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

GlennCTax

Misleading Evidence used by the Valuer

POINT 1 - below is one of this Valuers Comparison Cottages



Below is a picture of our traditional slate roof Cottage - item 2



You do not need any RICS training to see these Cottages are not similar! (this is only one example of her Comparisons)  

POINT 2 - This Valuer claims her report complies with the requirements of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). 

Our Evidence shows this Valuer has used misleading Evidence in almost every area of her assessment.  This Valuer also measured our attic areas that are under 1.5 metres (5 feet) and included these inferior spaces in her rate per square metre calculation, when making comparisons with Cottages all on the ground floor with full head height.  Our Evidence shows this Valuer uses Reduction Factors, yet ignored the Reduced Area of our attic in her assessment.

We are still investigating other serious issues in relation to this Valuers behaviour and her assessments.

POINT 3 - Is this Valuer suggesting that a global organisation such as RICS, would support her actions and behaviour, as the standards RICS customers can expect from their RICS members. This is only one RICS member, there is still another 4 RICS members behaviour to report on.  RICS have already taken swift action to reassert its integrity after the scandal of the Alison Levitt enquiry

This is only a small sample of the behaviour and misleading Evidence this Valuer has used.

We shall be giving further examples of this Valuers behaviour in the following days and weeks.

Unfortunately, this is another example of the type of behaviour the Appellant will need to be aware of when checking their assessors Evidence.

Had a similar experience, please feel free to comment.

GlennCTax

FURTHER MISLEADING EVIDENCE USED BY THIS VALUER (RICS) 

POINT 1 - This is another example of this Valuer going out to a Conservation Village to find a Comparison Cottage that favours her Case.  She also uses misleading Evidence in relation to this Comparison Cottage.

POINT 2 - This valuer showed the Court - 2 sales of her Comparison Cottage as shown below:

1st sale in 1990 for £50,000
2nd sale in 2003 for £215,000 - Assessors repeatedly tell the Court recent sales are irrelevant - It is not a Tone Date sale

POINT 3 - However, there is another sale of this Cottage that is relevant.  The 2 relevant sales are shown below:

1st sale in 1990 for £50,000
2nd sale in 1993 for £40,250 - This 1993 sale is a Tone Date sale and is relevant - Not the 2003 sale.

POINT 4 - Our Evidence also shows other assessors withheld a crucial 1989 sale from the Court and showed only the 1994 sale.  The 1994 sale strongly favoured the assessors Case and was far more expensive than the1989 sale which was withheld.  

The assessors also mislead the Court by claiming, they showed the Court all the Tone Date sales in the Village.  He then searched outside the Village to find other sales that would favour his Case!

POINT 5 - Our Evidence also shows other relevant information has been withheld from the Court.

Our Evidence for the above statements are backed up by Register of Sasine's documents, Library Archives, Court Minutes and a document from the assessors.

This is only a small sample of the Evidence we have in relation to this Valuer.  We shall give further updates in the coming days and weeks.

This is another example of what the Appellant must look out for when checking the assessors Evidence.

Had a similar experience.  Please feel free to comment.

GlennCTax

HERE IS SOME EXAMPLES OF THE MISLEADING EVIDENCE USED BY LVJB

POINT 1 - A few examples of misleading Evidence from our 3 Taped House Meetings

Taped House Meetings of 1st assessment with the Technician

- The 1st assessor, the Technician used misleading sizes in our attic
- He used further misleading Evidence when we questioned him on this issue
- He also used misleading sizes on our ground floor
- Tapes show he used further misleading Evidence after we questioned him on this issue
- He claimed he would send us his Evidence, then claimed he knew nothing about this statement
- Showed us his misleading Evidence, then claimed he was helping us to present our Case
- Used misleading Evidence in relation to the age of our Cottage
- Claimed a neighbouring Semi-Detached Cottage was an End Terraced
- Gave various misleading Evidence in relation to a neighbouring Detached Cottage
- Claimed there was no local Comparisons for our un-extended Cottage - We found 20 
- This Technician has used misleading Evidence in every area of his assessment

POINT 2 - 2nd assessment was done by a Council Tax Manager and Valuer (RICS) 

