Council Tax Improvements

lincroft1710

uptdale said:

BarelySentientAI said:

uptdale said:

BarelySentientAI said:

uptdale said:

lincroft1710 said:

S_Stevie said:

uptdale said:

lincroft1710 said:

As I have previously posted, what has happened is correct in law. If your home was incapable of being used as a dwelling then it should be deleted from the Valuation List.

Surely just because the OP moved out during the alterations does not mean that the house was incapable of being used as a dwelling.  If the house was still habitable during the alterations (as the neighbour's house obviously was during similar alterations), then why would it be correct to delete it from the valuation list?

Thanks for your reply.

My argument exactly, houses have not been rebanded since 1991 unless there was a sale, surely this is a contradiction on the fact that a sale never occurred.

Please everyone keep throwing ideas at me to help with my argument.

Thank You

You have no argument.

@BarelySentientAI has explained the situation admirably.

I will try and explain again as you appear not to understand.

Your home was deemed no longer capable of being used as a dwelling, therefore it was deleted from the Valuation List. As far as CT is concerned it ceased to exist. When it comes back into the VL for CT purposes it is a new dwelling. The band has NOT been increased as there was no band to increase, it is a new band and as such has to reflect the physical state of the property as at the date of banding

I think that is missing the key issue.  On what basis can a house be "deemed" no longer capable of being used as a dwelling if as a matter of fact it can be used as a dwelling? 

It surely cannot be the case that just because a CT payer moves out of a house and leaves it unoccupied, and then decides to stop paying CT, then the house is "deemed to be uninhabitable".  If that was the case, people could save a lot of CT on empty properties.  No need to make a hole in the roof or whatever else is done to make a property uninhabitable.

They were allowed to stop paying CT because the magnitude of the works was sufficient for the property to be deemed uninhabitable.

Did the OP say that, or are you guessing?

When did you last ring up the council to say "don't fancy paying CT" and they just replied "OK!", without asking why or doing any checks?

So it was either actually uninhabitable, or it wasn't and the OP committed tax fraud.  Take your pick.

I'm going with the first one.

Or the OP thought he did not need to pay CT because he had stopped occupying the property.  That's what he said.  So he got the law wrong.  Neither you nor I know more than that.  Best to stick with what we know.

The VOA do not usually delete dwellings from the VL without good reason. I'm ex VOA and only half of the dwellings  I was asked to delete by either the council or CT payer did I actually delete. So the chances are that the OP's home was correctly deleted.


But it doesn't matter because it was deleted and it is now history. 

S_Stevie

uptdale said:

BarelySentientAI said:

uptdale said:

BarelySentientAI said:

uptdale said:

lincroft1710 said:

S_Stevie said:

uptdale said:

lincroft1710 said:

As I have previously posted, what has happened is correct in law. If your home was incapable of being used as a dwelling then it should be deleted from the Valuation List.

Surely just because the OP moved out during the alterations does not mean that the house was incapable of being used as a dwelling.  If the house was still habitable during the alterations (as the neighbour's house obviously was during similar alterations), then why would it be correct to delete it from the valuation list?

Thanks for your reply.

My argument exactly, houses have not been rebanded since 1991 unless there was a sale, surely this is a contradiction on the fact that a sale never occurred.

Please everyone keep throwing ideas at me to help with my argument.

Thank You

You have no argument.

@BarelySentientAI has explained the situation admirably.

I will try and explain again as you appear not to understand.

Your home was deemed no longer capable of being used as a dwelling, therefore it was deleted from the Valuation List. As far as CT is concerned it ceased to exist. When it comes back into the VL for CT purposes it is a new dwelling. The band has NOT been increased as there was no band to increase, it is a new band and as such has to reflect the physical state of the property as at the date of banding

I think that is missing the key issue.  On what basis can a house be "deemed" no longer capable of being used as a dwelling if as a matter of fact it can be used as a dwelling? 

It surely cannot be the case that just because a CT payer moves out of a house and leaves it unoccupied, and then decides to stop paying CT, then the house is "deemed to be uninhabitable".  If that was the case, people could save a lot of CT on empty properties.  No need to make a hole in the roof or whatever else is done to make a property uninhabitable.

They were allowed to stop paying CT because the magnitude of the works was sufficient for the property to be deemed uninhabitable.

Did the OP say that, or are you guessing?

When did you last ring up the council to say "don't fancy paying CT" and they just replied "OK!", without asking why or doing any checks?

So it was either actually uninhabitable, or it wasn't and the OP committed tax fraud.  Take your pick.

I'm going with the first one.

Or the OP thought he did not need to pay CT because he had stopped occupying the property.  That's what he said.  So he got the law wrong.  Neither you nor I know more than that.  Best to stick with what we know.

