Challenging your Council Tax Band - Lothian, Scotland - Tips - Help - Discussion

GlennCTax

Throughout this forum we shall be giving tips on our experience when we challenged our Council Tax Band with the Lothian Valuation Joint Board.

If you are about to challenge your Council Tax Band, then please feel free to join in. If you have already challenged your Council Tax Band, we would also like to hear of your experience, whether it was a positive or negative experience.

We would clearly define our experience as negative.  When we first met at our Cottage with our assessor, a Senior Technician and his trainee, we had a very positive meeting.

The Technician showed us his evidence for moving our Council Tax Band from Band D to E. The Technicians evidence looked very compelling. We thanked the Technician for showing us his evidence and agreed with him, that he was correct to move our Band from D to E, thus increase our Taxes.

The Technician left his evidence with us when he left our House Meeting.  He said we should call him if we had any further questions. After examining the Technicians evidence we discovered some discrepancies. We investigated his evidence and found there were discrepancies throughout this Technician assessment.

At the end of our investigation into the Lothian assessors, we found 7 Senior assessing staff members had all given us misleading information, including the "Assessor" and the Depute Assessor!

Our 3 year investigation has been quite extensive.  We spent 100s of hours gathering and documenting information from various sources.

- We spent £1000 buying Documents from Register of Sasines and the Lothian Planning Department.
- We visited the Archive Library on numerous occasions, obtaining a vast amount of housing details.
- We viewed 2 live Lothian Valuation Appeal Hearings.
- We contacted members of the public and previous Appellants obtaining further Documents/information.
- We drove to and inspected every Comparison property used by the assessors
- We did extensive internet searches, obtaining further information/Reports/Minutes
- We have obtained a number of Freedom of Information replies
- We visited and spoke to various independent agencies
- We Tape Recorded 3 House Meetings with the Assessors
- We Tape Recorded 2 phone calls with the Assessors 
   - We also have a recording of the Constabulary offering to help with covert recording devices for members of the public to protect and establish the true facts of what has taken place in the privacy of your own home.
(We record all business meetings and phone calls)

We have been Campaigning and shall continue to Campaign in order that we bring about change, to ensure all members of the public receive a fair and balanced Assessment and Hearing of Appeal.

We can give advice on our experience in relation to our Council Tax Challenge.

Tip number one - you must thoroughly check the assessors evidence - we were informed there were no local Comparison properties in our local area.  We checked and we found 20 Comparison properties in our local area!

We shall give tips on how we checked the assessors evidence and the intricate ways the assessors use misleading information.

Please feel free to join in the discussions.

We will give further updates in the coming days and weeks.

lincroft1710

I think it would be helpful if you stated that this thread is mainly for Scottish CT payers, as England and Wales do not have Assessors, Joint Valuation Boards or Registers of Sasines.


The equivalent of the Assessor, the VOA covers the whole of England and Wales. Although England and Wales have separate Valuation Tribunals each covers the whole of the respective country. The VT would take a very dim view if it discovered the VOA were deliberately presenting incorrect or untrue information at Appeal Hearings. A CT caseworker caught deliberately falsifying information by a senior VOA staff member would be subject to disciplinary action.


You are also repeating a lot from your other thread.

GlennCTax

Hi Lincroft, Thanks again for your advice.  

1 - We have taken your suggestion on board and added Lothian - Scotland to the heading.  

2 - You have stated that the VT would have taken a very dim view if it discovered the VOA were deliberately presenting incorrect or untrue information at Appeal Hearings.  

We also thought Lothian Assessors would have taken our issues more seriously.  They stated they did not believe us, yet would not take up our offer to listen to the Taped House Meetings.  

We also reminded the Assessor, that the "Barclay Report" (Rates 2017) had only recently investigated the Assessors and warned them they needed to change their behaviour.  

We explained to the Assessor, that he had the opportunity to show the assessors had changed and were moving forward as an open and transparent organisation.  Unfortunately, these assessors do not appear to have the same ethos as VOA.

