Council tax banding

Kuga247

So what if the bands are wrong when they see them in 1091/1993 drive past contractors valuations 

lincroft1710

TheJP said:

lincroft1710 said:

Kuga247 said:

There were 3 properties in lower bands than ours ask for info which they couldn’t supply So the adjournment now we find the properties have had their tax bands raised !A law unto their selves still waiting for new tribunal date yet have dates for bundles to be exchanged is this normal practice 

No they are not " a law unto their selves"!


If the VOA believes the CT band of a dwelling is too low it has a statutory duty to increase that band. Which in this case it is has done.


I left the VOA before the current rules of exchanging evidence came into force. However having previously read the advice from the VTS to appellants and respondents, it only seems to refer to what should happen regarding submitting evidence after a hearing date has been allocated and makes no mention of evidence submission where there is no hearing date. So there appears to be no precedent for the VT setting a date for evidence submission before a hearing date is known.

The issue is, the VOA are measuring based on an out of date system. In this case they are now making councils more money because in essence their process is flawed yet they win. Do the houses that were by VOA systems have to back pay the lack of CT they haven't paid?

Its a sh8t show of an organisation that's default is to always look at how they can make you pay more rather than be independent.

You appear not to understand the system.


The VOA has a duty to ensure CT bands are correct, which means as well as reducing bands. they sometimes have to increase them They reduce far, far more bands than they increase. Band increases are not backdated, band reductions are. 

TheJP

lincroft1710 said:

TheJP said:

lincroft1710 said:

Kuga247 said:

There were 3 properties in lower bands than ours ask for info which they couldn’t supply So the adjournment now we find the properties have had their tax bands raised !A law unto their selves still waiting for new tribunal date yet have dates for bundles to be exchanged is this normal practice 

No they are not " a law unto their selves"!


If the VOA believes the CT band of a dwelling is too low it has a statutory duty to increase that band. Which in this case it is has done.


I left the VOA before the current rules of exchanging evidence came into force. However having previously read the advice from the VTS to appellants and respondents, it only seems to refer to what should happen regarding submitting evidence after a hearing date has been allocated and makes no mention of evidence submission where there is no hearing date. So there appears to be no precedent for the VT setting a date for evidence submission before a hearing date is known.

The issue is, the VOA are measuring based on an out of date system. In this case they are now making councils more money because in essence their process is flawed yet they win. Do the houses that were by VOA systems have to back pay the lack of CT they haven't paid?

Its a sh8t show of an organisation that's default is to always look at how they can make you pay more rather than be independent.

You appear not to understand the system.


The VOA has a duty to ensure CT bands are correct, which means as well as reducing bands. they sometimes have to increase them They reduce far, far more bands than they increase. Band increases are not backdated, band reductions are. 

I understand the system alright, i just don't agree with it. How can identical houses in the same street built at the same time have different bandings. How can a house on say band B but has been modified to be bigger than a band D still be classed as a band B. Its a flawed out of date system. Please tell me how the system is not flawed.

lincroft1710

Kuga247 said:

That sums it up a law unto them selves do you not agree from what you have said 

No, I will reiterate they are not a law unto themselves as increasing and reducing bands is prescribed by CT legislation passed by Parliament. The VOA have to have good reason for either increasing or reducing bands. In your case it seems your band was correct but the bands of the other houses were incorrect. Presumably the VOA have the evidence which led them to make this decision.


I have stated on other threads, that many years ago I had a case where someone complained that their band was two bands below those of identical houses around the corner. Checked the evidence and found a sale of one of the lower banded houses proved beyond argument the higher band was correct. Result was I had to increase the lower banded houses by 2 bands which was the correct thing to do.

TheJP

lincroft1710 said:

Kuga247 said:

That sums it up a law unto them selves do you not agree from what you have said 

No, I will reiterate they are not a law unto themselves as increasing and reducing bands is prescribed by CT legislation passed by Parliament. The VOA have to have good reason for either increasing or reducing bands. In your case it seems your band was correct but the bands of the other houses were incorrect. Presumably the VOA have the evidence which led them to make this decision.


I have stated on other threads, that many years ago I had a case where someone complained that their band was two bands below those of identical houses around the corner. Checked the evidence and found a sale of one of the lower banded houses proved beyond argument the higher band was correct. Result was I had to increase the lower banded houses by 2 bands which was the correct thing to do.

Do you not see the issue here in your own experience? How can identical houses be 2 bands lower. Farcical. 

lincroft1710

TheJP said:

lincroft1710 said:

TheJP said:

lincroft1710 said:

Kuga247 said:

There were 3 properties in lower bands than ours ask for info which they couldn’t supply So the adjournment now we find the properties have had their tax bands raised !A law unto their selves still waiting for new tribunal date yet have dates for bundles to be exchanged is this normal practice 

No they are not " a law unto their selves"!


If the VOA believes the CT band of a dwelling is too low it has a statutory duty to increase that band. Which in this case it is has done.