Taped House Meeting with the Council Tax Manager and Valuer

- Used misleading sizes in our attic
- Used misleading sizes on our ground floor 
- Made misleading statement in relation to our un-extended Cottage
- Used misleading Evidence in relation to the age of our Cottage
- Attempted to cover up for the Technicians misleading sizes
- Repeatedly claimed the value of a garage had to be removed when Comparing Cottages
- Claimed the value of an outbuilding had to be removed when Comparing Cottages
- Claimed they use the plot size when calculating Rate Per Square Metre
- Denied he stated our attic should be measured internally
- Denied he stated they use information from RICS 
- Used 3 neighbouring Cottages that are totally irrelevant
- Openly stated he was concerned he might give us conflicting info compared to the Technician
- Council Tax Manager stated "there's nobody more honest than me"
- The Valuer (RICS) stated he had recommended this CT Manager to work on our Case.
- This Valuer assured us, none of the assessors would attempt to mislead us
- These assessors used misleading Evidence in every area of their assessment

POINT 3 - The above examples of misleading Evidence involved a Technician with approx 40 years experience.
A Council Tax Manager with approx 40 years experience.  A Valuer (RICS) with approx 17 years experience.

Our extensive file also covers misleading Evidence from:

- An experienced Valuer and Surveyor responsible for our 3rd assessment.
- The "Assessor" and a Depute Assessor.
- Other Appellants Evidence. 

We are at this moment taking steps to extend our Campaign for Change.

Had a similar experience.  Please feel free to comment.

GlennCTax

THIS VALUER STATES - OUR TIMBER FRAMED FLAT ROOF EXTENSION 
     - Has been done    "sympathetic and complementary to the period property"



                                                Below is a picture of our Flat Roof Extension


POINT 1 - You do not have to be a trained Valuer to see this Extension is not sympathetically built in keeping with the original Cottage. Below is an example of an Extension being done sympathetically!


POINT 2 - A neighbour had an Extension added to her original Cottage.  Her extension consisted of :

- "Roof to have a slate finish to match existing"

- "External wall to be constructed in random rubble to match existing"

- "New timber windows to have a stained timber finish"

- "New stone lintels and cills to match existing"

- "RWPs and gutters to be cast iron painted black to match existing"

This is what is known as building an Extension sympathetically with the original period Cottage.


POINT 3 - We have seen how this Valuer has informed another Appellant of how her property is of a better quality than other Comparison properties the Valuer had referred to in her Court Productions  This Valuer has demonstrated that she understands, that the quality of properties have a direct affect on their value. 

Yet when the assessors refer to our Extension built with a Timber Frame, flat felt roof with UPVC windows and plastic guttering, they state it is not inferior to our original stone Cottage with slate roof and cast iron guttering, as shown above.

POINT 4 - This is just another example of the behaviour of this Valuer (RICS), giving misleading statements in her Court Productions. In an earlier Post we showed how our attic rooms had very restricted headroom with walls under 1 metre high.  This Valuer used Rate Per Square, to compare our restricted attic rooms with Cottages with full head height up to 7 miles away.

Is this the standard of service RICS customers can expect from its members.  RICS is a global organisation.  It is  attempting to re-establish its name on the global market after the Alison Levitt QC Review.  This is only one small part of the Report on this Valuer.  We are still investigating previous actions.

This is just another example of what the Appellant has to look out for.

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

Had a similar experience.  Please feel free to comment.

GlennCTax

More Examples of Misleading Evidence used by the Senior Technician - 40 years Experience 


Below is an example of a Cottage with a Mansard Roof and large attic spaces as used by the Technician.


Below is another examples of how this Technician gives misleading statements.


POINT 1 -  At our House Meeting we pointed out to the Technician that his Comparison properties had much more headroom in their attic rooms compared to our attic rooms which had very restricted headroom.  Our Ceiling width is only 24cm.

The Technician stated that these Mansard attic rooms are measured at 74% of their actual size due to the extra space and headroom they have.  Below is an extract of our discussion on this issue.

Technician stated  - "They are guaranteed to be 74%, all of them"  - Not True.

Our Documented Evidence, shows this statement from the Technician is not true.  Our Evidence comes directly from the assessors own office Computer.  This is just one of many misleading statements used by this Technician.


POINT 2 - Technician gives repeated misleading statements in relation to the 1.5 metre rule (5 feet).  We asked the Technician:

"What is it the assessors mean when they say they don't measure anything under 1.5 metres, they don't count that".

Technician replied:

"What's that, never seen that before" - again, this statement is not true.

The Taped House Meeting shows this Technician later admitted he had heard of the 1.5 metre rule, however he stated:

"I thought that died"  "They used to measure to shoulder height, 5 foot" -  again our various items of Evidence shows this statement is not true, it did not die.  Our Documented Evidence shows these are only a small sample of the misleading statements and Evidence from this Technician.

This is why the Appellant needs to check all of  the assessors Evidence.

We shall give updates in the coming days and weeks.

Had a similar experience.  Please feel free to comment.

