How much was my house worth in 1991??

darich

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Unfortunately if assessor does have actual 91 sale(s) as evidence, it's considered more pertinent than 87, 94 or 96 evidence. As your property is a bungalow I presume the evidence used by both yourself and assessor is of bungalows. If nearby bungalows of same size as yours are same band and assessor believes he's right then that's it, I'm afraid. Although he's actually not supposed to disclose full sales details where there has not been a valid appeal, he could say "bungalow of similar size, 3 beds within x metres radius sold for £x in early 91". He's not obliged to, and FOI certainly does not apply.

Thanks lincroft
He and I have access to the same information. I spent an entire night on the Register of Scotland website and paid for the info I sent him. I was only interested in bungalows identical to mine and i know the addresses of them. He may have sales in 1991 but the houses are not the same as mine.
The prices I referred to are of properties identical to mine (or in some cases larger due to extensions) and the information is exactly as he has at his disposal too.

I've just noticed on the SAA website that the local government act 1975 provides that an appeal may be made at any time on the grounds "that there is such an error in the entry as is referred to in Section 2(1)(f)" of the Act.

I now need to read the act a few times and use that ton convince them that at the very least my house should be re-assessed. I realise that won't necessarily guarantee a change in the banding but it might be all I can hope for now.

Thoughts?

lincroft1710

Are you sure of date of this LGA as this predates CT by some 17 yrs and cannot therefore relate to CT appeals.

darich

the original LGA was 1975 but there have been several amendments to it since. I believe the clause i referred to is in the 2003 amendment.

margaretclare

Hello

Haven't read the rest of the thread, but in 1991 prices were on their way down. For example, I bought this 2-bed bungalow in 1990 for £58K. It had already been reduced from £61K. It's in 'C' band. I did apply for the banding to be reduced a couple of years later, when prices were still falling, but didn't succeed. So, £58K was C band.

lincroft1710

Darich - sorry to be a pain but could you pl give me link to this legislation, as I can't seem to find it.

darich

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Darich - sorry to be a pain but could you pl give me link to this legislation, as I can't seem to find it.

The Scottish Assessor's website refers to it here
and the clauses referred to are detailed here

Although the act is from 1975 many of the amendments and alterations are dated post 1990.

lincroft1710

darich - the legislation would appear to relate to non domestic valuations rather than CT. It refers to errors of assessment where there are incorrect facts relating to a property or clerical error has occurred, not the valuation itself.

darich

I can't see anywhere on either page where it states it is for non-domestic rates.
The fact that it refers to errors about the property rather than the valuation is not a problem as far as i can see. I think my house has been banded the same as the other larger houses in my area, partly because my garden is quite large.
But identical houses within 250m (sometimes larger due to extensions) are banded lower than mine.

Even if you're right in what you say, am I now beaten in my appeal?
I've been to appeal and their response was "the assessor says it's more than 6months and therefore invalid and will not even be looked at" - paraphrased of course!

Do i now have to admit defeat? But what about all the other people who have had their banding changed after several years and receive a cheque for over one thousand pounds?

Would appreciate any advice!

lincroft1710

darich - in the left hand margin on the page I found from the SAA link you provided it says Non Domestic Valuation and under this are several sub headings including "Error and MCC". In any case even it did apply to CT to elaborate on my previous post, it does not mean a perceived error of valuation due to opinion, which is what bands are, an opinion of value of domestic property as at 1 April 1991, based on facts known about that property and relevant sales evidence.

If a dwelling built prior to 1 Apri 1993 is extended after that date, the CT band cannot be increased until a sale has taken place. Thus you may well find larger properties with lower bands. Assessor may not even know some of these have been extended. If you've not already done so you can give assessor addresses of these properties, which I presume are all bungalows and ask why they are lower. You can ask that someone comes out and remeasures your property to make sure they have correct details.

However it may be other bungalows' bands are in fact too low and if that is the case, assessor could well increase their bands.

If assessor reasserts your band is correct then that is THE END. There is no way you can now make a valid proposal. WELLLLLLLL, there may be and I will stress MAY BE. In certain exceptional circumstances a proposal can be made. These circumstances are known as "material reduction". If there is a physical change in the locality which would reduce the value of a dwelling a proposal can be made. But this has got to be something major like a new motorway at bottom of garden, or a 24 hr petrol station built next door - your neighbour parking his touring caravan in his front garden isn't a physical change. Further this change needs to have occurred after 1 April 1993, or if your home was built after this date e.g. 24 July 2001, then change has to have occurred after 24 July 2001 - you could not make a proposal in respect of a change which happened in April 2001.

I have simplified a lot of the above to make easier to understand and although it is given in good faith I accept no responsibility for any consequences.

darich

Thanks lincroft.
I realise that the banding cannot change simply by adding an extension but not all the houses i used as a comparison were extended after they were sold. By that I mean they're identical to mine but larger due to an extension or double garage but still banded lower than me.

I have already supplied the addresses of the other bungalows. They were all built at the same time as part of my estate and were made by the same builder.

My house has not has a material reduction in value and I'm not arguing so. If my band is deemed correct then i cannot understand how the other identical/larger houses can also be deemed correct but in a different band. If the other houses were increased then at least I'd have some satisfactipon in noticing a mistake even if i didn't get a reduction!!!

And despite your disclaimer at the bottom of your post it wouldn't even occur to me that you'd be responsible for my actions (or lack of). That's down to me - I'm just looking for some advice and opinion.
Thankfully you're giving it.


I'll need to check the previous correspondence and see if it actually states that my banding is considered correct or if they've simply taken a stance that I'm late with my appeal.

I'll let you know....but in the mean time if you come up with any useful nuggets please pass them on.

thanks