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

GlennCTax

Hi Lincroft

1 - We would agree, the Appellant may chance their hand from time to time.

2 - You say there are occasions when the Assessors have to use Tone Date Comparisons from areas or towns further out if there is no local Tone Date Comparisons.  Again we agree with you, this sounds perfectly logical to us, however, in our Case there are numerous Tone Date Comparisons in our local area.

When we questioned a Senior Technician why he went out 8 miles to find his Tone Date Comparisons when he should use local Comparison Evidence that is nearby, the Technician stated:

"Yes but there is no Tone Date sales nearby". ."there is none nearby, so what we have done, we have searched and these are the one we have come up with". - We searched and we found in excess of 20 local Comparisons.

A Council Tax Manager clearly demonstrated that the assessors are fully aware of the importance of using local Comparisons, he stated:

"yes you are right, you are absolutely correct, there is no doubt we can probably find evidence for all houses if we spread out 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".

 - Yet this is precisely what this Council Tax Manager did.  He ignored the local Comparisons, then went out 7 miles to find Comparison Evidence that favoured his Case.

In his own words, what he did was "grossly unfair" - We would class this as grossly misleading.

When 7 assessors including the "Assessor" and the Depute Assessor all repeatedly give misleading information, this does call the integrity of the "Assessors" Office into question.

In Scotland we are informed that it is local Comparison properties that should be used as outlined above, it appears to be similar to England.

Thanks again for your Post.

GlennCTax

As in the previous Posts, we explained of how this Divisional Valuer went out as far as 7 miles to find a Detached Cottage for her Comparison.  She also went out to the middle of the countryside to find a Mid-Terrace to compare against our Detached Cottage. 

This Valuer also went out to a Conservation Village to find a Semi-Detached Cottage to use as one of her Comparisons. We see in the Court Minutes, how the Committee have already described this actual Conservation Village as a particularly attractive Village, which would probably attract a premium price compared to other areas.

This is just another example of the lengths this Valuer will go to in a bid to win her Case.  Once again there is no need for this Divisional Valuer to go out 7 miles, or go in the middle of the Countryside, or to travel out to premium Villages, all the local Evidence she needs in the very Town where our Cottage is situated.

Again and again the assessors tell the Court that the best Evidence for Comparison properties is in the local area and best of all is Comparisons that are in the same street. Only just today, new Evidence was uncovered in relation to this Valuer. 

We are not alone in condemning the assessors actions and behaviour.  Other examples are, the Barclay Report, the Court Committee members and many other Appellants.

We are continuing to open new avenues in an attempt to further our Campaign.  

If your assessors have used Comparisons outside of your local area, you need to check their Evidence.  Remember every piece of Evidence used by the assessors has to be checked.  As mentioned in our earlier Posts, our Evidence has shown the assessors have repeatedly used misleading Evidence in every area of their assessments.

If you have received a similar experience please feel free to comment.

GlennCTax

RICS Valuer Misleads the Court again as illustrated in the picture below - Country Courtyard setting.



POINT 1 - This Valuer misrepresents the size of her Comparison Cottage in the photo above.  She shows the length of the Cottage above as depicted by the yellow line.  You will note the yellow line stops just before the delightful featured room with the grey slated roof above the arch.  This delightful room is also a part of this Valuers Comparison Cottage.

The yellow arrow should have continued to the end of this room to show this featured room is also part of this Comparison Cottage.  The yellow line gives the impression the featured room is not part of this Cottage.


POINT 2 - Our Evidence shows this is not the only area this Valuer used misleading details in relation to this Comparison Cottage.   Once again, there is no need for this Valuer to travel out 7 miles to find her Comparisons, or go to Conservation Villages, or use Courtyard settings against our Cottage in town.  All the Evidence she needs is within our Town.


If you are going through an Appeal, you have to check each Comparison property the assessors use.  We found it helpful to visit each Comparison on the assessors Production List.

If any Appellant out there has had a similar experience, then please feel free to comment.