GlennCTax

A Senior Technician used misleading sizes for our attic then attempted a cover up

This Technician used misleading sizes for our attic to favour his Case.

POINT 1 -  The Technician originally claimed he got our attic sizes from his plans.  When we asked to see his plans, he looked in his file, he could not find the Section Plan, then claimed it must have been thrown out.

Technician stated -  "I'm looking to find a section", "sometimes they maybe thrown out".

It turns out the Technician did not have the section plan of our attic. He could not show us where he got his sizes from.

POINT 2 -   The Technician then claimed he got our attic sizes from the Surveyor who measured our attic

Taped Evidence - Technician stated - " but what I said to you in my email, the person who valued it, who marked up the technical record was obviously here".   Again, this is not true.

We obtained Documented Evidence, which showed no Surveyor had been out measuring our attic!   This is only a small sample of the Taped and Documented Evidence we have in relation to these issues.

POINT 3 - The Technician later claimed that no section plan existed - Not True, we obtained one.

We obtained a Section Plan from the Planning Dept, it showed the Technician was using the wrong attic sizes, which favoured his Case.  

POINT 4 - The Technician appeared to back down when we showed him our attic Section Plan

We showed the Technician the Section Plan of our attic showing the plan did exist.  We pointed out to the Technician, that the Plan also showed he was using the wrong attic sizes.  We also stated that we found it concerning, that a Technician with 40 years experience claimed this Plan did not exist, when it quite clearly did exist.

The Technician later stated that he might not take our Case to the Appeal Hearing, he appeared to be backing down.   


POINT 5 - This is only the attic of our Cottage we have discussed above.  This Technician also used misleading sizes for our Ground floor, he used misleading Evidence for the Comparisons he used in our own street.  In fact, this Technician used misleading Evidence in every area of his assessment and Court Productions.

Our Taped Evidence shows this Technician had a trainee with him at our House Meetings.  He was training the trainee on how to give members of the public misleading Evidence.  How many other trainees has this Technician trained in his 40 years service!

These are only some examples of what the public have to be aware of when dealing with the Lothian Assessors.

Had a similar experience.  Feel free to comment.

GlennCTax

The Senior Technician gives Misleading Sizes of our Ground Floor by Adding a Kitchen

POINT 1 - Our Taped Evidence shows that when we challenged the Technician on his sizes, he stated - "I have checked, I looked at the Old House Card, that is probably way back in 1962... and that ties in with the measurements that are on the Plan".

The above statement made by the Technician is obviously not true.  We later obtained a copy of the Old House Card (dated 1959) and the Plan which clearly showed the Technician was using the sizes of a kitchen that no longer existed when Council Tax was introduced in 1993.


POINT 2 - The 2 pictures below of the Old House Card and the 1984 plan do not match up. 

Picture 1 below shows Old House Card with the extended kitchen at the back of Cottage


Picture 2 below shows an extract of the 1984 Plan with Kitchen outlined to be removed 



POINT 3 - Taped Evidence also confirms the Technician was totally aware that the Kitchen had been removed back in 1994 as shown below:

The Technician - Taped Evidence - "This is an alteration done in 84"  "Right, so this is your property before the alteration took place ..and they have removed the wee small extension to the rear" (the old kitchen).


POINT 4 - After we questioned the Technician's sizes, he attempted to cover up by claiming in an email, that the error in his size was due to the size a coal bunker being added!!   All the Evidence shows this is blatantly untrue.  The sizes on the Old House Card prove the coal bunker had nothing to do with the sizes the Technician used.

The Technician then claimed he had corrected his sizes.  Not true, our Evidence shows he was still using the Old Kitchen sizes in his Court Productions!!!  This is only a sample of our Evidence on this issue, it gets worse!  

After this Technician was taken off our Case, the new assessors taking over the Case had to eventually correct the Technician's sizes by removing the size of the kitchen he added.  This is the same Technician that also used misleading sizes with our attic.  The same Technician that used misleading Evidence in every area of his assessment, while training a trainee!!!

More new Evidence just arrived by post today.   We shall give more updates in the coming days, weeks and months.

This again is why the Appellant must check all of the Lothian assessors Evidence.

Had a similar experience.  Please feel free to comment.

GlennCTax

The Technician used Further Misleading Evidence in his Court Productions

The assessors repeatedly inform us and the Court that they are obligated to use 1991 sales.

POINT 1 - The Technician used a street which had 3 similar Semi-Detached Cottages in it. Two of the the Semi-Detached Cottages were 1991 sales and attached to each other.  The 3rd Semi-Detached Cottage was further down the street and was a 1993 sale.

a) - The Technician had an obligation to use the 2 attached 1991 sales.
b) - The Technician used a 1991 and a 1993 sale and withheld the other 1991 sale. 
c) - The 1991 sale the Technician withheld did not favour his Case.


