Council tax banding

lincroft1710

Kuga247 said:

We had a similar situation we moved into a bungalow which had a en-suite some one in estate agents described as could be a annex some bright spark at council apparently they check properties going on market picked up on this and when we moved in we got two tax bills one for (annex) and one for bungalow it took months to sort out sending  pictures and declarations we had two bills one f and one a bands now we are in g trying to get where it should be f tribunal in May 

We are now at Page 14 of this thread and this is the first time you have actually referred to the background of your case, which appears to have been originally 1 dwelling Band F, then apparently erroneously 2 dwellings Band F and Band A, then 1 dwelling Band G. Or was it 2 bands when you first moved in?.


If you had said this in the first place it would have given a much clearer picture of the situation

Kuga247

No that’s sorted now the tribunal is for my band which they put into g when they realised I didn’t have a annex now you must understand why I am so frustrated with the system hope this makes more sense 

Purlain

lincroft1710 said:

Purlain said:

lincroft1710 said:

Kuga247 said:

Thanks for that I have used it and I will put it in my bundle for the tribunal I am submitting 5 comparable bungalows which where lowered in the 1990s and five which are in my present band but a lot bigger I am at a loss why previous owner’s didn’t dispute banding when it was set in 1991/1993 there must be thousands who haven’t 

When I was in the VOA and started dealing with CT appeals in 1993, I calculated only 8% had bothered to appeal in the areas our office dealt with.

Great to have someone from VOA sharing the inside information
Does this mean when VOA reject the challenge, it is just a bluff from them knowing most of the people won't bother to appeal?

It shouldn't be, my earlier post answers the question in more detail.

The reason I said they were bluffing is because when my challenge was rejected, I actually emailed them to ask for more explanation, they emailed back with more explanation, I then emailed again with more evidence to prove they were wrong, then the next email I got from them was just to advise me to go to tribunal. So I was under the impression that they were just rejecting everything regardless how wrong you prove they are because they know vast majority of people don't like going to the legal proceedings without a lawyer and the legal costs to hire a lawyer mostly outweigh the financial benefits of reducing the tax band by one or two levels. 

Kuga247

Interesting are you going to tribunal 

Purlain

Purlain said:

lincroft1710 said:

Purlain said:

lincroft1710 said:

Kuga247 said:

Thanks for that I have used it and I will put it in my bundle for the tribunal I am submitting 5 comparable bungalows which where lowered in the 1990s and five which are in my present band but a lot bigger I am at a loss why previous owner’s didn’t dispute banding when it was set in 1991/1993 there must be thousands who haven’t 

When I was in the VOA and started dealing with CT appeals in 1993, I calculated only 8% had bothered to appeal in the areas our office dealt with.

Great to have someone from VOA sharing the inside information
Does this mean when VOA reject the challenge, it is just a bluff from them knowing most of the people won't bother to appeal?

It shouldn't be, my earlier post answers the question in more detail.

The reason I said they were bluffing is because when my challenge was rejected, I actually emailed them to ask for more explanation, they emailed back with more explanation, I then emailed again with more evidence to prove they were wrong, then the next email I got from them was just to advise me to go to tribunal. So I was under the impression that they were just rejecting everything regardless how wrong you prove they are because they know vast majority of people don't like going to the legal proceedings without a lawyer and the legal costs to hire a lawyer mostly outweigh the financial benefits of reducing the tax band by one or two levels. 

So VOA must know most of people won't go to the tribunal. Wouldn't it save them time to just send an simple email with a rejection and one sentence of explanation, then case closed and job done, when the extremely small amount of cases do go to tribunal, then they will spend time doing the proper investigation and explanation which should have been done in the first place, when they eventually find out you are right, they can simply contact you one day before the hearing to offer the lower band to avoid losing the case and leaving a bad mark on their record.
Maybe I am wrong on the above assumption, but I was put under this impression by VOA's reaction.

Purlain

Kuga247 said:

Interesting are you going to tribunal 

Yes, hearing is at the beginning of May.

lincroft1710

Purlain said:

Purlain said:

lincroft1710 said:

Purlain said:

lincroft1710 said:

Kuga247 said:

Thanks for that I have used it and I will put it in my bundle for the tribunal I am submitting 5 comparable bungalows which where lowered in the 1990s and five which are in my present band but a lot bigger I am at a loss why previous owner’s didn’t dispute banding when it was set in 1991/1993 there must be thousands who haven’t 

When I was in the VOA and started dealing with CT appeals in 1993, I calculated only 8% had bothered to appeal in the areas our office dealt with.

Great to have someone from VOA sharing the inside information
Does this mean when VOA reject the challenge, it is just a bluff from them knowing most of the people won't bother to appeal?

It shouldn't be, my earlier post answers the question in more detail.

The reason I said they were bluffing is because when my challenge was rejected, I actually emailed them to ask for more explanation, they emailed back with more explanation, I then emailed again with more evidence to prove they were wrong, then the next email I got from them was just to advise me to go to tribunal. So I was under the impression that they were just rejecting everything regardless how wrong you prove they are because they know vast majority of people don't like going to the legal proceedings without a lawyer and the legal costs to hire a lawyer mostly outweigh the financial benefits of reducing the tax band by one or two levels. 

 Wouldn't it save them time to just send an simple email with a rejection and one sentence of explanation, then case closed and job done, when the extremely small amount of cases do go to tribunal, then they will spend time doing the proper investigation and explanation which should have been done in the first place, when they eventually find out you are right, they can simply contact you one day before the hearing to offer the lower band to avoid losing the case and leaving a bad mark on their record.
Maybe I am wrong on the above assumption, but I was put under this impression by VOA's reaction.

