Anyone Contested Their Rate Bill and Succeeded?

Ticked

[QUOTE=marathonic;71993185
The councils have a budget and the rateable value is just their fair way of distributing the cost among the residents.[/QUOTE]
Fair? How is it fair? Those of us who worked our **** off, did without fancy foreign holidays, drove a crappy car so we could move to and raise our kids in a safer and more pleasant area have cause to disagree. Because we worked to better ourselves, we are hit with unfair bills. Just because the house valuation is higher doesn't mean that any extra service is supplied. Imagine if the price of petrol was linked to your car value! Old scrappers with huge engines paying less for fuel than new fuel efficient cars.
What's next? The price of electricity, phone line and food all linked to house valuation? The Council supply a service and the cost should be the same to everyone. The current system discriminates against those who seek to improve their environment while those who are content to live in squalor get the same service for peanuts. That's fair?

qwert_yuiop

waltsalt wrote: »

Out of interest, why do you feel there shouldn't be a cap? People in expensive houses don't necessarily use more council resources or facilities. And just because someone has a high value house it doesn't necessarily mean they can afford a limitless rates bill.

One man's tax break is another man's excessive tax bill. Since the total has to be the same, those in less valuable houses are plainly paying too much so that the wealthy can get a tax break.

qwert_yuiop

Ticked wrote: »

Fair? How is it fair? Those of us who worked our **** off, did without fancy foreign holidays, drove a crappy car so we could move to and raise our kids in a safer and more pleasant area have cause to disagree. Because we worked to better ourselves, we are hit with unfair bills. Just because the house valuation is higher doesn't mean that any extra service is supplied. Imagine if the price of petrol was linked to your car value! Old scrappers with huge engines paying less for fuel than new fuel efficient cars.
What's next? The price of electricity, phone line and food all linked to house valuation? The Council supply a service and the cost should be the same to everyone. The current system discriminates against those who seek to improve their environment while those who are content to live in squalor get the same service for peanuts. That's fair?

It just means you've got a bigger house. Which of course is your choice. Short of a local income tax, what other way are they going to do it?

imagine if drivers of bigger cars were paying more in fuel duty and vehicle excise duty, imagine if those in big houses had to pay more to heat them. Actually, don't bother imagining it - that's the way it is.

qwert_yuiop

By the way, looks like we'll be paying for our gp service before too long. A clear case of an unfair cost on the unhealthy.

You could always make everyone pay the same, as tried by one M. Thatcher many years ago. From what I remember, it didn't work out too well.

joefizz

Ticked wrote: »

The Council supply a service and the cost should be the same to everyone.

Ideally, yes. How do you measure it though. Im single, live alone, recycle everything I can, have a shower not a bath installed and yet I pay the same rates as the family of 5 next door.
I fill my bin maybe once every 2-3 months, and thats pretty much all the council services I use. Pay to play would be cheaper for me, well in reality it wouldnt I'd pay the same and everyone else would pay more ;-)

If you look at the breakdown of rates, IIRC half is the regional rate which is NHS, schools etc, local government stuff, the council stuff makes up the rest.

I dare say most of the increases in the next few years will be to pay for spads, relatives and mlas burning our money in their wood chip boilers.

qwert_yuiop

You couldn't make it up - one of the spads was called brimstone.

marathonic

Ticked wrote: »

Fair? How is it fair? Those of us who worked our **** off, did without fancy foreign holidays, drove a crappy car so we could move to and raise our kids in a safer and more pleasant area have cause to disagree. Because we worked to better ourselves, we are hit with unfair bills. Just because the house valuation is higher doesn't mean that any extra service is supplied. Imagine if the price of petrol was linked to your car value! Old scrappers with huge engines paying less for fuel than new fuel efficient cars.
What's next? The price of electricity, phone line and food all linked to house valuation? The Council supply a service and the cost should be the same to everyone. The current system discriminates against those who seek to improve their environment while those who are content to live in squalor get the same service for peanuts. That's fair?

It's fair because, for the most part, those that can't afford a bigger house are those that are unlikely to be able to afford rates bills if they were split evenly based on number of households without factoring in house value.

It's also fair because someone that can afford those big houses know the associated costs well in advance of making the purchase.

I pay rates that are probably in the top quartile of the city in which I live. I knew this is what I'd be paying in advance of purchasing my house and am happy to pay for it as opposed to the potential alternatives. What do the councils do if someone in a 2-bed flat in the worst part of town can't afford their bill? Do they chase them through courts or withdraw services? It wouldn't be long before I'd see their refuse dumped along the sides of the roads around town.

Any first world economy should have those that can afford the finer things in life pay a little towards the basic cost of living of those that can't afford them - be it through higher income taxes or higher rates bills.

qwert_yuiop

marathonic wrote: »

It's fair because, for the most part, those that can't afford a bigger house are those that are unlikely to be able to afford rates bills if they were split evenly based on number of households without factoring in house value.

It's also fair because someone that can afford those big houses know the associated costs well in advance of making the purchase.

I pay rates that are probably in the top quartile of the city in which I live. I knew this is what I'd be paying in advance of purchasing my house and am happy to pay for it as opposed to the potential alternatives. What do the councils do if someone in a 2-bed flat in the worst part of town can't afford their bill? Do they chase them through courts or withdraw services? It wouldn't be long before I'd see their refuse dumped along the sides of the roads around town.

Any first world economy should have those that can afford the finer things in life pay a little towards the basic cost of living of those that can't afford them - be it through higher income taxes or higher rates bills.

Correct. It's often said that a property tax is the only one that can't be evaded, since mansions cannot be shuffled offshore to Switzerland.

We all know before we buy a house roughly how affordable the rates bill will be. Similarly, we can avoid paying high motoring costs by driving small cheap cars. It depends how flash you like to look, and how prepared you are to pay for it

x12yhp

We will likely look to contest our value, just in case the cap does come off. Having just had it valued for mortgage purposes, the rateable value is nearly double what the mortgage company would be willing to lend on!

qwert_yuiop

x12yhp wrote: »

We will likely look to contest our value, just in case the cap does come off. Having just had it valued for mortgage purposes, the rateable value is nearly double what the mortgage company would be willing to lend on!

Half the value of 2005? Structural problems?