POINT 2 - The assessors inform the Court they are restricted to using 1991 sales

Court Minute 104 shows the assessor informs the Court they are "restricted to 1991 values".
Court Minute 91 states "the legislation targets the value at April 1991".
Taped Evidence shows the assessors confirm they are looking for 1991 sales.


POINT 3 - The assessors removed this 1991 sale from the Tone Date List sent to us

The assessors removed this 1991 sale from the Tone Date List before it was sent out to us.  The Tone Date List only showed the 2 sales the Technician used.  This Evidence and our other Evidence, shows the assessors are working together to mislead the Appellant.

POINT 4 - The assessors are aware, it is very difficult for the Appellant to prove this type of behaviour is being used by the assessors.  In order to prove the assessors are withholding Tone Date Evidence, we had to search the Library Archives for Tone Date Sales offers in our local Town.

After many visits to the Library, we found this Semi-Detached Cottage was up for sale in 1991.  We then wrote to Register of Sasine's and requested they do a search to establish if this Cottage actually sold.

Once we received a confirmation the Cottage did sell, we then purchased the sales details.  On receiving the sales details of this semi-detached Cottage, we could see it sold in 1991 and the sales price did not favour the assessors Case.

This is only a small sample of this Technician's behaviour.  We found in excess of 20  properties that were withheld by the assessors.

This again is just another example of what the Appellant must be aware of when checking the assessors Evidence.

Had a similar experience.  Please feel free to comment.

GlennCTax

More Examples of Misleading Evidence from the Technician

POINT 1 - The Technician greatly inflated the price of one of his Comparisons.  The only reason we discovered this inflated price was due to the fact that we purchased the sales documents for this sale from Register of Sasines.

POINT 2 - Once again, the Technician travelled outside of the local Town to find this Comparison.  Again, there was no need for the Technician to travel outside the local Town as there are numerous Comparison Cottages, close by within the Town.

POINT 3 - After we caught this Technician deliberately giving us misleading sizes for our attic and our ground floor, we realised we could not trust any Evidence he was showing us.  Our Taped and Documented Evidence shows that when this Technician had the opportunity to admit a mistake was made, he continued with his misleading Evidence.

After he went back to recheck his sizes, he repeatedly continued to mislead us in relation to his sizes and the Comparisons he was using.

POINT 4 - This Technician was in a position of trust.  He already has a huge advantage over the Appellant.  He has been given access to all the assessing property sizes, all the Tone Date Sales, all building warrants, outbuildings etc.  He had almost 40 years experience in dealing with and presenting Valuation Appeals in front of Committees, yet he also uses a volume of misleading Evidence and statements in a bit to win his Case!!!

This is why we have spent so much time and expense to uncover the practices used against members of the public.  Our files of Evidence show this type of behaviour has been going on for decades.

This is just another few examples of what the public must be aware of when checking the assessors Evidence.  We shall give further Posts in the coming weeks and months.

Had a similar experience.  Please feel free to comment.

GlennCTax

More Misleading Evidence from the Lothian Valuation Joint Board  - Senior Technician

POINT 1 - We mentioned in an earlier Post how the Technician went out 8 miles to find a Detached Comparison Cottage.  There were a number of Detached Cottages this Technician could have selected in our local Town.

The Technician did select one Detached Cottage in our local Town, however, he used it as a Semi-Detached Cottage in his Court Productions!!!

POINT 2 - When we questioned the attachment of this so called Semi-Detached Cottage, the assessors again had the opportunity to admit a mistake had been made.  After they looked into our Complaint regarding this Semi-Detached Cottage, they again gave blatant misleading replies in a bid to cover-up for the Technician.

Our Documented Evidence relating to this issue, is in the form of Planning Dept Notes, FOI from East Lothian Council and Email Evidence from the assessors, all show the assessor's deliberate attempt to mislead us regarding this Technician's Court Productions.

POINT 3 - Our Taped Evidence shows we initially trusted the Technician when we invited him into our home:

Appellant stated - "It looks as though it's a fair Banding".

Appellant stated - "And we would actually agree you've put a lot of work and effort into that".

Our volume of Taped and Documented Evidence shows this Senior Technician, with his 40 years experience, betrayed the trust we placed in him.  He gambled with his integrity, in a bid to win his Case.

This is only a sample of what the public need to be aware of when challenging their Council Tax Band.  

We shall give further Posts in the coming weeks and months.

Had a similar experience.  Please feel free to comment.