This is only a small sample of the assessors behaviour.  We shall give further updates in the coming days and weeks.

GlennCTax

Appellants Experience while dealing with the same Divisional Valuer

(See previous Posts above).

As part of our Campaign we have been communicating and meeting with other Appellants. We met with one Appellant last week to discuss our experiences while dealing with this Divisional Valuer. This Appellant gave her experience as detailed below.

POINT 1 – When this Appellant made her Council Tax Appeal, she believed she would be dealing with a professional staff member of the Lothian Valuation Joint Board.

This Divisional Valuer visited the Appellant at her home to show her Evidence of why the Appellant’s property has been placed in its present Council Tax Band.

However, instead of producing the plan of the Appellant’s flat, the Valuer showed her a piece of paper with hand drawn sizes on it. This hand drawn Plan was not the plan of her flat at all. The sizes were greater than the size of her flat and the number of apartments was also wrong.

The Valuer informed the Appellant that she had no idea where this information had come from!

This was not very reassuring to the Appellant. However, this was only the beginning.

POINT 2 – By the time this Appellant had been through her Appeal system she was left very disappointed with the whole process.

She talked of how she had serious concerns with the data produced and how she felt she had been put under unnecessary stress. Our Evidence shows there was absolutely no need for this Appellant to be put under such stress levels.

POINT 3 – At the end of her Appeal system, this Appellant took her Case to the Ombudsman. She wrote to a number of agents, including the Scottish Parliament. She felt so strongly about the way she had been treated, she attempted to seek legal representation in order that she could take her Case to the Court of Session!

POINT 4 – When we met up with this Appellant, we all agreed we take no pleasure in devoting our time and effort into investigating these assessors. We all initially had amicable discussions with the assessors.

However, we were all in agreement, these assessing staff members had a duty to allow us an open and transparent assessment. Our Evidence shows we were denied this basic right. This is why we are continuing our investigations.

If you have been through the Lothian Valuation Appeal system, we would like to hear your experience. This can be a positive or negative experience.

Please feel free to comment.

GlennCTax

Lothian Valuation Joint Board + RICS Members (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) - (see Posts above)

POINT 1 - “Bombshell report by Alison Levitt QC that led to resignation of four of the RICS’ senior team”

- “This has been a sad and depressing episode in the life of a great Institution.”

We note RICS is already attempting to show it continues to have “global standards for valuation” after the Alison Levitt QC Report was released on 09 September 2021.

Firm action was taken to show RICS will not tolerate its global reputation being tarnished.

  - “The Governing Council has committed to implementing all the report’s recommendations” 

RICS proudly announces its valuation standard on the global stage.  We shall be asking RICS, if this Valuer’s assessment of our Case, is a good example of the global standard which RICS portrays on the global stage.

We shall be requesting the views of RICS in relation to our Evidence and the assessment we have received from this RICS Valuer.

POINT 2 - This Valuer presents herself as an expert witness and as a RICS member.  This Valuer had the simple task of introducing an honest, balanced and transparent Case into the Appeal Hearing and allowing the Committee Members to deliberate on the facts.

Our Evidence and the Evidence of others, shows this Valuer was willing to gambled with the integrity of RICS and the LVJB, in order that she may win her Case!!

POINT 3 - We repeatedly requested that, the assessors simply give us an honest Hearing of Appeal.  We reminded the  “Assessor” (Member of RICS) of how the “Barclay Report” (Rates) of 2017 threatened the Assessors they would need to change their behaviour e.g.

- 4.62 “However, we believe that changes do need to be made to the accountability and behaviour of the Assessors”. 

- 12 “Assessors should provide more transparency and consistency of approach. If this is not achieved voluntarily, a new Scotland wide Statutory Body should be created which would be accountable to Ministers”.

Our Evidence shows this RICS “Assessor” did not heed the warning of the Barclay Report.

If these RICS members of the LVJB believe there are not guilty of any wrong doing, then they have nothing to fear from investigation or scrutiny.