3 - You have noticed we are using the same information in our other post.  I have used a different heading in the hope of attracting different viewers.  Only time will tell if it is successful.  

Like I said before, we have been reading your interactions and queries from the public over the past few years and more.  We have seen how the public have appreciated your time and benefited from your numerous contributions.  Your contributions must have helped thousands, or possibly tens of thousands of people over the years.

We are only over the border here in Scotland, yet it seems at times were are worlds apart.

Thanks again for your advice, it is always appreciated.

Glenn

GlennCTax

The Lothian Valuation Joint Board (LVJB) has been entrusted with all assessing and valuation data that allows assessing staff members to make fair and balanced assessments when raising the publics Council Tax Bands.  Raising these Bands, dictates how much Taxes are paid on each property.

This whole process relies on the integrity of the Assessors Office.  Our 3 year investigation into the LVJB, has shown the Assessors Office has been seriously compromised.  We make these statements based firmly on audio and documented evidence.   

If it was only a few new trainee assessors, bending a few rules, we would not be making this Post today.  What we came up against was far more serious.  The "Assessor", a Depute Assessor and another 5 Senior staff members all using their positions and influence to ensure we did not receive a fair and  balanced Hearing.  What our evidence has also shown, is that this type of behaviour has been in existence for decades. 

When the assessors measured our property, they provided us with measurements of the size of our property before it was extended then after it was extended.  Both sizes were wrong.  We initially thought these were just errors, however, after we questioned our assessor we were left in no doubt that these wrong sizes were not simply mistakes.

This revelation was disappointing to us, as we believed we had a good rapport with our assessors at our first House Meeting.

We recently met with another Appellant who had a very similar experience.  Her Case was also connected to the same assessor.

She supplied us with email evidence, reinforcing our Case against the LVJB.  This Appellant felt she had been treated so unjustly, that she attempted to take her Case to the Court of Session.  She wrote to numerous agencies to alert them of the injustice she had experienced during her Hearing of Appeal.  She said all her efforts were in vain.

We supplied this Appellant with the Minute from her Hearing.  She was disappointed to note the Minute did not contain the main area of concern during her Hearing of Appeal.  She could not understand why this part of the Minute had been omitted.

We also supplied her with some of our evidence we received from the assessors.  This evidence was new to her, she felt further distrust with the information the assessors had supplied to her.

We have been communicating with another Appellant, she had very harsh words to describe her experience.  She did not believe she received a fair process and was disappointed with the whole system.  Again we had a copy of the Minute of her Hearing, and again there were areas of concern. 

We can also see through the Minutes of previous Appeal Hearings, our own assessor's evidence has been questionable.  

If you are challenging your Council Tax Band, it is not only important to check your evidence, unfortunately, you also have to check the assessor's evidence.  

If the assessors had acted properly and allowed members of the public to have a fair and balanced Hearing, then there would be no need to write such Posts.

Please feel free to tell us of your experience, we may have a copy of your Minute.

GlennCTax

Reduction Factors - Are no longer Relevant - Misleading Statement

Our original assessor, a Technician was taken off our Case shortly after we Complained he was using misleading information.

A Council Tax Manager took over our Case with his colleague, a Divisional Valuer.  On my first phone call with the Council Tax Manager, I informed him of the trouble I had with my previous Technician and asked the Council Tax Manager to send us a copy of his Code of Measurement.  I stated that, what I required from him was clear information.

He said he did not know if they had a Code of Measurement, he would look into this and get back to me.

The Council Tax Manager got back to me stating he did not have a Code of Measurement, however, he sent me 9 pages of Practice Notes that are used by his staff.

Within the Practice Notes were 5 pages of Reduction Factors. These Reduction Factors favoured our Case.  When the Reduction Factor is applied to our attic it reduces the size of our attic from approx 40 square metres to approx 20 square metres.  Our attic coving reduces the useable space we have.

The Council Tax Manager later claimed that he has no paperwork to show how he measures and assesses properties.  He also stated the Reduction Factors he sent us are no longer important and are irrelevant.  

