bonkers rateable value on house?

Smithfield

I was just looking at a house there on Property News in Stranmillis.

4 bedroom but one of the three story terraces, usually let to students etc.

It's on at 100k but the the rateable value is 230k! Could be nice when restored but the rates are insane, even compared to a 3 bedroom semi worth maybe 70% more down the road in same area?

Is there anyway to have these rates reviewed/reduced to half sane market rate?

Old_Git

Smithfield wrote: »

I was just looking at a house there on Property News in Stranmillis.

4 bedroom but one of the three story terraces, usually let to students etc.

It's on at 100k but the the rateable value is 230k! Could be nice when restored but the rates are insane, even compared to a 3 bedroom semi worth maybe 70% more down the road in same area?

Is there anyway to have these rates reviewed/reduced to half sane market rate?

you can have them reviewed but the chances off getting them reduced is slim . If only because it would open the flood gates for the neighbours. I have just sold a house in BT7 .Rateable value was £170,000 sold for £83,000 .

Smithfield

Its insane capital value is supposed to be based on market value and thats a two way street, things go up and things go down. You cant increase rates due to property prices rising and then shrug your shoulders when they go hugely down.

It would make an interesting judicial review if the LPSNI was found to be pursuing a policy of charging houses rates far above their market rate they were acting beyond their statutory powers as an agency.

House prices have to be reviewed every few years, its a nonsense to presume they will only ever go one way. Was 2005 the last review of prices?

jtk174

Info on how the rates are calculated is available here ;

http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/domestic-valuation

The page above also includes a link to a search for rate values by postcode. Might be worth having a look at other houses in the street.

Smithfield

I think its these houses are 4-5 bedroom terraces that would normally be student lets etc. If you go on propertynews theres quite a few at 100k-120k.

The rateable value is at least double market rate.

I keep trying to look at that ni direct site and lpsni and it wont load for some reason?

jtk174

Smithfield wrote: »

I think its these houses are 4-5 bedroom terraces that would normally be student lets etc. If you go on propertynews theres quite a few at 100k-120k.

The rateable value is at least double market rate.

I keep trying to look at that ni direct site and lpsni and it wont load for some reason?

I hadn't been on it for a while myself, so gave it try just now.
Using Chrome browser on Windows 7, I didn't have any problems.

I did notice that if you look up your own house details, there is a button to the bottom left of the page which states, "You can use the Submit Enquiry option to notify LPS of a change to the data held for the property or request a formal review of the capital value or NAV"

Smithfield

I was interested in how many people have done this? Is the ombudsman an option? Can someone explain this quite insane situation to me?

Capital value is linked to market value and therefore rates payable?,

So there is procedure to have this re-valued to a correct market (capital value) to within some kind of sensible level?

If they fail to do this then surely..

Either the valuation office of lpsni isn't doing its stated purpose correctly (valuing properties for capital value based on market value for the purposes of rates owed).

Or ...

if the procedure to be correctly revalued isnt properly dealt with, does this amount to a policy to incorrectly over value properties above market/capital value(raise taxation?).

If so, IMO thats LPSNI failing to act within its statutory powers by having a defacto policy which breaches the criteria set out for the proper collection of rates?

(I'm not talking about in terms of judicial review, just in a general sense).

The whole situation is bonkers. Surely there has to be a way of dealing with this?

warmhands.coldheart

From what I believe.

Houses are given a value, in this case a "Rateable/Market Value" based on 2005 valuations.
It is roughly known at that stage how much money a local Council/Authority needs to run it's services
Rates are based on a multiplier of "Rateable/Market Value".
If all houses were re-evaluated and decreased in Rateable/Market value, it won't mean the coucils will need less money, all it would mean is that the multiplier would increase proportionatly so you'd still end up paying the same in your rates.

So in essense, the Rateable value is relatively speaking just a base value to be multiplied to work out your rates bill. if your house was re-valued, so everyone elses would and the multiplier would just increase.

Only thing this would do is add cost to the Tax Payer as all houses would have to be re-valued..

wanchai_2

warmhands.coldheart wrote: »

From what I believe.

Houses are given a value, in this case a "Rateable/Market Value" based on 2005 valuations.
It is roughly known at that stage how much money a local Council/Authority needs to run it's services
Rates are based on a multiplier of "Rateable/Market Value".
If all houses were re-evaluated and decreased in Rateable/Market value, it won't mean the coucils will need less money, all it would mean is that the multiplier would increase proportionatly so you'd still end up paying the same in your rates.

So in essense, the Rateable value is relatively speaking just a base value to be multiplied to work out your rates bill. if your house was re-valued, so everyone elses would and the multiplier would just increase.

Only thing this would do is add cost to the Tax Payer as all houses would have to be re-valued..

EXACTLY. Why can't people understand this?????

highrisklowreturn

It should also be noted that houses build, or upgraded and revalued, after 2005 to 2007 would have had a boom capital value applied to them. People who live in such properties are, thanks to the government, paying a disproportionately higher figure for their property relative to their property sizes and postcodes.

But then the rates people don't bother publicising this....:money:

lazer

wanchai wrote: »

EXACTLY. Why can't people understand this?????

It isn't necessarily true - the overall effect would mean that the same amount of revenue needs to be collected, but due to the vast variations in our property markets over the last say 10 years - the rates system does result in some houses paying much more than their fair share.

Houses in the less desirable areas in NI rocketed in price during the boom as people were desperate to get on the property ladder and this was all the could afford (Think Falls road, The village, tates avenue etc).Now these were generally small terraced houses and not worth anywhere near the prices people were paying for them.

Whereas in other areas the prices did not rise as quickly or as much.

So say a small terraced house originally worth £25k in 2000, was worth £150k in 2005 (This is what is was valued at for rateable purposes), the value of it is probably now around £50k.

Another house in a more desirable area was worth £50k in 2000, its price rose to £170k in 2005 and its rateable value is based on the £170k, and yet its value has only falled by around 30% now so its now worth £120k.

So you have one house worth £50k paying rates on a value of £150k
And one house worth £120k paying rates on a value of £170k

So the second house is worth double the first and yet they are only paying slightly more rates.

The volatilty in the NI housing market and the vast differences in the movements of house prices within one borough is why the whole base needs to be reset.