Council tax banding

Kuga247

Sorry but evidence sounds like a criminal case !if I can’t get access to the same information they can get I have to be 110% in my favour it’s the 1991/1993 criteria some areas are more expensive than others 

lincroft1710

Kuga247 said:

Sorry but evidence sounds like a criminal case !if I can’t get access to the same information they can get I have to be 110% in my favour it’s the 1991/1993 criteria some areas are more expensive than others 

"Evidence" is the term used, because that is what it is - facts or information that indicate or prove that something is true or correct.


For some reason, I am reminded of a Tribunal case I had in the early days of CT. I presented my evidence which clearly showed the band was correct. The CT payer asked why there was no evidence presented which supported his case. My truthful reply was "Sorry, there isn't any".


Just present your evidence at the hearing. Remain calm and collected. Only ask questions if there is something you don't understand or have good reason to believe is incorrect. 

Jude57

Any Court requires evidence to be presented. A Tribunal is a type of Court. Courts must rely on facts (evidence) rather than emotion or what seems 'fair'. Unfortunately, in any dispute situation, which is what any Court case is, sometimes there is a huge amount of evidence on one side and very little on the other. You will see the VOA's evidence and they will see yours. Either side can then decide whether to go ahead with a full hearing. You are at no more of a disadvantage than any other lay person seeking a Tribunal decision on Council Tax banding but I agree with @lincroft1710 that it's important to try to keep your emotions out of it, as hard as that is.

Kuga247

lincroft1710 said:

Kuga247 said:

Sorry but evidence sounds like a criminal case !if I can’t get access to the same information they can get I have to be 110% in my favour it’s the 1991/1993 criteria some areas are more expensive than others 

"Evidence" is the term used, because that is what it is - facts or information that indicate or prove that something is true or correct.


For some reason, I am reminded of a Tribunal case I had in the early days of CT. I presented my evidence which clearly showed the band was correct. The CT payer asked why there was no evidence presented which supported his case. My truthful reply was "Sorry, there isn't any".


Just present your evidence at the hearing. Remain calm and collected. Only ask questions if there is something you don't understand or have good reason to believe is incorrect. 

Am I correct in reading Ct payer asked why there was no evidence presented which supported his case my reply was there isn’t any should it not read my evidence 

lincroft1710

Kuga247 said:

lincroft1710 said:

Kuga247 said:

Sorry but evidence sounds like a criminal case !if I can’t get access to the same information they can get I have to be 110% in my favour it’s the 1991/1993 criteria some areas are more expensive than others 

"Evidence" is the term used, because that is what it is - facts or information that indicate or prove that something is true or correct.


For some reason, I am reminded of a Tribunal case I had in the early days of CT. I presented my evidence which clearly showed the band was correct. The CT payer asked why there was no evidence presented which supported his case. My truthful reply was "Sorry, there isn't any".


Just present your evidence at the hearing. Remain calm and collected. Only ask questions if there is something you don't understand or have good reason to believe is incorrect. 

Am I correct in reading Ct payer asked why there was no evidence presented which supported his case my reply was there isn’t any should it not read my evidence 

No, because I could not find any evidence which supported his case.

lincroft1710

Jude57 said:

Any Court requires evidence to be presented. A Tribunal is a type of Court. .

The Valuation Tribunal was in fact previously called the Local Valuation Court.

Kuga247

Sorry if I read it wrong did you say you worked for VOA  why would you look for evidence to support his case ?

lincroft1710

Kuga247 said:

Sorry if I read it wrong did you say you worked for VOA  why would you look for evidence to support his case ?

The VOA should be seen to be fair, if evidence is found which supports the CT payer's case, it should be considered and presented at the VT hearing.. In such cases there would usually be overwhelming evidence to support the existing band and the VOA would explain to the Tribunal that they had considered all the evidence but it was clear that the majority supported the band and they therefore believed the band was correct.

Jude57

lincroft1710 said:

Kuga247 said:

Sorry if I read it wrong did you say you worked for VOA  why would you look for evidence to support his case ?

The VOA should be seen to be fair, if evidence is found which supports the CT payer's case, it should be considered and presented at the VT hearing.. In such cases there would usually be overwhelming evidence to support the existing band and the VOA would explain to the Tribunal that they had considered all the evidence but it was clear that the majority supported the band and they therefore believed the band was correct.

lincroft1710 said:

Kuga247 said:

Sorry if I read it wrong did you say you worked for VOA  why would you look for evidence to support his case ?

The VOA should be seen to be fair, if evidence is found which supports the CT payer's case, it should be considered and presented at the VT hearing.. In such cases there would usually be overwhelming evidence to support the existing band and the VOA would explain to the Tribunal that they had considered all the evidence but it was clear that the majority supported the band and they therefore believed the band was correct.

Indeed. As with any government department, the VOA could expect to be held to a higher standard than a lay person simply because they are deemed to be the experts in the matter. The Tribunal Chairperson will consider all the evidence and will have regard to the fact that a lay person may not have ready access to all the sources the VOA may be able to call upon.

I think it's also important to remember that the VOA aren't about winning or losing, they're about getting it right, because of the potential impact on other properties. They don't win or lose anything whichever way the Tribunal decision goes, although it may generate extra work for them.

Kuga247

Sorry to doubt what you are saying but when you say they should be SEEN to be fair yet there is information which only they can access it’s not very transparent to me