The Council Tax Manager showed our attic size as 40m in his Court Productions claiming they measure our attic by the floor area.

Our evidence will show Reduction Factors are still used by the assessors. The Council Tax Manager was attempting to mislead the Court by not showing the Reduced attic size of 20m.


1 -  At beginning it was a Senior Technician and a trainee dealing with our Case.  The Technician sent us a copy of the Reduction Factor Table he was using.

He explained why he applied the Reduction Factor, as my attic walls were less than 1 metre high and we had low acute sloping ceilings.  The width of our ceiling is approx 24 cm.

He reduced the size of our attic from approx 40m to 20m.  This was the size the Technician used in his Court Productions. This Reduced Size was also important, as the Technician placed us at the bottom of Band E, making our Cottage a borderline Case.


2 - The Technician explained how the assessors were given their Instructions way back in 1985 and they simply implement these Instructions.

This experienced Senior Technician (40 years with LVJB) informed us that:

- At the end of the day, it comes to us as an Instruction and all we do is implement that Instruction....because we are still gathering information exactly the same way so we can compare like with like and that's it.

3 - This Technician also gave us a detailed discussion why the assessors still use Reduction Factors and did a drawing to show us precisely where the Reduction Factor comes from.

4 - He also explained how the Reduced area is entered onto the office computer.

5 - He discussed the Reduction Factors he used for other Comparison properties.

6 - The Technician also confirmed the use of Reduction Factors by including the Reduced size of our attic in his Court Productions.  He showed our attic Reduced Size as approx 20m.

7 - A Divisional Valuer who later stood in our attic also admitted that they make adjustments for the usability of our attic.

8 - The "Assessor" admitted his assessing staff members use Reduction Factors.

9 - The Appeal Minutes from previous Court Hearings also show Reduced Sizes are used in the Hearing and shown in the assessors Productions.

10 - Evidence from another Appellant show Reduced Sizes are still used by the assessors.

Our Evidence shows Reduction Factors are used by the assessors, however, this Council Tax Manager states that Reduction Factors are:

- not important now 

- they are irrelevant 

-  don't mean anything

This Council Tax Manager attempted to mislead us and the Hearing by not using the Reduced Size of our attic, claiming Reduction Factors are irrelevant.

The meeting with this Council Tax Manager has been Tape Recorded.

SUMMARY

This Council Tax Manager claimed he has no paperwork to show the public, or the Court Hearing, on how he measures or assesses property.  

He claimed - Reduction Factors are no longer important and does not use the Reduced Size in his Court Productions.

All of our Taped and Documented Evidence shows his statements are not true.

This is the same Council Tax Manager that claimed:

- All my life dealing with Council Tax - there is no one more honest than me!!  - Taped Evidence.

This is only a sample of what we have been through with the assessors.  This is what the public is up against while attempting to have a fair and balanced Hearing of Appeal.

If this Council Tax Manager is claiming he has no paperwork to show the public how he measures and assesses property, what has he been showing the Court for the past 30 since Council Tax was introduced!

How many other members of the public might have come up against this assessor in the past 30 years. (This is not the only assessors to claim they had no paperwork!)

How can we possibly have openness and transparency in the assessors, if they are claiming they have no paperwork to show how they measures and assesses properties in line with any proper Practice Notes!

If you have had a similar experience, then we would like to hear from your.

GlennCTax

The public need to check all information they receive from the Lothian Valuation Joint Board assessors

Below are examples of the misleading information we have received from the assessors. The assessors have given us misleading property sizes, property Bandings, wrong sales prices, wrong apartment counts and numerous misleading statements. 

When the "Assessor" was offered access to our Taped Recorded House Meetings, he did not take up our offer!  In fact the "Assessor" did not respond to our offer!

The assessors claimed they gave us all Tone Date Properties for Band C, D and E.  You will see below the assessors withheld a number of Tone Date properties that all favoured our Case.


The left column is the misleading information     The right column is the correct     
 we received.                                                        information we should have 
                                                                             received.
   