We shall keep you up to date with our responses from RICS.  

We shall extend our communications with other Appellants to further support our Campaign for change.

Please feel free to comment if you have had a similar experience in relation to our previous Posts as shown above.

GlennCTax

Additional Misleading Evidence used by this Valuer 

POINT 1 - As mentioned in previous Posts above, this Valuer not only went out approximately 7 miles to find a Mid-Terrace and a Detached Cottage, she also went out 6 miles to find an End-Terrace to use in her Court Productions against our Detached Cottage.

There is no need for this Valuer to go out 6 miles to find an End-Terrace Cottage, as there are many Detached and Semi-Detached Cottages in our Town.  This End-Terrace is also more expensive than all Detached Cottages in our Town!

This property is situated in the middle of the countryside with stunning views all around!  

This Valuer has used Misleading Evidence in every area of her assessment. 

- She has ignored the Reduction Factors that she and all other assessing members have admitted should be used.

- She has measured and counted all areas of our attic, including under 5 feet (approximately 1.52 metres).

- Our email Evidence shows she understands these areas should not be included in the sizes of our attic.

- She went out 7 miles to find a Mid-Terrace Cottage that is more expensive than all our local Detached Cottages!

- She went out 6 miles to find an End-Terrace Cottage that again is more expensive than all our local Detached Cottages!

- She compared full head height Cottages, all on the ground floor, against our Cottage with a restricted 1st floor .

- She went out several miles to find Conservation Villages and countryside areas to use against our Town Cottage.

These are only a few examples of the Misleading Evidence used by this Valuer.

POINT 2 - RICS has stated - 

“What is beyond question is the need for professional measurers not to mislead, intentionally or unintentionally. The former is obviously the foundation of all professional institutions, not just RICS” 

POINT 3 - Our Evidence and the Evidence we see in the Court Minutes shows the above practise of ignoring local Evidence appears to happen on a regular basis.  This one area of Misleading Evidence can easily cost members of the public in excess of £10,000 in extra Taxes.

These are the areas you have to check when dealing with the Lothian Valuation Joint Board assessors.

Please feel free to comment if you have had any similar experience.

GlennCTax

This RICS Valuer Misleads the Court with her Version of Rate Per Square Metre Calculations

1 - This Valuer uses her Rate Per Square Metre to show our property is correctly placed in Band E.  As mentioned in earlier Posts, this Valuer misleads the Court by going out as far a 7 miles to all different areas and villages to find Comparison Cottages that favoured her Case.  These areas bear no relation to our Cottage which is based in a Town.

2 - We also explored the use of Rate Per Square Metre.  We looked at the local Comparison Cottages in our own Town.  Our Evidence placed our Cottage in Band D.  We did another analysis of local Evidence, again it placed us in Band D.

In fact we did 7 different scenarios.  We did scenarios with local Evidence, then other scenarios using all different areas, all firmly placed us in Band D.

3 - The assessors have stated they have no paperwork and do not use a Code of Measurement.  How do the assessors show the Court or the public that these Rate Per Square Metre calculations are being applied in line with any set of guidelines or procedures, if they have no paperwork.

How can the public challenge the methodology of assessing used by the assessors in Court if the assessors are claiming they have no paperwork.  Our Evidence show the assessors have all used different methods of assessing!!

4 - As the Council Tax Manager stated, they can find Evidence for any property if they go out far enough, however, that would be "grossly unfair".  - Grossly Misleading!!

This Council Tax Manager has also explained how using Comparison properties from other areas outside of the local area has no relation to the assessment of a property, as it is the local Evidence that is relevant.  These assessors have been using Rate Per Square Metre against other members of the public for decades!

5 - Our extensive file of Taped and Documented Evidence will show these assessors have used misleading Evidence in every area of their assessments.  We are not only claiming these assessors have used misleading Evidence, we are claiming our Evidence shows they are deliberately using misleading Evidence! 

