Outrageous Council Tax rebranding - going to tribunal

TheCouncilTaxAvenger

Hi everybody,

I would like to tell you all about the absolutely shocking experience my Mum is having with a completely illegitimate council tax rebranding she is suffering. Last year she received a notice out of the blue that her property was being revalued. The property was purchased in 1986 and extended in 1987, with full planning permission. There had been no significant changes to the property since. The existing band E valuation came based on the 1991 value estimated in 1993.

My understanding was that a property could not be revalued until the property was sold. However, the Valuation Office went ahead and revalued it to band F anyway. I did the initial appeal, asking some key things like:

1, Why are they revaluing the property even though it has not been sold?

2, On what basis are revaluing the property given that it is completely against their own rules?

3, How have they deemed the value to have changed since that 1993 valuation, given that the property has been substantially the same since 1987? How can a later estimate supercede the earlier contemporaneous valuation?

All of these questions went answered as they enforced their decision. Absolutely inexplicably, the appeal letter asserts that they believe the property is in the £88,000-120,000 bracket, which is band E, yet they are going to put in in band F anyway.

Just to put the cherry on the cake, they say that the bigger properties in the street that I highlighted as being band E have all be marked for being rebranded - but they will not be doing that until the properties are sold. So even though they ignored me point out that our property had not been sold, they are admitting they must wait for the other properties I have cited to be sold before they can revalue them.

I have absolutely had enough. My personal opinion is that Valuation Office might be targeting those they think will be a soft touch to try and force through revaluations outside of their statutory powers. My Mum is now an old age pensioner and is a carer for her very elderly and frail mother. In the last couple of weeks I have demanded to have a straightforward explanation for why the valuation happened, and on what grounds, and I am not getting any proper responses. I think I am going to have to go all the way to the tribunal. It is simply outrageous.

I appreciate any opinions anyone may have on this. I am happy to post the appeal decision notes here in a redacted form if anybody would like to see. It really is a quite incredible letter. Months down the line, nobody has actually explained to me why this revaluation has happened or what I trying to defend in the tribunal.

Longwalker

What was the purpose of the extension?

TheCouncilTaxAvenger

Thank you for asking. It was a rear extension, expanding the living room and partially relocating the kitchen, making room for an additional bathroom. One bedroom had a minor increase in size in one corner as the bay was flattened out. One small bedroom had a small (about 60cm) extension. All the work was done under the ownership of the present owner, and was completed by 1988, and was taken into account in the original 1991/1993:assessment. There are plenty of properties in the street in the E band that have similar and larger extensions.

Green_hopeful

Not answering your question and a bit off point, but assuming your grandma lives with your mother, is your grandma entitled to attendance allowance if she is she will be entitled to 25% discount as those in receipt of attendance allowance don’t count for council tax. 

Longwalker

TheCouncilTaxAvenger said:

Thank you for asking. It was a rear extension, expanding the living room and partially relocating the kitchen, making room for an additional bathroom. One bedroom had a minor increase in size in one corner as the bay was flattened out. One small bedroom had a small (about 60cm) extension. All the work was done under the ownership of the present owner, and was completed by 1988, and was taken into account in the original 1991/1993:assessment. There are plenty of properties in the street in the E band that have similar and larger extensions.

So its not an annexe ?

TheCouncilTaxAvenger

Longwalker said:

TheCouncilTaxAvenger said:

Thank you for asking. It was a rear extension, expanding the living room and partially relocating the kitchen, making room for an additional bathroom. One bedroom had a minor increase in size in one corner as the bay was flattened out. One small bedroom had a small (about 60cm) extension. All the work was done under the ownership of the present owner, and was completed by 1988, and was taken into account in the original 1991/1993:assessment. There are plenty of properties in the street in the E band that have similar and larger extensions.

So its not an annexe ?

Longwalker said:

TheCouncilTaxAvenger said:

Thank you for asking. It was a rear extension, expanding the living room and partially relocating the kitchen, making room for an additional bathroom. One bedroom had a minor increase in size in one corner as the bay was flattened out. One small bedroom had a small (about 60cm) extension. All the work was done under the ownership of the present owner, and was completed by 1988, and was taken into account in the original 1991/1993:assessment. There are plenty of properties in the street in the E band that have similar and larger extensions.

So its not an annexe ?

No, it is not an annexe. The only significant change since 1993 is that a temporary structure, a moderately sized cabin, was built in 2005. However there was a permenent outbuilding marked nearby on the plans which has not been there for years (prior to the 1993 valuation), so if anything it is actually a downgrade.

