bonkers rateable value on house?

saverbuyer

lazer wrote: »

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.

Some good points but 2005 is the set point.

There was supposed to be a revaluation of all properties this year but our useless politicians decided to push this back to save money. This would have addressed some of the concerns.

There's also the issue of a rates cap. The cap is at 450,000. If you value is over this you don't pay more.

saverbuyer

highrisklowreturn wrote: »

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:

The valuation can be challenged if they have evidence of similar properties sold for less in 2005.

lazer

saverbuyer wrote: »

The valuation can be challenged if they have evidence of similar properties sold for less in 2005.

But we can't get the evidence as we don't have access to sold prices (unlike england)

saverbuyer

lazer wrote: »

But we can't get the evidence as we don't have access to sold prices (unlike england)

Sometimes you could be lucky and the land registry has recorded the figure but your 100% right, we are the only region in UK and Ireland without access to this data.

What are the politicians trying to hide I wonder?

The problem with all this is also the fact that land and property use evidence of unchallenged valuations as evidence of yours being correct if you come to challenge it. Say you buy a house and want to argue you valuation is wrong, the LPS will site local examples of similar house with similar valuations and say well this is unchallenged so must be right.

People loved to think they had all this free money in 2005 with rising house prices so didn't challenge the value. Stupid really.

wanchai_2

lazer wrote: »

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.

OK, but seriously, does that really warrant a revaluation? Just because some people bought at too high a price, we all have to pay for a revaluation? Anyway, a lot of the properties that have fallen the most (flats etc) are unoccupied.

saverbuyer wrote: »

Some good points but 2005 is the set point.

There was supposed to be a revaluation of all properties this year but our useless politicians decided to push this back to save money. This would have addressed some of the concerns.

There's also the issue of a rates cap. The cap is at 450,000. If you value is over this you don't pay more.

And for once they were right!! They waste insane amounts of money on stupid schemes. e.g. if they stopped giving away your (and my) money after every flood to f.eckless eejits who CBA getting house insurance, that would save a few quid! :mad:

lazer wrote: »

But we can't get the evidence as we don't have access to sold prices (unlike england)

*ahem*

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=57586897&postcount=400

lazer

wanchai wrote: »

OK, but seriously, does that really warrant a revaluation? Just because some people bought at too high a price, we all have to pay for a revaluation? Anyway, a lot of the properties that have fallen the most (flats etc) are unoccupied.

Yes it does - because the base valuations are next to useless now!


And for once they were right!! They waste insane amounts of money on stupid schemes. e.g. if they stopped giving away your (and my) money after every flood to f.eckless eejits who CBA getting house insurance, that would save a few quid! :mad:

Agreed! - no money for flooding unless the flooding is due to the failure of some part or other of the goverment: ie - no drains cleared etc



*ahem*

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=57586897&postcount=400

You can't it broken down by street etc (at least I don't think you can!) Postcodes cover a wide variety of areas - for example BT9, cover the very affluent Malone Road as well the student parts!

wifeforlife

I've pm'd the OP, but a small note to be made.

A lot of people when LPS changed to the capital value system in 2007 benefited from the system being decided on from 2005 as their valuation was lower than what their house was now worth at the peak. When people bought houses for 80k then sold for 375k in 2008, there was no rush to ask for a reval then.

I'm still arguing with them over my own property, it was a new build in 2009, nightmare as evidence to prove LPS wrong is hard and I work there lol

It's swings and roundabouts, what the take off on one hand they'll add in somewhere else.

leftieM

I have heard of a crowd in Stranmillis who are, via a lawyer, arguing that their rates are too high because house prices have fallen. These are educated people and yet do not grasp the fundamentals of the capital value.
It decides the slice of the money pie that you contribute. It is based on the value of your house relative to others. They could fiddle all the numbers to show a 60% drop or whatever it is, you will still pay the same as the total rates collected will stay the same.
The only time it's worth arguing is if your house is way more than your neighbours'.

warmhands.coldheart

leftieM wrote: »

I have heard of a crowd in Stranmillis who are, via a lawyer, arguing that their rates are too high because house prices have fallen. These are educated people and yet do not grasp the fundamentals of the capital value..

so argueing their Rates are too high but are still happy to pay a lawyer to argue their case. if they get their way, then technically every other person in hte area would have a right ot have their house re-valued and so it opens a whole can of worms.....

Smithfield

Even within stranmillis you have vastly different situations.

For example some of the semis at the bottom are within 20% of 2005 rateable values on the market, lot of the terraces too at the top are within that range.

If there is a figure of money needed that's fine, but the criteria for that figure should be based on a sensible system. As it stands I could buy two houses both in the same area, both say for 100k. One rates bill would be virtually twice that of the other building.

I agree on houses put into a price bracket during boom times (especially in east belfast) that really shouldnt be anywhere near that figure. Really what should happen is have properties based on a current capital/market value and then reset the multiplier to fund the amount of money needed.