Another

[Deleted User]

Thank you all so much for you wealth of knowledge xx

lincroft1710

Deleted User said:

A house sells for £90,000 in 1999.

What council tax band would you expect it to be in? 

Have prices recovered from the crash by now?  Are they higher, lower or at a similar level to 1991?

Thank you all so much for you wealth of knowledge xx

You could have added this post to your previous thread.


For most areas and house types, by 1999 prices had recovered to or above 1991 levels. As to the CT band (and these would be English bands), probably D but depending where it is and what type of property, C or E are possibles.. 

[Deleted User]

lincroft1710 said:

Cherryhouse said:

A house sells for £90,000 in 1999.

What council tax band would you expect it to be in? 

Have prices recovered from the crash by now?  Are they higher, lower or at a similar level to 1991?

Thank you all so much for you wealth of knowledge xx

You could have added this post to your previous thread.


For most areas and house types, by 1999 prices had recovered to or above 1991 levels. As to the CT band (and these would be English bands), probably D but depending where it is and what type of property, C or E are possibles.. 

Thank you again for replying to me.

The house I'm referring to is a band D. Previously an E, but reduced to D by a valuation tribunal - has a court case V against it, so think this is what that means. 

This house is part of a small development of 6 houses. Four houses are identical and 2 are a different design, but similar in size, all 4 bed detached.  Both designs were marketed in 1990 for £128,000.  One of  the 2, sold in 1990 for £120,000 - this is the one being used as a comparable against mine. 

The other 5 appear to have failed to sell as I have found newspaper articles advertising them as new builds with them in 1991 reduced to  £110,000 and again in 1992, at £95,000.

In your experience, do you think it is reasonable for the only one that sold to be used as a comparable to mine?  I'm trying to prove this was an inflated price as it was the only house to sell.

Between 1996-1999, all remaining houses have sales prices against them with £90000 being the highest.   The 4 identical houses are band D, all reduced from a band E, and the 2 of other design are still band E. I don't know if these have been challenged.


(I didn't think about adding to a previous thread - I must have quite a few on the go. I've started a new thread for every question!  If I have any more, I'll remember to attach - thanks for letting me know) 

lincroft1710

Given a 1990 sale of £120,000, I would have said that Band E was actually correct rather than Band D. As 1990 is nearer 1991 than 1996/9 then usually such a sale is more relevant than later sales. However if it can be demonstrated that the earlier sale was out of line with the levels of value for that type of house then later sales may give a better indication of 1991 values.


As the 1990 sale is near to 1991, then it is not unreasonable that the VOA use this as evidence. But if this is the house reduced to Band D, then I think the VOA are shooting themselves in the foot. The VOA can use whatever evidence they deem suitable, if a CT payer believes a piece of evidence is weak, unreliable or in their opinion irrelevant, they can say this at the tribunal hearing. 


At one tribunal hearing concerning a detached bungalow, the CT payer complained that my evidence related to detached bungalows in the same town but over 2 miles away. My (honest) reply was that in the part of town where the bungalow was, there were very few detached bungalows and no sales evidence, so I had to use what evidence was available. The tribunal accepted my explanation. I cannot remember precisely, but I may have used evidence of detached houses in the 2 areas to show there was a price correlation.

[Deleted User]

The house in question is a band E.  4 out of the other 5 are the band Ds, but all houses were advertised for the same asking price in the 1991 newspaper article I have found. X



Another question,if you don't mind..... xx

Can I just confirm if my understanding is correct on this point:

If a house is extended and then sold freehold, - is this the relevant transaction?

Or can the liability of the relevant transaction be passed to the next buyers?

For example - House extended in 2000- sold 3 years later with no increase in council tax.

Then sold for the second time, 20 years after extension was built - now increased.

There was no work done on the property between the 1st and 2nd purchase. (Possibly devalued as land was sold off)

Could I dispute that I was not the relevant transaction, as no increase was made between mine and the previous sale and any re-valuation based upon this extension is not due.

Or was the previous owner just the lucky one?

Thank you again for answering my many questions xx

lincroft1710

A band can be increased at any time if the VOA believes it is incorrect*. There does not have to be a "relevant transaction".

But any sale after the alterations have taken place can be a "relevant transaction". As far as I am aware, there is nothing in CT legislation which says that the first transaction is the only one that is "relevant".

*A band which does not reflect alterations carried out by the current owner after 1 April 1993 would not be considered incorrect.

[Deleted User]

Another question on the terminology used, if you could possibly help. 

Would  you be able to explain what is meant on a Notice of Decision, Appeal dismissed - Lack of Prosecution.  Just want to clarify what would is meant by Lack of Prosecution. 

Many thanks.

lincroft1710

Deleted User said:

Another question on the terminology used, if you could possibly help. 

Would  you be able to explain what is meant on a Notice of Decision, Appeal dismissed - Lack of Prosecution.  Just want to clarify what would is meant by Lack of Prosecution. 

Many thanks.

The appellant did not turn up to the hearing and further did not provide any written evidence so that the case could be heard in their absence. Often the appellant will have had no written or verbal dialogue with the VOA.


I'm ex VOA and this was a frequent occurrence, the appellant would submit an appeal and that was the last you ever heard from them

[Deleted User]

lincroft1710 said:

Cherryhouse said:

Another question on the terminology used, if you could possibly help. 

Would  you be able to explain what is meant on a Notice of Decision, Appeal dismissed - Lack of Prosecution.  Just want to clarify what would is meant by Lack of Prosecution. 

Many thanks.

The appellant did not turn up to the hearing and further did not provide any written evidence so that the case could be heard in their absence. Often the appellant will have had no written or verbal dialogue with the VOA.


I'm ex VOA and this was a frequent occurrence, the appellant would submit an appeal and that was the last you ever heard from them

Thank you so much. That's a great help.