The only thing I can think is that because my Mum became a widow, the deeds might have been amended to show only her name in the 'Tell Us Once' forms, and the VOA got confused and are treating this as a sale, and they are hoping I just give up rather than break them in the tribunal. I am a carer myself and to be honest I really do not need the additional stress. I hardly get any time for myself. I was hoping to relax this Christmas and I just want it out of the way.

TheCouncilTaxAvenger

Green_hopeful said:

Not answering your question and a bit off point, but assuming your grandma lives with your mother, is your grandma entitled to attendance allowance if she is she will be entitled to 25% discount as those in receipt of attendance allowance don’t count for council tax. 

Thank you. Yes, I believe my Mum is claiming that.

lincroft1710

CT legislation permits the VOA to amend a band at any time if they believe it is incorrect. The only thing they cannot do is increase the band solely on account of alterations carried out by the current owner after 1 April 1993 or the last sale, whichever is the later date. So if the 1988 alterations had been omitted when the property was first banded, the VOA would be correct in increasing the band if it was warranted.


The VOA are part of HMRC and thus any revenue raised by the increased band would not go to them but the council. They have no idea of the age of property owners or occupiers and therefore would not be "targeting those they think will be a soft touch". It is extremely doubtful that the VOA have treated the removal of a name from the deeds as a sale as people divorcing or passing happens all the time with consequent changes to the deeds. In your mother's case her name would still be on the deeds as owner and it would not show up as a transaction. Further you say the only alteration after 1993 was the addition of a cabin (which is unlikely to be band significant) so it is even more doubtful that the VOA mistook the name removal as a sale.


If you do decide to pursue this to a Valuation Tribunal hearing, the VOA will send you their evidence, which they believe supports their decision to increase the band, several weeks before the actual hearing.


Two final points.


Firstly, if you believe the VOA should have been more communicative, you can make a complaint using the official complaints procedure.


Secondly' are the VOA aware that you have your mother's permission to act as her agent?

TheCouncilTaxAvenger

lincroft1710 said:

CT legislation permits the VOA to amend a band at any time if they believe it is incorrect. The only thing they cannot do is increase the band solely on account of alterations carried out by the current owner after 1 April 1993 or the last sale, whichever is the later date. So if the 1988 alterations had been omitted when the property was first banded, the VOA would be correct in increasing the band if it was warranted.

Thank you for your detailed reply. It is much appreciated. The extension was done all above board and with full planning permission. Even though I asked explicitly why the revaluation was done in my initial appeal, they have not given a reason. I think I will make a formal complaint as you have suggested.

The VOA are part of HMRC and thus any revenue raised by the increased band would not go to them but the council. They have no idea of the age of property owners or occupiers and therefore would not be "targeting those they think will be a soft touch". It is extremely doubtful that the VOA have treated the removal of a name from the deeds as a sale as people divorcing or passing happens all the time with consequent changes to the deeds. In your mother's case her name would still be on the deeds as owner and it would not show up as a transaction. Further you say the only alteration after 1993 was the addition of a cabin (which is unlikely to be band significant) so it is even more doubtful that the VOA mistook the name removal as a sale.

I am not convinced on this point. There might not be an motivation in terms of the entire organisation, but there might be a motive for individuals, particularly if they have any targets to achieve.

If you do decide to pursue this to a Valuation Tribunal hearing, the VOA will send you their evidence, which they believe supports their decision to increase the band, several weeks before the actual hearing.

The tribunal was left until the very late in the day before they confirmed it. We believe other tribunals brought after ours was raised were heard before we were even given a date. It looks fishy to me.

Two final points.


Firstly, if you believe the VOA should have been more communicative, you can make a complaint using the official complaints procedure.


Secondly' are the VOA aware that you have your mother's permission to act as her agent?

I will make a complaint, thank you. I do have full permission granted to represent my Mother, and they recognize me as her representative. We went through the process for that right at the start. Thank you again for your reply. I will paste below a redacted version of the notes to the first appeal in a following post. I would be interested in your opinion.

TheCouncilTaxAvenger

Here is their response to my appeal:

"Decision Notice- Supporting Information Document

ID/Case number: [Redacted case number]
Decision in respect of: [Redacted address]

This document supplements the enclosed 'Decision Notice' and provides additional
information to support my decision as Listing Officer in respect of the council tax list entry for
the above property/properties.

The band shown in my 'Decision Notice' (Band F) indicates that, in my opinion, the value of
your property in April 1991, the date of valuation for all council tax bandings, would
reasonably have been between £88,001 and €120,000. To help you understand my
decision, I have provided some further information, which in my opinion supports my
decision.