I left the VOA before the current rules of exchanging evidence came into force. However having previously read the advice from the VTS to appellants and respondents, it only seems to refer to what should happen regarding submitting evidence after a hearing date has been allocated and makes no mention of evidence submission where there is no hearing date. So there appears to be no precedent for the VT setting a date for evidence submission before a hearing date is known.

The issue is, the VOA are measuring based on an out of date system. In this case they are now making councils more money because in essence their process is flawed yet they win. Do the houses that were by VOA systems have to back pay the lack of CT they haven't paid?

Its a sh8t show of an organisation that's default is to always look at how they can make you pay more rather than be independent.

You appear not to understand the system.


The VOA has a duty to ensure CT bands are correct, which means as well as reducing bands. they sometimes have to increase them They reduce far, far more bands than they increase. Band increases are not backdated, band reductions are. 

I understand the system alright, i just don't agree with it. How can identical houses in the same street built at the same time have different bandings. How can a house on say band B but has been modified to be bigger than a band D still be classed as a band B. Its a flawed out of date system. Please tell me how the system is not flawed.

All systems are flawed. If you are aware that there are anomalies in banding in your neighbourhood then you should make the VOA aware and they should do something about it, even if it means increasing rather than reducing the bands. If they do nothing or provide an unsatisfactory response then use their complaints system.


On the second point, CT legislation says that the current owner of a dwelling can make alterations to that dwelling and the band cannot be increased until it is sold. If you don't agree with the system, blame Parliament not the VOA, Parliament passed the various CT legislation, not the VOA, they just have to follow it.

Kuga247

I am presently waiting for a tribunal date been adjourned on more than one occasion every time I submitted examples of similar properties in lower bands the VOA have put a marker on property or the property is out of my area but in same road or it’s smaller on and on !All bundles have been exchanged but no tribunal date !After writing this I am sure a date will come is that a coincidence?

Jude57

Kuga247 said:

I am presently waiting for a tribunal date been adjourned on more than one occasion every time I submitted examples of similar properties in lower bands the VOA have put a marker on property or the property is out of my area but in same road or it’s smaller on and on !All bundles have been exchanged but no tribunal date !After writing this I am sure a date will come is that a coincidence?

No, it's not a coincidence. The VOA had a special meeting and decided to delay your Tribunal indefinitely because they have nothing better to do with their time than mess you around. (For the avoidance of doubt, this was an attempt at humour)

Seriously, though, if you keep dribbling in additional evidence, of course the VOA has to be given time to properly examine it. That's the whole purpose of Disclosure - that neither side is blindsided by evidence being produced at the last moment so they don't have time to properly investigate. How would you feel if the VOA produced a massive file of evidence at the Tribunal hearing that you'd had no idea they were planning to use? You'd consider that unfair and you'd be right.

I'm sure this has been said before, but it bears repeating: The VOA aren't just dealing with your case. It's the most important thing to you but just one of many to them. There isn't a VOA officer sitting twiddling their thumbs waiting for you to send in your next communication. They are dealing with multiple cases every day, and yours isn't special to them. Certainly, you sending in additional evidence will bring your case to someone's attention and that may well prompt some action. If you've never done casework you might not understand that, broadly speaking, once a hearing date is set, or once bundles are exchanged, the file is shelved until just before the hearing. It's simply not humanly possible to review every case every day, so it will only be done when it either comes up in the diary or if new information is received. Otherwise, other cases take priority.

If you feel that the VOA have unreasonably delayed your Tribunal hearing, use their complaints process. Otherwise, your hearing date will eventually be set, probably once your case reaches the top of the pile in the backlog at both VOA and HMCTS which is still being ploughed through.

lincroft1710

Jude57 said:

Kuga247 said:

I am presently waiting for a tribunal date been adjourned on more than one occasion every time I submitted examples of similar properties in lower bands the VOA have put a marker on property or the property is out of my area but in same road or it’s smaller on and on !All bundles have been exchanged but no tribunal date !After writing this I am sure a date will come is that a coincidence?

That's the whole purpose of Disclosure - that neither side is blindsided by evidence being produced at the last moment so they don't have time to properly investigate. How would you feel if the VOA produced a massive file of evidence at the Tribunal hearing that you'd had no idea they were planning to use? You'd consider that unfair and you'd be right.

That is what both the VOA and appellant CT payers used to do until about 10 years ago. The only legal requirement was that if the VOA intended to use sales evidence, the sales details must be disclosed to the appellant at least 14 days before the hearing 

lincroft1710

Kuga247 said:

I am presently waiting for a tribunal date been adjourned on more than one occasion every time I submitted examples of similar properties in lower bands the VOA have put a marker on property or the property is out of my area but in same road or it’s smaller on and on !All bundles have been exchanged but no tribunal date !After writing this I am sure a date will come is that a coincidence?

It is the VTS who set the hearing date, not the VOA. So if you are unhappy about the length of time you have been waiting for a hearing date contact the VTS. But as @Jude57 has posted, if you keep wanting to add more evidence to your bundle then you cannot really complain if there have been adjournments