Council tax rebanding

mitzi10tzu

In 2001 we moved to our current home, banded E following a successful challenge by the previous owners who received a refund of council tax back-dated to 1/4/93.
2 identical properties on the street are still banded F, and one of the owners has recently submitted a challenge to the Valuation Office.
As a result, the Valuation Office have written to us to say that they are going to increase our banding to F to bring us in line with the other properties.
We thought that if a challenge was successful, that was the end of the matter.
Has anyone been in a similar situation, and could anyone offer any advice on how we should handle this please?
We have 6 months to appeal against the Valuation Office's decision.

CIS

We thought that if a challenge was successful, that was the end of the matter.

The issue seems to be that the VOA have a legal duty to ensure the list is correct, even if this means amending a previous decision.

The way forward would be to ask them as to why they are revising the decision.

lincroft1710

This can happen if a second review of the band shows that original band was in fact correct and shouldn't have been reduced or new evidence is found confirming the original band was correct.

Sponge

Are they that incompetent that the band can go up and down depending on who in the VOA makes the assessment and how good they are at their job? At what point does a decision become final?

You must appeal and ask to see the evidence. Ask them to explain how they arrived at this revised, for a second time, banding and if they were wrong the first time (twice if you include the original assessment) what makes them think they're finally right this third time!

I'm due a refund that could amount to a couple of thousand pounds. The last thing I need is them getting in touch out of the blue to ask for it all back. Because I won't have it.

lincroft1710

Some years ago, when I was working in the VOA, Colleague A went off sick and Colleague B based in a different office had to do A's work as well as his own. Bands were reduced which had not been properly researched.

Upon their return to work B realised the bands should not have been reduced and increased them.

This happened to me on one occasion that someone was working on my "patch" and put 2 brand new houses in at Band A, even though around 50 very similar and identical houses were in Band B. I therefore had to increase the 2 Band A's to maintain uniformity (there was plenty of 1991 sales and other evidence to prove Band B was correct).

Where there is no direct 1991 sales evidence any valuation for CT banding is a matter of opinion based on available evidence and knowledge.

Sponge, if you receive a refund and the band is later increased, you will not be asked to repay the refund.

Show_me_da_money

I challenged the VOA and they rejected my claim despite me having provided them with a valid argument why my band should be decreased. Furthermore they said in their reply that their decision is final and cannot be challenged.... That doesn't sound right. Do I have grounds for appeal?

lincroft1710

Show_me_da_money wrote: »

I challenged the VOA and they rejected my claim despite me having provided them with a valid argument why my band should be decreased. Furthermore they said in their reply that their decision is final and cannot be challenged.... That doesn't sound right. Do I have grounds for appeal?

As it would appear from the VOA's letter that you were outside the 6 month time limit, you have no right of appeal against their decision.

BTW what were your reasons for believing your band should be reduced.

Show_me_da_money

Well, I went through the steps that are laid out in this excellent forum and followed it to a T, but they rejected it... Cant remember why as it was a while ago and I though maybe now I can come up with a fresh challenge.

Allow me a day or so to go through it again and I'll document the steps I have taken and the results I have come back with.