Council tax back dated 5 years to a higher band

bluecat8

Hi there

In 2016 I demolished and rebuilt my house.  It's actually a smaller footprint and has the same number of bedrooms as before.  On completion the council happened to tell me that they had been to look at it and put an improvement indicator on the public council tax records.  It remained at the same banding.   5 Years later I received a letter from the VOA that it has been moved up 2 bands and the effective date is 2016.   A day later I received a set of bills from the council.   Credits from band D for 5 years and then a set of Debits for Band F for 2 years. ... and a balance of 2k to pay in two instalments. 

I contacted the council and they just played dumb saying they only do what the VOA tells them to do.   The VOA wasn't helpful either - stating they dont know why the effective date has been set back to an unreasonable level.

Ive taken a look at the legislation - and it seems that the tax is valid and there is no mitigator for the length of time it's taken for them to change the banding.

Council tax banding is a mess in general.   My house does look better than it did and it seems that ascetics is a banding criterion .

Ive put in a complaint to the council and asked them specifically if they could have warned me in the 5 years that has elapsed.  I simply do not believe they knew nothing about the rebanding - especially as the letters came (Friday VOA ) and Monday ( Council ).

Ive also filed a FIOI regards all contact about my house in terms of council taxation issues. 

The fact that the council has deliberately taken the view of taking 2 x 1k direct debits for 5 year accrual as pretty nasty.  - Could this me an example of 'malfeasance'?

Any advice on levers or approach would be greatly appreciated.

Please note that in the 5 years Ive never had any correspondence from the VOA or Council regarding this. ( Aside from them tell me they came to look at my house.  - And this was not an official contact, it was purely co incidental that I was speaking to a member of their staff who asked where I lived )

Thank you

bluecat8

* Debits for Band F for 5 years ( not 2 )

lincroft1710

A dwelling's CT band cannot be increased on account of improvements carried out by the current owner.


What appears to have happened is that the VOA have now realised that when it was demolished, the entry for your house should have been removed from the Valuation List, so no CT was payable and then when it was rebuilt, should have been brought it back into the VL, in this case at a higher band, which is lawful. As there was a delay before the VL was updated, the effective date can be backdated to the date it should have been brought into the VL which would be the date the house was completed.

bluecat8

Thanks for the clarification.    Is a 5 year delay acceptable?  It seems there is no limit in the legislation but how about natural justice?  This potentially could have gone on for decades creating a huge liability.  Meanwhile many houses on my street have been extended and resold with no action from the VOA - ever.

I will throw something else in.  I have a son with SMI and it's not something I relish using.  If the VOA can backdate uncollected taxes through tardy mal administration - would I have grounds to ask for the SMI claim to be backdated too?

lincroft1710

I'm ex VOA and remember a case where we had to backdate an effective date 6 years because a council failed to notify us of a new dwelling which needed banding. The taxpayer duly received (and accepted) a CT bill for 6 years worth of CT. As far as I am aware there is no limit on backdating an effective date as there is none stated in CT legislation.


The VOA has a duty to maintain the Valuation List and if they have made an error by omission or otherwise they are obliged in law to correct. So I do not think the term "natural justice" whatever that may mean would be applicable. With regard to the extended and resold dwellings, you would have to take that up with the VOA, but their apparent inaction would have no effect on your situation/

SMI discount is determined by the council and will be subject to a different part of CT legislation regarding backdating.


I would suggest you contact the VOA and ask them to go through exactly every aspect of what they have done and why 

bluecat8

Thank you.   The council claimed that they did notify the VOA 5 years ago and the VOA failed to do anything.

I appreciate and understand what you have said but if you compared this to an event performed by a private company then there would be legislation to protect the consumer from mal administration.
The CT legislation has no time limit but what Im asking - Why should I be the one to placed into instant debt because of mal administration? - Thats what I mean by natural justice.  Would anyone be happy about this.   

Perhaps your previous customer was fine with it because they knew all along they were paying nothing and had been keeping money aside.  In my case - I was told by the council that no further action was being taken - Hence why the record was changed to include the improvement indicator.    Surely if the intention was delete and re-list it then there would be no need to add the improvement indicator.   -  Do you think I might have a valid argument?

The council have the power to collect or not collect this payment.  Im wondering if they have made any mistakes - and if so - should they own them?

lincroft1710

The unfortunate aspect is that whereas private companies have legislation to which they have to obey, the same legislation does not apply to central and local government, they have different legislation which controls what they can and cannot do. 

Please do not think I am being insulting but would you please very carefully check every piece of correspondence you have received from both the council and the VOA as what has happened does not seem logical if the council are talking about an improvement indicator.


Councils will tend to defend their actions by saying that they have acted within the legislation. The fact an error was made in the past and has now been corrected is no reason for them to waive any part of the payment. You can only put forward what you think is a convincing case, your local councillor may be able to help. 

bluecat8

Thank you.  So far I do not have much from either.  They are blaming each other for the anomaly.  I think the council is not telling the truth and thats why Ive asked for the FOI records to try and work out what has happened.  You are right, it is not logical and I guess this is the primary driver behind this situation. 

Amusingly at the same time, the same council have written to me regards another matter where they are asking for some goodwill.

Thanks again for your help clarifying the VAO angle for me.