Reclaim overpaid council tax

n3phi1im

Lets say your house was a one bedroom bungalow in 1991, but is now dormer-ed, with 4 bedrooms and two bathrooms. Most of the bungalows on the street have been expanded.

Can an appeal result in an INCREASE in band??

lincroft1710

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81988123#Comment_81988123

It is 1 April 1993 or date of the last sale (if later) that is the relevant date not 1991. A CT band cannot be increased on account of works carried out by the current owner after 1 April 1993. So it will depend on when the extensions were carried out and who was the owner at the time.

mexrob

Apologies if this sort of scenario already covered.. but came here after MSE latest council tax challenge piece. Looking for advice.

In short.. my postcode lists nine properties, all barring one are exactly the same victorian terrace houses. Five (incl. mine) are listed band C and four are band B. Noting Martin's two-part check, first it's easy to see roughly the same sale prices achieved when i bought mine: in the first quarter 2008 mine was 203k, another 172k and another was 212k. The latter, the most expensive, is actually one of the lower band B properties! Checking the 1991 calculator, it suggests my property that year was worth 62k which is firmly in band C for my area. However.. evidence shows my house sold for 51K six years later in 1997 (which would have = band B). I guess my questions are: a) was there such a decline in property prices in that period to explain how that could have dropped? and b) how can eight basically identical properties in the same row / postcode be in different bands?

In summary, is it worth pursuing or just accept? I also wouldn't want to be responsible for a re-banding upwards of the neighbours' places (as mentioned in MSE as a risk). Thanks for any advice!

lincroft1710

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81989507#Comment_81989507

Many areas showed house prices falling sharply from 1991 to 1995, then starting to recover, so possibly by 1997, prices were still below 1991 levels. Only the VOA can answer why there is different banding. Given the evidence you have provided I think the VOA would just say the houses in Band B were probably in the wrong band

Lulies30

Apologies if this has been covered. I've looked through the feed and couldn't find anything.

I moved in July 2025 to a Band D house. A couple of weeks ago I got a letter saying it's moving to Band F "because the property has been sold and the improvements made to the property prior to the sale have affected its Council Tax banding". I assume the improvement they mean is the loft conversion done by the previous owners, which takes us from three bedrooms to four.

The issue is how that compares to the rest of the street. There are about 15 houses, not all identical but similar. Ours is much like next door's three-bed, and they're still Band D (so I accept some uplift on ours is fair). However, there are also a few houses on the street with 4/5 five bedrooms and a significantly larger footprint, and those are Band E.

So we're now the highest banded property on the street, even though several would be valued at a good deal more than ours.

Is that a strong enough basis to appeal, or is "my neighbours in a bigger house are banded lower" not an argument the VOA entertains? It's £100 a month, so worth the effort if there's a realistic chance.

lincroft1710

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82139952#Comment_82139952

It is worth appealing on that basis. Downside is possibility VO may increase the Band E houses to Band F

Roadster11

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75554699#Comment_75554699

I challenged my council tax band with the corrupt VOA as the houses across the street from me were on the same Band E as me yet they were bigger in that they had double bay fronts with the front door in the middle whereas mine was a single bay front with the front door to the side.

They dismissed my first challenge but while they were deciding I submitted a Subject Access Request which revealed they had my property recorded as a 4 Bed 1 bath property when it was in fact a 3 Bed 1 bath property. This was due to the "2nd Gear valuation" in Wales where they did a drive by valuation resulting in approximately 25% or more of the valuations placing a property in a higher band than it should be.

I informed the VOA they had the wrong information about my property and changed it to 3 Bed 1 bath without visiting the property which leads me to believe they knew all along that it was in the wrong band.

On receiving the information that it was a 3 Bed 1 bath they decided to review my band again. Again, they dismissed my challenge and the VOA Officer who made the decision on the first challenge reviewed her own decision. HMRC Code of Governance point 11 states the person who reviews a decision cannot have had any involvement in the original decision.

The VOA know about this and have done NOTHING so I have had to go to the Adjudicators, the whole system is corrupt as a previous poster said they would lose too much money if they reduced ALL the properties that are wrongly banded.

The VOA could rectify it as their rounding down method on Business Rates is not compliant with gov.uk guidelines as they advise you should round up or down to the nearest five, but they won't as they will just continue to make the Council Tax payer subsidise the Business Rates payer.

There are 2,140,000 business rate records and I did a sample of 10 which resulted in a £3945 rounding deficit, Divide 2140000 by 10 = 214000 x £3945 = £844,230,000 business rates revenue deficit per year which would easily cover the amount needed to refund the Council Tax payers on a higher band than they should be

Roadster11

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75549673#Comment_75549673

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75548781#Comment_75548781

I challenged my council tax band with the corrupt VOA as the houses across the street from me were on the same Band E as me yet they were bigger in that they had double bay fronts with the front door in the middle whereas mine was a single bay front with the front door to the side. They dismissed my first challenge but while they were deciding I submitted a Subject Access Request which revealed they had my property recorded as a 4 Bed 1 bath property when it was in fact a 3 Bed 1 bath property. This was due to the "2nd Gear valuation" in Wales where they did a drive by valuation resulting in approximately 25% or more of the valuations placing a property in a higher band than it should be.

I informed the VOA they had the wrong information about my property and changed it to 3 Bed 1 bath without visiting the property which leads me to believe they knew all along that it was in the wrong band.

On receiving the information that it was a 3 Bed 1 bath they decided to review my band again. Again they dismissed my challenge and the VOA Officer who made the decision on the first challenge reviewed her own decision. HMRC Code of Governance point 11 states the person who reviews a decision cannot have had any involvement in the original decision.

The VOA know about this and have done NOTHING so I have had to go to the Adjudicators, the whole system is corrupt as a previous poster said they would lose too much money if they reduced ALL the properties that are wrongly banded.

The VOA could rectify it as their rounding down method on Business Rates is not compliant with gov.uk guidelines as they advise you should round up or down to the nearest five, but they won't as they will just continue to make the Council Tax payer subsidise the Business Rates payer.

There are 2,140,000 business rate records and I did a sample of 10 which resulted in a £3945 rounding deficit, Divide 2140000 by 10 = 214000 x £3945 = £844,230,000 business rates revenue deficit per year which would easily cover the amount needed to refund the Council Tax payers on a higher band than they should be

lincroft1710

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82161692#Comment_82161692

Just because a property is smaller than others in the same CT band, does not automatically make its band incorrect

VO receive nothing from either CT or BR, they are part of HMRC and are funded by central government. Monies collected from CT goes directly to the council involved, BR monies go to the government who redistribute it back to councils. So your "solution" is flawed

Using a sample of 10 out of 2.14 million is hardly indicative of anything. A10% sample may be useful.