Our Taped and Documented Evidence will show, when we questioned the assessors misleading Evidence, they had the opportunity to admit a mistake was made, however, they chose to continue to use misleading Evidence.

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

Have the assessors used Rate Per Square Metre with your assessment.  Did you check their Evidence. 

We are extending our Campaign for Change, we shall present further information in the coming days and weeks.

Please feel free to leave a comment if you have had a similar experience.

GlennCTax

The RICS Valuer Submits “Irrelevant” Evidence into Court 

POINT 1 - This RICS Valuer submitted in her Evidence, a picture of an irrelevant run down Cottage in our street as shown in the picture above. This Cottage is not a Tone Date property, it sold in 1996.  This picture has absolutely no relevance to our Case!

The assessors repeatedly inform the Court again and again, that when Tone Date sales are available, then recent house sales are “not relevant”.

Even in Cases where the only Evidence the Appellant has is recent house sales, the assessors inform the Court that the Appellant’s recent sales must be disregarded, as the assessors are restricted to using the Tone Date sales.  These Tone Date Sales are held by the assessors.  This leaves the Appellant without any Evidence to defend their Case.

Assessor also stated in Court – he is not able to consider recent sales however unfair that may appear to be.

POINT 2 - There is one Tone Date Cottage in our street which sold in 1989, it is only a few metres from our Cottage.  

The first assessor who initially dealt with our Case used this 1989 Tone Date Cottage in his Court Productions. 

In his Evidence to the Court, he was submitting that this 1989 Tone Date Cottage was smaller than our Cottage, it was in the same street and it was Band E.  His information showed that our Cottage was larger than this Tone Date Cottage, therefore, we must also be in Band E.

This all sounds very logical, this 1989 Tone Date Cottage appears to be an ideal Cottage for the RICS Valuer to use.  So why does this experienced RICS Valuer not use this ideal Tone Date Cottage just a few metres away from our own Cottage.  Why does she totally ignore this 1989 Tone Date Cottage and opt to show the totally irrelevant Cottage which sold in 1996, as shown above?

Could it perhaps have anything to do with the fact, that the first assessor blatantly used misleading Evidence in his Court Productions when submitting the details of this 1989 Tone Date Cottage in our street.

Could it be that our Taped and Documented Evidence shows this first assessor had the opportunity to admit a mistake had been made with this Tone Date Cottage, however, he again chose to use further misleading Evidence in relation to this Cottage!!!!

POINT 3 – Once again, there is no need for this RICS Valuer to use this picture of the irrelevant Cottage as shown above, there are scores of Tone Date Cottages she could have used. 

This is only a small sample of the behaviour of this RICS Valuer.  This is not the only area where she ignores real Tone Date Evidence and opts to use totally irrelevant Evidence.  

POINT 4 - We are arranging to meet up again with another Appellant to further investigate specific areas of this Valuers Evidence.

These assessors have been entrusted with all the assessing Evidence.  They have an obligation to ensure the public receive an honest, balanced and transparent Assessment.

We shall be giving further updates in the coming days and weeks.

Had a similar experience, have the assessors used irrelevant or misleading Evidence in your Assessment.  Please feel free to comment.

GlennCTax

More Examples of Irrelevant Information used by the Assessors in their Court Productions

POINT 1 - As explained in the previous Post, this Valuer used a 1996 sale in her Court Productions, she also used a 2002 sale and a 2016 sale.  The assessors have already informed the Court that non Tone Date Sales must be disregarded.

POINT 2 - This Valuer also went out to a Conservation Village to find a 2003 sale.  This 2003 sale was also a Band G property!! 

This Band G property, which sold in 2003 and is in a Conservation Village, has absolutely no relevance to our Cottage which is situated in a Town.  This Band G property is irrelevant and should not appear anywhere on the assessors Productions!!!

