Outrageous Council Tax rebranding - going to tribunal

TheCouncilTaxAvenger

lincroft1710 said:

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.

But how can they revalue the property if it was valued as band E in 1993, the property is unchanged since then, the property has not been sold since, and they even say in that letter that the property should be valued in the £88,000 to £120,000 range in the letter? I just do not understand how they can state in the letter that the property falls into the Band E range, but they are satisfied it should be Band F. It it me? And I getting something wrong? They say this:

"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."

Also how can the evidence they presented be convincing when I listed numerous other properties that were valued in the same range? They literally picked a few random properties with no way to check how they were configured. There are loads of band E properties in the street. It just seems like a fix.

lincroft1710

TheCouncilTaxAvenger said:

lincroft1710 said:

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.

But how can they revalue the property if it was valued as band E in 1993, the property is unchanged since then, the property has not been sold since, and they even say in that letter that the property should be valued in the £88,000 to £120,000 range in the letter? I just do not understand how they can state in the letter that the property falls into the Band E range, but they are satisfied it should be Band F. It it me? And I getting something wrong? They say this:

"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."

Also how can the evidence they presented be convincing when I listed numerous other properties that were valued in the same range? They literally picked a few random properties with no way to check how they were configured. There are loads of band E properties in the street. It just seems like a fix.

There must have been something that led the VOA to believe your mother's band was too low. I would suggest that the extract you have emboldened was an unfortunate typo.

The best way forward is not bother about the whys and wherefores here, but let the matter proceed to a Tribunal hearing where you can ask the VOA why the band was increased and they will be obliged to tell you. You present your evidence in support of Band E and they present theirs in support of Band F. The Tribunal will decide the matter based on the strength of the evidence presented.


Whatever you do at the hearing, leave the emotional outbursts at home. Stick to facts, do NOT use words like "fishy", "a fix" or imply VOA staff were trying to achieve targets, the Tribunal will not regard you favourably if you do.