Banding of your Property

Address                  Postcode                   CT Band     Basic property details     Remarks

[Address redacted] [Postcode redacted]    F               Semi-detached house
                                                                                     3 Bedrooms


I am able to give the following broad details, which I hope you find helpful. These sales have
assisted me in arriving at my decision about your band. Current legislation precludes me
from providing comprehensive details of the sales (e.g. full addresses or exact
prices).

Street Location    Approx Sale Price   Month-Year of Sale    Basic property details            Band of Property
[redacted]           £150,000-155,000     04/01/90                  Semi-detached Similar House     F
[redacted]           £128,000-132,000     02/01/91                  Semi-detached Similar House     F
[redacted]           £125,000-130,000     03/01/91                  Semi-detached Similar House     F
[redacted]           £108,000-112,000     05/01/91                  Semi-detached Similar House     E

Supporting Information

I note your mentioned in your proposal sales in 1996 in the street. It may be helpful to
explain that the market trends saw the housing market reach its peak in 1989, and from then
until 1991, the market fell slowly. The fall then accelerated to continue its decline to 1995
which the lowest point, after which prices started to rise again until they again reached
1991 levels of value in late 1998 to early 1999.

15, 17, 19, 29, 39 and 53 [redacted street name] have improvement indicators on them so once
they have sold the bandings will be checked to take into account any improvements that may
have been made. Under Council Tax Legislation, if a property is extended or improved after
1 April 1993, we are unable to look at the improvements to see if they would have had a big
enough impact on the open market value in April 1991, to warrant the property being in a
higher band until they have subsequently sold.
I have looked carefully at the pattern of bandings for similar sized semi-detached house
within your locality and found there is a good tone that supports your property in band F.
Considering the evidence I have available to me including the properties in your locality, I
have taken into consideration the points you have made and concluded band F is correct.

Listing Officer

[Name redacted]"

lincroft1710

TheCouncilTaxAvenger said:

lincroft1710 said:

CT legislation permits the VOA to amend a band at any time if they believe it is incorrect. The only thing they cannot do is increase the band solely on account of alterations carried out by the current owner after 1 April 1993 or the last sale, whichever is the later date. So if the 1988 alterations had been omitted when the property was first banded, the VOA would be correct in increasing the band if it was warranted.

Thank you for your detailed reply. It is much appreciated. The extension was done all above board and with full planning permission. Even though I asked explicitly why the revaluation was done in my initial appeal, they have not given a reason. I think I will make a formal complaint as you have suggested.

The VOA are part of HMRC and thus any revenue raised by the increased band would not go to them but the council. They have no idea of the age of property owners or occupiers and therefore would not be "targeting those they think will be a soft touch". It is extremely doubtful that the VOA have treated the removal of a name from the deeds as a sale as people divorcing or passing happens all the time with consequent changes to the deeds. In your mother's case her name would still be on the deeds as owner and it would not show up as a transaction. Further you say the only alteration after 1993 was the addition of a cabin (which is unlikely to be band significant) so it is even more doubtful that the VOA mistook the name removal as a sale.

I am not convinced on this point. There might not be an motivation in terms of the entire organisation, but there might be a motive for individuals, particularly if they have any targets to achieve.

If you do decide to pursue this to a Valuation Tribunal hearing, the VOA will send you their evidence, which they believe supports their decision to increase the band, several weeks before the actual hearing.

The tribunal was left until the very late in the day before they confirmed it. We believe other tribunals brought after ours was raised were heard before we were even given a date. It looks fishy to me.

Two final points.


Firstly, if you believe the VOA should have been more communicative, you can make a complaint using the official complaints procedure.


Secondly' are the VOA aware that you have your mother's permission to act as her agent?

I will make a complaint, thank you. I do have full permission granted to represent my Mother, and they recognize me as her representative. We went through the process for that right at the start. Thank you again for your reply. I will paste below a redacted version of the notes to the first appeal in a following post. I would be interested in your opinion.

If any targets have been set they would be for clearing outstanding work not creating new work especially where an increased band is likely to attract an appeal which would generate hours of work if it went to a VT hearing. Increasing a band where this is a likelihood of having to reduce it back again or a VT doing so would be very much frowned upon.


The VOA  no longer have local offices. Even when they did and the VTS decided when appeals should go to a hearing, it was not unusual for appeals not to be selected for a hearing in date order, often for geographical reasons. The system has changed somewhat since I was in the VOA and it may be that caseworkers prioritise certain appeals over others.


Turning to the VOA's preliminary evidence, it does seem reasonably convincing. Band F does seem high for a 3 bed semi, but I remember dealing with a road in Hertford where the 1991sales evidence clearly showed Band F was correct for a 3 bed semi (can't remember if they were 1930s or 1950s). It is much better to see their actual evidence for the hearing as it will be more detailed.