1 - Property given as Band E  -  5 1/2 apt            Band A  -  4 apt

2 - Property given as Band C  -  4 apt                  Band B  -  2 apt

3 - Property given as Band D  3 1/2 apt                Band B  -  2 apt

4 - Property size 131 sq m                                   119 sq m

5 - Property size 110 sq m                                    105 sq m

6 - Property size 88 sq m                                       79 sq m


Taped evidence, Planning Documents and FOI replies back up the following statements

7   - Property given wrong 1st floor size                                      Still using wrong size
       Given wrong ground size                                                      Claimed it had been corrected 

8   - Given wrong Banding,                                                          Blamed this on another staff member!
       wrong size and number of apartments                                 Taped Evidence       

9   -  Assessor confirmed he would provide Report                     No such Evidence existed!

10 - Claimed Attic Plan did not exist                                            We found it - it 
                                                                                                     proved assessors 
                                                                                                     were using the 
                                                                                                     wrong size

11 - Claimed there was no local Comparisons                            Not True - we found 20!

              
Every one of these properties below were withheld from our Tone Date List.  All of these properties favoured our Case for Comparisons against our un-extended Cottage or our extended size.

In order to find these properties, we had to first check the Archive Library Newspapers for Cottages on sale around 1991, then write to register of Sasine's to do a search for sales details, then buy each property that sold.

The assessors are totally aware how difficult it is for the public to find sold property details as far back as 1991. 

12 - Tone Date property withheld                                                   Band D                                  

13 - Tone Date property withheld                                                   Band D

14 - Tone Date property withheld                                                   Band D

15 - Tone Date property withheld                                                   Band D

16 - Tone Date property withheld                                                   Band D

17 - Tone Date property withheld                                                   Band D

18 - Tone Date property withheld                                                   Band C

19 - Tone Date property withheld                                                   Band C

20 - Tone Date property withheld                                                   Band C

21 - Tone Date property withheld                                                   Band C


There are still many other items not yet released in this post.   This will give you an idea of the types of misleading information we have received and what to look out for.

If you are challenging your Council tax Band, be sure to check all evidence you are given.

I shall give more details in future Posts.  

GlennCTax

A DIVISIONAL ASSESSOR - MEMBER OF RICS - USING MISLEADING INFORMATION IN COURT PRODUCTIONS



It is obvious from the picture above, our attic does not have full headroom.  Our previous assessor had given us Reduced Sizes for our attic.  He explained he uses the Reduced Sizes due to its head restrictions and the fact that the rooms are not as useable as full head height ground floors. 

However, when a Divisional Valuer and RICS (Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors) member took over our Case, she decided she would give herself an added advantage by counting the full floor area of both our attic rooms.  The Divisional Assessor also entered these misleading sizes in the Court Productions.


Below is a sample of this Divisional Valuers behaviour:

1 - This RICS member measured the floor area of our attic as if it had full headroom. 

2 - An email shows this Valuer has confirmed Reduced Sizes are used when headroom is restricted.

3 - Documented evidence shows this Valuer went out as far as 7 miles to find a Comparison Cottage that was all on the ground floor against our Cottage with the restricted attic rooms.

4 - Our evidence shows this Valuer used Rate Per Square metre in her Court Productions.

5 - Our Evidence shows we are not the only Appellants to receive misleading information from this Valuer.

6 - RICS has stated that it is not acceptable for members to give misleading information, intentionally or unintentionally.

7 - The assessors have already made it very clear, they will not allow the public to use misleading information.

8 - The Barclay Report (Rates 2017) have already warned the assessors, they would need to change their behaviour.

This is only a sample of the Evidence we have acquired in relation to this Valuer. 

Once again, if you are about to challenge your Council Tax Band, you should be aware of the methods the assessors use when compiling their Evidence.  We have only given a sample of the tactics used.

We are still gathering Evidence as we continue our Campaign for Change.  

Please feel free to add your comments.

GlennCTax

Divisional Valuer - Uses Grossly Misleading Evidence - In Her Court Productions - Against Our Detached Cottage

1 - This Divisional Valuer presents herself to the Court as a RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) member and Expert Witness, yet goes out 7 miles to grossly mislead the Court with her Mid Terrace Comparison.

