it is on the upper floor. All our living rooms are also on the upper floor, with bedrooms and garage below, to take best advantage of the sloping site. There is no door closing it off from our area.

It was all designed so that the "flat" could be easily used as part of the main house, the plans approved by the council etc, so they were fully aware of the layout.

There is no separate banding on the "flat", presumably as there is no direct access. We had no idea until fairly recently that this could have been a possibility. We are in band H (we are in Scotland), so the CT is high anyway.

In hindsight, it would actually have been initially advantageous to have it banded and the main banding reduced as, when it is occupied by an over 65 relative, the CT is waived, but of course now my Mother is no longer alive the opposite would be true, so perhaps it is just as well we had no idea about this!

It is presumably the fact your extension has/had both "kitchen facilities" and separate access, that allowed it to be banded separately.

lincroft1710

CT came into being on 1 Apr 1993, but is based on 1991 values in England and Scotland.

jennifernil's granny flat is so laid out in relation to the main house that a separate CT band is not possible.

The solicitor's use of terms such as "rates" and denial of being informed of an extension possibly increasing a CT band, shows a certain lack of professional knowledge and a possible ostrich attitude. However I would not expect solicitors to be aware of the possibility of a separate CT band. But I would stress that this is an opinion and no reliance should be placed on this as a basis for any action or complaint.

I doubt if you will ultimately get any joy from the solicitors other than they may get a very slight slap across the knuckles from a regulatory body.