Aspects of both appeals and tribunal procedure have changed since I was in the VOA, so I really can't say whether what you suggest would be feasible. Even if the VOA sent out a reason, the CT payer may well not accept this.


When I was dealing with CT appeals, the priority was dealing with cases which had a date for a tribunal hearing. Often it wasn't possible to look at freshly received appeals. In those days the tribunal would be advised of the appeals received by the VOA and would arrange a venue for a hearing at least once a month (except in August) for those appeals which had not been settled. There would usually be upwards of 30 CT appeals listed for a hearing. It was often 6 moths from appeal receipt to hearing date. So the first time most appeals were looked at was when they were listed for a hearing.


Whether the same happens today, I don't know,


You can of course ask the VOA for their views on your suggestion. But I would doubt if it hasn't been thought of before and rejected for good reason and that you would receive a meaningful response. 

lincroft1710

Purlain said:

lincroft1710 said:

Purlain said:

lincroft1710 said:

Kuga247 said:

Thanks for that I have used it and I will put it in my bundle for the tribunal I am submitting 5 comparable bungalows which where lowered in the 1990s and five which are in my present band but a lot bigger I am at a loss why previous owner’s didn’t dispute banding when it was set in 1991/1993 there must be thousands who haven’t 

When I was in the VOA and started dealing with CT appeals in 1993, I calculated only 8% had bothered to appeal in the areas our office dealt with.

Great to have someone from VOA sharing the inside information
Does this mean when VOA reject the challenge, it is just a bluff from them knowing most of the people won't bother to appeal?

It shouldn't be, my earlier post answers the question in more detail.

The reason I said they were bluffing is because when my challenge was rejected, I actually emailed them to ask for more explanation, they emailed back with more explanation, I then emailed again with more evidence to prove they were wrong, then the next email I got from them was just to advise me to go to tribunal. So I was under the impression that they were just rejecting everything regardless how wrong you prove they are because they know vast majority of people don't like going to the legal proceedings without a lawyer and the legal costs to hire a lawyer mostly outweigh the financial benefits of reducing the tax band by one or two levels. 

A lawyer would be of little help as the majority know little or nothing of CT legislation and the banding process. More useful would be a surveyor who is an expert on CT and banding matters. But I never came across any appeals where a CT payer was professionally represented. All the CT payers I encountered at tribunal hearings were  able to present cogent cases.


In the vast majority of tribunal appeals the only thing that is discussed is whether the banding is correct or not. Reference may be made to previous tribunal appeals but there is hardly any reference to legislation. One of the reasons in the early days that people didn't proceed with their appeals was that they believed if they filled in a form they would automatically get a reduction. When they realised they had to do some work, they soon lost interest.

lincroft1710

Kuga247 said:

No that’s sorted now the tribunal is for my band which they put into g when they realised I didn’t have a annex now you must understand why I am so frustrated with the system hope this makes more sense 

So when you bought the bungalow, was it already a Band F and annex at Band A. Or was it a Band F and the VOA served a notice to split it into two. Because if it was already a Band F and a Band A when you bought, I can see why they decided on a Band G.

Jude57

lincroft1710 said:

Purlain said:

lincroft1710 said:

Purlain said:

lincroft1710 said:

Kuga247 said:

Thanks for that I have used it and I will put it in my bundle for the tribunal I am submitting 5 comparable bungalows which where lowered in the 1990s and five which are in my present band but a lot bigger I am at a loss why previous owner’s didn’t dispute banding when it was set in 1991/1993 there must be thousands who haven’t 

When I was in the VOA and started dealing with CT appeals in 1993, I calculated only 8% had bothered to appeal in the areas our office dealt with.

Great to have someone from VOA sharing the inside information
Does this mean when VOA reject the challenge, it is just a bluff from them knowing most of the people won't bother to appeal?

It shouldn't be, my earlier post answers the question in more detail.

The reason I said they were bluffing is because when my challenge was rejected, I actually emailed them to ask for more explanation, they emailed back with more explanation, I then emailed again with more evidence to prove they were wrong, then the next email I got from them was just to advise me to go to tribunal. So I was under the impression that they were just rejecting everything regardless how wrong you prove they are because they know vast majority of people don't like going to the legal proceedings without a lawyer and the legal costs to hire a lawyer mostly outweigh the financial benefits of reducing the tax band by one or two levels. 

A lawyer would be of little help as the majority know little or nothing of CT legislation and the banding process. More useful would be a surveyor who is an expert on CT and banding matters. But I never came across any appeals where a CT payer was professionally represented. All the CT payers I encountered at tribunal hearings were  able to present cogent cases.


In the vast majority of tribunal appeals the only thing that is discussed is whether the banding is correct or not. Reference may be made to previous tribunal appeals but there is hardly any reference to legislation. One of the reasons in the early days that people didn't proceed with their appeals was that they believed if they filled in a form they would automatically get a reduction. When they realised they had to do some work, they soon lost interest.

I'd absolutely agree that most lawyers haven't a clue about Council Tax legislation and even fewer would have a clue about how the VOA arrives at banding decisions. A Chartered Surveyor with tribunal expertise would definitely be more use. There's also the possibility of seeking advice from a specialist in Council Tax banding appeals and I believe @CIS is one such. I cannot vouch for them other than to say that their posts about CTax here are always spot on. That said, professional advice and representation comes at a cost - and professionals don't come cheap so I suppose the question is whether an appellant feels there is value in getting advice from a qualified source.