2 - This Mid Terrace Cottage, is far more expensive that all 5 Tone Date Detached Cottages in our local area.

3 - One of the local Detached Cottages is approximately 40% larger than this Mid Terrace Comparison used by the Valuer

4 - Despite the Detached Cottage being 40% larger than her Mid Terrace, it is also far less expensive that her Mid Terrace

5 - The Valuer uses this Mid Terrace, 7 miles away despite a Council Tax Manager informing us:

"...yes you are right, you are absolutely correct, there is no doubt we can find evidence for all houses if we probably spread far enough, it would be unfair because you are using an area of a different level of value, that would be grossly unfair, because that is not the level for that particular area".

This quote is from a Taped Meeting at our Cottage, with a Council Tax Manager with 40 years experience.  This is her own colleague pointing out that the action she has taken is "grossly misleading"!

This Divisional Valuer was submitting this grossly misleading Evidence into a "Court of Law".

My wife and I do not have any assessing experience, however we do not need any assessing experience to recognise the fact that this Divisional Valuer is using grossly misleading evidence in her Court Productions!

These are the same assessors that threaten the public with " fines or imprisonment" if the public use misleading information!

Our 1st assessment was carried out by a Senior Technician - Assessment Grossly Misleading

Our 2nd assessment was carried out by a Council Tax Manager - Assessment Grossly Misleading

This Divisional Valuer (RICS) - Expert Witness had a 3rd opportunity to get her Assessment correct and still failed.

Again, this is only a sample of the Evidence we have against this Divisional Valuer, and we are still investigating. 

This is just another example of why we decided we would dedicate our time and energy into Campaigning for Change.

This appears to be a common practice, using misleading Comparisons.  This is why you have to investigate your assessors evidence.

If you have had a similar experience then we would like to hear from you.

Please feel free to comment.

GlennCTax

Divisional Valuer goes out to Cottages in Various Conservation Villages to Compare against our Cottage in a Town

If there is anyone out there about to challenge their Council Tax Band, then this Post will give you an idea of some of the misleading Evidence the assessors used in our Case.  Some of the assessors Evidence is simply blatantly misleading, while other areas are more intricate.

1 - As shown in the previous post, this Divisional Valuer went out as far as 7 miles to find a Mid Terrace Cottage to compare against our Detached Cottage.

In this Post, we would like to point out the fact that this Valuer also went out to various Conservation Villages to use against our Cottage which is based in a Town.

The assessors have already stated, they can find Evidence for any property if they go out far enough, however, this would be "grossly unfair".

Yet this is precisely what this Valuer did.  She ignored local Evidence, then went out to find her Comparison properties in various Conservation Villages in order that she can improve her chances of winning her Case. 

The local Comparative Evidence has Detached Cottages, Semi Detached, Mid Terrace and End Terrace Cottages.  There is absolutely no need for this Valuer to travel out to different Conservation Villages to use against our Cottage situated in a Town.

This Divisional Valuer (RICS), showed she was willing to cast aside her integrity, in order that she may gain an advantage in winning this Case.  We initially trusted and believed our assessors.  In the beginning, we believed we were dealing with a professional organisation.

2 - Below are a few examples of statements made at previous Valuation Appeal Hearings.  These statements show the assessors are totally aware of the importance of using the local Comparative Evidence.

a)  The Committee accepted that the assessor was using the best available local comparative evidence.

b)  The assessors analysis was all based on the best evidence from local houses.

c)  The assessor stated the best evidence is prices achieved in the market near to tone date for comparable houses in the locality.

d)  The assessor stated that local evidence was the best evidence, which the Committee readily accepted.

e)  The assessor talked of using the best local evidence although it was a 15 minute walk from the Appellants property. 

(In our Case the assessors used properties of over a 2 hour walk from our Cottage.  They also used one Comparison Cottage as far out as a 2 hours 45 minute walk from our Cottage!)

