Weird VOA letter

cheradenine

Hi

We bought our house in 2014. It has an annexe flat above the garage, converted in 1997. We only found out _after_ purchase that it has a separate council tax - band A - even though there was one title, one mortgage and there are only 1 set of utilities (gas, water, electricity, broadband) for our home and the annexe. 

Next door to us there is a flat above a hall of similar size, predating 1991, also Band A.

Our next door neighbours have a garage conversion - similar size but both stories, so probably double the sqft, but no separate land title - also band A.

The annexe has never been listed or sold separate to the house (last sale prior to us in the 1950s). It has been neither extended nor improved (and from what I can ascertain, largely unused before our purchase). There's no "improvement marker" on the banding site.

I have just been passed a letter (addressed to the flat council taxpayer, which currently isn't me) from the VOA that "I am reviewing your band as it might need to be changed. If your band changes I will send you formal notification, usually within one month"

Of course, review in this case has to mean "upwards". I fail to see how, nearly 25 years after the fact, it can suddenly be the case that the valuation was wrong (or: all *3* were wrong) - without any supporting evidence. It's not like there are other identical annexes to compare with; the market hasn't valued it (indeed it would need disconnecting from the heating of the house and have separate power and water supplies installed before it could even be sold, as well as some access agreement to actually get _in_ to it). If I'd bought it and found it to be Band B, I'd have immediately appealed it based on the surrounding properties.

It seems odd it's addressed to the council taxpayer not the owner - it'll be me that's ultimately on the hook. It also seems odd that, yes there's a contact, but the tone doesn't seem to invite a response. Surely for a revaluation some sort of surveyor would need to look at it ? Is this some bizarre fishing expedition, hoping that the tenant will be in fear of a band change, phone up and end up allowing a surveyor come round (that an owner would otherwise never have agreed to) ?

What to do?

theoretica

Are there any similar conversions in band B locally?  See 'The Neighbours Check' here:  https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/council-tax-bands-change/  and link to https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3274446/Fuming-residents-facing-hefty-council-tax-hike.html

lincroft1710

Addressing the letter to the CT payer is correct. The occupier of a dwelling is responsible for paying the CT not the owner. It may not be necessary for the VOA to inspect the property but even if a CT payer wouldn't agree to an inspection, it would not stop the CT band being increased if the VOA believed an increase was warranted.


It would be most unusual for the band of an annex to be increased, so the obvious and simplest thing to do is for the actual CT payer (not you) to contact the VOA  and politely ask them why they believe the band is incorrect

cheradenine

@theoretica I don't believe there are any changes, though of course they could be looking at all of them. That said, none of my band-A neighbors' properties have ever been sold, so there is no data there either.

@lincroft1710 the funny thing is, the letter makes pains to say that VOA is, effectively, nothing to do with CT and is independent (we just do valuations, guv). It just seems to me odd that the owner - to whom the CT liability will transfer should the tenant decide the increase now makes it unaffordable (or, worse, starts to default because of it) - could be completely oblivious and it very much affects them. I'd have thought the polite thing to do would be to inform both.

cheradenine

It's also possible I'm slightly tetchy about the whole CT thing since my neighbour /also/ has a huge "bungalow" annexe attached to their house with complete with a separate entrance, kitchen, etc that's rented separately and doesn't seem to be assessed for CT at all. And I know of another gigantic "house" in the locality that the ground floor can be used entirely self-contained, has entirely separate utilities, had a different _family_ living there - no separate CT.

The whole system seems to be applied very inequitably.

lincroft1710

cheradenine said:

@lincroft1710 the funny thing is, the letter makes pains to say that VOA is, effectively, nothing to do with CT and is independent (we just do valuations, guv). It just seems to me odd that the owner - to whom the CT liability will transfer should the tenant decide the increase now makes it unaffordable (or, worse, starts to default because of it) - could be completely oblivious and it very much affects them. I'd have thought the polite thing to do would be to inform both.

No. The VOA will only deal with the current CT payer of a dwelling, as CT legislation only permits the current CT payer to query (or appeal, if in time) the band. If in the future, you become the CT payer then you would have the right of appeal.

lincroft1710

cheradenine said:

It's also possible I'm slightly tetchy about the whole CT thing since my neighbour /also/ has a huge "bungalow" annexe attached to their house with complete with a separate entrance, kitchen, etc that's rented separately and doesn't seem to be assessed for CT at all. And I know of another gigantic "house" in the locality that the ground floor can be used entirely self-contained, has entirely separate utilities, had a different _family_ living there - no separate CT.

The whole system seems to be applied very inequitably.

Well, if you know about these extra dwellings' instead of being tetchy and complaining of inequitableness, why not simply share your knowledge with the VOA. The VOA are not all-seeing and all-knowing. Unless the conversion(s) went through planning and the council informed the VOA, most probably the VOA will not be aware of them.