POINT 3 - This RICS Valuer also has a Principal Surveyor (RICS) working with her, on our Case.  The Evidence in our Court Minute No.104, shows this Principal Surveyor has already intimated to the Court, that the Appellants recent sales are not relevant.  The Appellant was appealing to the Court stating that he:

"had not been able to produce any other sales evidence of sales around the tone date"

Despite the fact this Appellant only had recent property sales to defend his Case, this Principal Surveyor informed the Court:

"in respect of more recent sales stated that he did not consider these relevant and that the assessor was restricted to 1991 values and while interesting the later sales are not relevant".

Our Evidence shows this Appellant is not alone.  Our other Evidence shows another Appellant pointed out to the Court that the assessors do not allow recent sales, however, it does not stop the Assessors from submitting recent sales!!!


POINT 4 - Our Evidence shows that while these assessors are submitting non Tone Date sales into their Court Productions, they have been ignoring the real Evidence of the Tone Date Sales in our local Town.

The Assessors state openly in Court that the "Law" restricts them to using Tone Date sales.  Our future Posts will show how the assessors repeatedly ignore Tone Date Evidence and use their misleading Evidence in a bid to favour their Case.

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

Have the assessors used irrelevant or misleading  Evidence in your Case. 

If you have had a similar experience, please feel free to comment.

GlennCTax

Valuer (RICS) grossly misleads the Court by withholding the Class of her Comparisons 

POINT 1 - Our first assessor, the Senior Technician included the Class of each property in his Court Productions. He explained that our Cottage was Classed as 7C and the highest Class of properties on his Production list were Classed as 7D.  He explained Class 7D properties were improved to a very high standard and that was shown by the "D". 
He also pointed out that this information is on the office computer.

POINT 2 - However, when we looked at this Valuers Court Productions, we see she has omitted to show the Class of every one of her Comparison Cottages.  Our own Evidence shows, over 70% of this Valuers Comparison Cottages were Classed as 7D.  Our Evidence comes directly from the Assessors own office computer!!  This Valuer is totally aware of the significance of withholding the Class of her high quality Comparison Cottages. 

POINT 3 - This  Valuer went into great detail when describing the positive aspects of our Class C Cottage, even pointing out to the Court in her Productions that we have mature trees in our back garden (we had 2 small mature trees).  Yet she totally hides the fact that most of the Comparison Cottages she was using against our Cottage, were improved to the highest standard of Class D.

POINT 4 - Another Appellant has shown us Documented Evidence of how this Valuer referred to "inferior" flats while comparing these flats to her own flat.   She also referred to the Appellants flat as better quality than other flats. 

Again the Court is making judgements on the quality and the standard of these flats. Why did this Valuer not show the Court the Class of her Comparison flats as they are recorded on the office Computer.  They do not have to rely on hearsay Evidence from the Valuer.  We received the Class of every property on the Tone Date lists we received.  

The Court and the Appellant have the right to know of the quality and standard of the Comparisons the Valuer is using as Evidence to support her Case.

POINT 5 - The Court Minutes also show how the improvement and quality of properties have been crucial in deciding which Band a property is placed in.  A few examples are shown below:

In Minute 110 - The assessor stated to the Court that the Appellants property was "finished to a good quality standard."

In Minute 111 - The assessor stated to the Court that the Appellants house had "a modern finish into a high standard"

POINT 6 - It is not only the Class this Valuer withholds from the Appellant.  Another Appellant has shown us Documented Evidence she received from this Valuer, that caused this Appellant a great deal of stress.  Our Evidence will show, the actions this Valuer took, can only be described as deliberate actions.

We hold numerous items of Evidence that will show there was absolutely no need for this Valuer to cause such stress to this Appellant, the Appeal process is already stressful enough without causing further stress to the Appellant! 

We are still investigating this area to establish the full extent of Evidence this Appellant holds in relation to this issue.  We will be Posting our findings on this issue in more detail in a future Post, possibly, in a few weeks time.

This is just a small sample of what the Appellant must be aware of when challenging their Council Tax Band.

We shall continue to give further Posts in the coming days and weeks. 

Had a similar experience.  Please feel free to comment.