Our Taped Evidence also shows that the assessors informed us that they would be using evidence from the local area to present to the Committee.

3 - This is the 3rd assessment carried out by the assessors.  The previous assessors have used numerous misleading Evidence and statements in a bid to enhance their chances of winning their Case. 

This Divisional Valuer had a 3rd opportunity to put forward the assessors Case.  She had an obligation to put forward a balanced assessment and failed to do so.

This again gives an example of what the public is up against while attempting to have a fair and balanced Hearing of Appeal.

4 - The assessors already have a huge advantage over the Appellant as they have access to all Tone Date sales prices around 1991. 

- They have all the information on property sizes, apartment count, garages and outbuildings. 

- They also have experience of presenting Evidence in the Appeal Hearings.  Some of the assessors dealing with our Case had approximately 40 years experience with the Assessors Office, yet still the assessors use a volume of misleading Evidence and statements to improve their chances of winning their Case!!

It is truly difficult to comprehend the volume of misleading Evidence used by the assessors in only one Case!


5 - These assessors are entrusted to place over 400,000 properties into the correct Council Tax Bands.  If only 1 or 2% of our Evidence is extrapolated, then there could be 1000's of people placed in the wrong Tax Band due to the use of misleading Evidence being used by the assessors.

We do not make this statement lightly.  We have committed hundreds of hours in compiling our extensive file of over 100 items of documented Evidence, backed up by several hours of Taped Evidence. 

This is only a sample of the Evidence we have against this Divisional Valuer.  We shall give updates in the coming days and weeks as we gather and compile further Evidence.

Please feel free to add a comment of your own experience, we would like to hear from you.

GlennCTax

As shown above this Divisional Valuer went out 7 miles to find a Mid Terrace to Compare against our Detached Cottage.  This constant use of misleading information used by the assessors, shows there is a pattern of using misleading information against members of the public who challenge their Council Tax Band.

Another Comparison used by this Valuer, was a Detached Cottage approx 7 miles away from our own Cottage.  In was out in the middle of the countryside.  Once again, there is no need for this Valuer to go out 7 miles, as there are a number of Detached Comparison Cottages she could use in our local Town!

This Comparison was approx - 2 1/2  hours walk away from our Cottage.  

Not only did the Valuer go out 7 miles to find her Comparison, our Evidence also shows she also misrepresented the details of this Cottage.  Unfortunately, our Evidence shows the public must check every detail of the assessors Evidence.

Please feel free to make a comment.

lincroft1710

GlennCTax said:

As shown above this Divisional Valuer went out 7 miles to find a Mid Terrace to Compare against our Detached Cottage.  This constant use of misleading information used by the assessors, shows there is a pattern of using misleading information against members of the public who challenge their Council Tax Band.

Another Comparison used by this Valuer, was a Detached approx 7 miles away from our own Cottage.  In was out in the middle of the countryside.  Once again, there is no need for this Valuer to go out 7 miles, as there are a number of Detached Comparison Cottages she could use in our local Town!

This Comparison was approx - 2 1/2  hours walk away from our Cottage.  

Not only did the Valuer go out 7 miles to find her Comparison, our Evidence also shows she also misrepresented the details of this Cottage.  Unfortunately, our Evidence shows the public must check every detail of the assessors Evidence.

Please feel free to make a comment.

Strange you should say this, because for me being ex VOA , the boot has been on the other foot.


On one occasion a CT payer's evidence at a Tribunal Hearing was of a house in a much cheaper town 15 miles away in the next county, when there was plenty of evidence in their own and adjoining streets (which I had provided). Another time a CT payer was citing new build estates and claiming they were all near his home and he had visited them and measured properties when it was obvious he was less than truthful as the phone number for the on site sales office of one of these estates was for an area also 15 miles away and I personally knew that estate was not in the our county..


I don't know about the Scottish Tribunals' rules of evidence, but in England it is not against the rules to actually present evidence of properties miles away (correctly identified) or of a different type but clearly such evidence would usually be adjudged to have little relevance unless it was of a procedural/precedential nature rather than valuation and usually a High Court case.