Council Tax - accessing VOA "evidence"

David_e

Helping a friend who lives in a 1930s brick semi.

One of the houses in the street is in a band lower than his.

The VOA say the property is identical but was "un-modernised" at 1 April 1993. They also said they had "looked at sales" around the time and, surprise, they were in the higher band.

He asked for sight of the evidence and this has been refused point blank because "It relates to a 'person' who is identified or who could be identified from the information".

That sounds like nonsense to me but I wondered if others had similar refusals and whether they had any joy overturning them.

Thanks for any contributions.

tomtontom

That is correct, they're not obliged to give you information that could identify another person - it's data protection. I'm sure your friend would appreciate the same protection if someone asked for information specifically relating to his property.

Is it just the one property that is in the lower band? If so that would indicate it is an exception to the general rule/ banding, so what the VOA say would make sense.

Alter_ego

Land registry only started to record/publish sold prices in 2000.

David_e

tomtontom wrote: »

That is correct, they're not obliged to give you information that could identify another person - it's data protection. I'm sure your friend would appreciate the same protection if someone asked for information specifically relating to his property.

Thanks. I understand the principle of data protection but the issue is the improved (or otherwise) state of a property in 1993! Not sure that is particularly personal! I can't recall but I wasn't even aware that they inspected individual properties as part of the C Tax valuation exercise. i assumed that they looked at properties apparently the same (as in this case) and applied a broad - but consistent - brush approach. That is what is puzzling.

tomtontom wrote: »

Is it just the one property that is in the lower band? If so that would indicate it is an exception to the general rule/ banding, so what the VOA say would make sense.

Yes, just this one property but, as the outside appearance is identical, it doesn't have any apparent features that would have distinguished the value!

I need to have a look at other properties in the area.

David_e

Alter_ego wrote: »

Land registry only started to record/publish sold prices in 2000.

Exactly so, which is unhelpful to say the least in the circumstances!

Alter_ego

David_e wrote: »

Exactly so, which is unhelpful to say the least in the circumstances!

Did the council say how they "Looked at sales" around 1993?

David_e

Alter_ego wrote: »

Did the council say how they "Looked at sales" around 1993?

No, indeed they did not which is why I think the blanket "personal" data refusal is nonsense (even if it is ultimately legal). As you mentioned previously house transaction prices are a matter of public record 2000 onwards.

lincroft1710

VOA will only produce evidence when there is a Tribunal hearing date as pre 1994 house prices are not in the public domain. Parliament had to give VOA special permission to divulge house prices as up the time of CT legislation, VOA had not been allowed to do so.

There may well have been an appeal on the Band B house, thus it may have been inspected at that time.

It would only take a few minutes for VOA to research sales in the area as it only needs a few keys pressing on a computer.

David_e

lincroft1710 wrote: »

It would only take a few minutes for VOA to research sales in the area as it only needs a few keys pressing on a computer.

But from what you say, there is no requirement for them to disclose? Great system!

The VOA letter says "at 1 April 1993 the property was un-modernised". Neither friend's house or this has been extended, dormer added, etc.. I can't see how telling how two apparently identical houses differ (in the broad sense like,for example, it didn't have an inside toilet) is personal info!

lincroft1710

Parliament made the rules not the VOA! It has nothing to do with data protection as details (as opposed to prices prior to 1994) of many dwellings are in the public domain.

Although I think the reasoning by the VOA for non-disclosure is flawed, it is of little consequence as the VOA are not legally required to give details of properties to third parties.

"Modernised" and "extended" are not synonyms.