Thanks for your reply..as I had moved out of the property whilst work was being carried out, I assumed you did'nt need to pay council tax as you was not living there.  My argument is, I am the still the owner & no sale was made & VOA state that if you move out of a property whilst work is carried out, you will not be rebanded until you sell the house.  If I don't have a case then that is fine..but be warned people if you are having an extension & move out for a few months  make sure you continue to pay your council tax or you will be deleted & you will pay the price in the long run.

lincroft1710

S_Stevie said:

uptdale said:

BarelySentientAI said:

uptdale said:

BarelySentientAI said:

uptdale said:

lincroft1710 said:

S_Stevie said:

uptdale said:

lincroft1710 said:

As I have previously posted, what has happened is correct in law. If your home was incapable of being used as a dwelling then it should be deleted from the Valuation List.

Surely just because the OP moved out during the alterations does not mean that the house was incapable of being used as a dwelling.  If the house was still habitable during the alterations (as the neighbour's house obviously was during similar alterations), then why would it be correct to delete it from the valuation list?

Thanks for your reply.

My argument exactly, houses have not been rebanded since 1991 unless there was a sale, surely this is a contradiction on the fact that a sale never occurred.

Please everyone keep throwing ideas at me to help with my argument.

Thank You

You have no argument.

@BarelySentientAI has explained the situation admirably.

I will try and explain again as you appear not to understand.

Your home was deemed no longer capable of being used as a dwelling, therefore it was deleted from the Valuation List. As far as CT is concerned it ceased to exist. When it comes back into the VL for CT purposes it is a new dwelling. The band has NOT been increased as there was no band to increase, it is a new band and as such has to reflect the physical state of the property as at the date of banding

I think that is missing the key issue.  On what basis can a house be "deemed" no longer capable of being used as a dwelling if as a matter of fact it can be used as a dwelling? 

It surely cannot be the case that just because a CT payer moves out of a house and leaves it unoccupied, and then decides to stop paying CT, then the house is "deemed to be uninhabitable".  If that was the case, people could save a lot of CT on empty properties.  No need to make a hole in the roof or whatever else is done to make a property uninhabitable.

They were allowed to stop paying CT because the magnitude of the works was sufficient for the property to be deemed uninhabitable.

Did the OP say that, or are you guessing?

When did you last ring up the council to say "don't fancy paying CT" and they just replied "OK!", without asking why or doing any checks?

So it was either actually uninhabitable, or it wasn't and the OP committed tax fraud.  Take your pick.

I'm going with the first one.

Or the OP thought he did not need to pay CT because he had stopped occupying the property.  That's what he said.  So he got the law wrong.  Neither you nor I know more than that.  Best to stick with what we know.

Thanks for your reply..as I had moved out of the property whilst work was being carried out, I assumed you did'nt need to pay council tax as you was not living there.  My argument is, I am the still the owner & no sale was made & VOA state that if you move out of a property whilst work is carried out, you will not be rebanded until you sell the house.  If I don't have a case then that is fine..but be warned people if you are having an extension & move out for a few months  make sure you continue to pay your council tax or you will be deleted & you will pay the price in the long run.

The VOA do not state that if you move out of a property whilst work is carried out, you will not be rebanded until you sell the house. 


What CT law says is that the band of a dwelling cannot be increased on account of alterations carried out by the current owner. As at the time of you moving back into your home, it had no band so there was no band to be increased. 


Also just because you move out of your home doesn't mean it will be automatically deleted from the VL. Only if the VOA decide it is no longer a dwelling, will it be deleted. There are very few requests to delete a dwelling from the VL because of alterations being carried out which the CT payer believes makes the property no longer capable of use as a dwelling and the VOA does not always agree that deletion should happen

lambethwalk

hi just a question to you all re deletion from VL i have just bought a property that needs lots of work - had to turn off water from street due to leaking taps and remove unsafe /loose/leaking sinks toilet & bath, needs new heating system (combi & rads) and converting garage to bedroom after repair to roof + insulation everywhere would this be a property that would be deleted ?

lincroft1710

lambethwalk said:

hi just a question to you all re deletion from VL i have just bought a property that needs lots of work - had to turn off water from street due to leaking taps and remove unsafe /loose/leaking sinks toilet & bath, needs new heating system (combi & rads) and converting garage to bedroom after repair to roof + insulation everywhere would this be a property that would be deleted ?

I am ex VOA and basically the CH replacement and garage conversion wouldn't qualify, the sinks, bath and toilet replacement could theoretically done in a day. Don't know about insulation, depends what is actually involved.

A downside to deletion would be that when next entered in the VL, it could be in a higher band.