Band increase from E to G

Danielson1971

Hello,
Quick scenario of my situation as follows:
We moved out of our house last year for 6 months as we were having works done to it and it became uninhabitable
We notified the council to ask if we were able to get a reduction on council tax.
We sent them our plans.
They replied saying they would delete our property from the listing and add it again once the works were done. No council tax to be paid.
The new listing has been created and our house has gone from E to G.
We have appealed the first stage via the VOA and this was rejected. 
I am now preparing evidence for the appeal to the Valuation Tribunal Service.

No doubt our house has increased in size and I understand the rationale and process (1991 prices etc).
There are several causes for complaint here.
Firstly, I checked the gov.uk website - this states the band can't go up unless the house is sold.
Secondly, at no point did anyone from the council warn us that this might happen. They happily told us there was no need to contact the VOA as they would complete all of the forms for us.
Thirdly, the officer making the report has used 4 example of other houses nearby that compare to ours in size. On 2 of these examples, she has stated the other properties are (significantly) smaller. They are not, and in one case in particular, the comparable property is nearly twice the size.
Other properties nearby are either in F or E. Those in F (about 10 of them, opposite my house) are worth more than ours on the open market as they back on to the river and simply put are more sought after as a result.

So, do I have a leg to stand on?
The information presented to me was incorrect and therefore misleading.
Nobody warned us of the implications of removing us from the list. This particularly bothers me. 
I feel as if I've been scammed to be honest. Naive possibly, but does anyone have any advice?

Thanks for reading!

lincroft1710

There is no legal requirement to inform a CT payer that if a dwelling is deleted from the Valuation List its band may not remain the same if it comes back into the List. As there was no entry in the V L for your home, there was no band to increase, so for CT purposes it is a "new dwelling" when re-entered into the VL. Therefore it should be valued as it exists as at the date it came back into the VL rather than as it was at the date of the original entry


Note that "new dwelling" for CT purposes is not the same as "new build dwelling".


Your first and second points are thus not worth pursuing as what has happened is correct according to CT legislation and thus you have not been "scammed".  


With regard to your third point you should discuss the VOA evidence with them and say why you think their information about these dwellings is incorrect.

Danielson1971

Thanks lincroft1710. I understand what you are saying about points 1 and 2. I still feel aggrieved that there is no guidance at the point of making the initial enquiry to be honest. It seems underhand, especially as my research on the gov.uk website did not mention it. I would have been better off keeping my mouth shut. It promotes dishonesty, in my opinion.

One thing to add to my original post is that the street I live on (it's in England), was not particularly "attractive" 32 years ago. Mundane bungalows. The properties on other roads that my house has been compared to would have had a far more attractive street scene and therefore commanded a higher price. The houses themselves different in appearance too so not really like for like. 

lincroft1710

How can it "promote dishonesty"??


The alternative would have been you continued paying CT on the existing band while the renovations were ongoing, which in my experience (I'm ex VOA) most people do. There is nothing dishonest about doing that. It was the exception to delete a dwelling from the VL while under renovation, most were not considered "uninhabitable" for CT purposes.


As I previously posted you must discuss any concerns about the VOA evidence with them.

Danielson1971

Thanks lincroft1710.

"How can it "promote dishonesty"??"?
Maybe I should have said it does not promote honesty.
If I had not approached the council to start with, my band would still be at E.
It was only because I contacted them to see if we could get a reduction on council tax for the 6 months as we were not living there, that they, the council, decided to delete the property from the register.
Completely naive on my part I admit and yes I am completely frustrated by this. But the council didn't advise me of the implications.
In my opinion they should have. 

If I had not contacted the council, I would have paid council tax on the property for 6 months, as you suggest above, but the band would have stayed at E, therefore in the long run saving me about £10,000 in the next 10 years alone (at current rates).

It does not promote honesty because if I ever do any work to a property I own in the future (and increase its size and have to temporarily move out), I will 100% not be contacting the local council as they may delete the property from the registry, reinstate it at a higher band and I will be worse off in the long run. 

I should have kept quiet.

lincroft1710

As I said previously there is no dishonesty. CT payers are not duty bound to ask for their home to be deleted from the VL whilst it is being renovated. They can carry on paying the CT, there is no law which says their home has to be deleted from the VL because it is under renovation and not being lived in. CT payers will only ask for this as they understandably do not want to pay CT on a dwelling they consider uninhabitable which is their choice.


It was not the council who decided to delete your home from the VL, it was the VOA

Danielson1971

Thanks lincroft1710.

If there is no law which says a home has to be deleted from the VL because it is under renovation, why was it removed from the VL in our case?

This may help:
The following is a quote directly from a letter received from our local council, suggesting it was the council who decided to delete our home from the VL, and not the VOA as you stated above:

"A report will now be sent to the Valuation Office on 1 February 2022 to request that the dwelling is removed from the council tax valuation list wef 29 January 2022 i.e. the date that you move out because the dwelling is no longer habitable"

It seems the VOA were doing what the council requested them to do.

lincroft1710

If a dwelling ceases to be a dwelling then its entry should be deleted from the VL. This usually happens if a dwelling is demolished or has a change of use to commercial. But in certain cases a dwelling may be considered to be no longer a dwelling because it is such poor repair or is undergoing such substantial alterations that it is impossible to live in. I have to assume that the latter applied in your case.


There is no onus on a CT payer to inform the VOA about changes to any dwelling they own or occupy, but obviously in certain circumstances it may be advantageous for them to do so either directly or via the relevant council. Because you chose to approach the council with regard to not paying CT as the renovations made your home uninhabitable, then the council referred the matter to the VOA


Apart from those emanating from appeals, approximately 99% of all VL alterations (not just deletions) originate from a request by the relevant council. The VOA decide whether or not a request should be actioned and act accordingly. I have rejected more requests to delete dwellings on uninhabitable grounds than I have agreed. Not all renovations render a dwelling uninhabitable.


With regard to your  point about the area in 1991, it would have been as at 1 April 1993 as that was the effective date of your original band. However when doing a valuation for CT purposes it is the physical situation as at the date the dwelling is entered into the VL. So if a dwelling was entered into the VL with an effective date of 1 December 2022 and there was an abattoir to one side (erected 2011) and a 24 hr petrol filling station (erected 2020) then the band should reflect these. Similarly if the abattoir and pfs existed as at 1 April 1993, but by 1 Dec 2022 had both been replaced by upmarket housing then the band should also reflect this. My opinion is that the VOA are not acting unreasonably in taking the current state of the area into account when assessing your home.

lincroft1710

This gov.uk webpage gives details of what happens when a deleted property is brought back intu the VL

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/council-tax-domestic-properties-in-disrepair-or-derelict/council-tax-domestic-properties-which-are-in-disrepair-or-are-derelict

Effect of deletion and subsequent reinstatement as ‘new’ on completion

Although no Council Tax will be payable if a band is deleted, when the property is next banded it will be treated as a new property. This means that all improvements will be reflected in the new banding from the date when the work was completed.