2 council tax bills

lincroft1710

dulling2000 said:

Sorry, never got any notifications to say there were replies.

The extension was built in 2008, we bought it in 2023, that was the first time they had reassessed it for Council Tax and added the annex banding. So we are not querying what already existed.

The conveyancing solicitor who acted also for the mortgage lender (who would not lend on an annexe) were happy that it only had one band and planning said could only be used as a single dwelling. 

The other 2 rooms are just rooms, playroom/classroom and sewing/craft room. Though they could be used for anything.

The only door between the 2 is sliding and non fire rated.

The original planning said it could only be used as a single dwelling.

With no cooker point there is no means for cooking in the extension.

There is a single wooded back room from the utility part and a double patio door from one of the rooms.

It seems daft that there is not a reassessment done when a construction completion certificate is lodged with the council and the previous owners did not have this issue for 16 years.

CT legislation does not permit a band to be increased on account of alterations carried out by the current owner, so the band cannot be reviewed until after the property has been sold.


You have reiterated facts which are totally irrelevant regarding deciding whether or not an annexe is self contained. The lack of a cooker point does not actually mean there are no facilities for cooking, a microwave and a 2 burner "Camping Gaz" stove (or similar) with cylinder would suffice and I have come across these in annexes (I'm ex VOA). However I think lack of a cooker point would be the angle to argue at Tribunal. 

TheJP

lincroft1710 said:

dulling2000 said:

Sorry, never got any notifications to say there were replies.

The extension was built in 2008, we bought it in 2023, that was the first time they had reassessed it for Council Tax and added the annex banding. So we are not querying what already existed.

The conveyancing solicitor who acted also for the mortgage lender (who would not lend on an annexe) were happy that it only had one band and planning said could only be used as a single dwelling. 

The other 2 rooms are just rooms, playroom/classroom and sewing/craft room. Though they could be used for anything.

The only door between the 2 is sliding and non fire rated.

The original planning said it could only be used as a single dwelling.

With no cooker point there is no means for cooking in the extension.

There is a single wooded back room from the utility part and a double patio door from one of the rooms.

It seems daft that there is not a reassessment done when a construction completion certificate is lodged with the council and the previous owners did not have this issue for 16 years.

CT legislation does not permit a band to be increased on account of alterations carried out by the current owner, so the band cannot be reviewed until after the property has been sold.


You have reiterated facts which are totally irrelevant regarding deciding whether or not an annexe is self contained. The lack of a cooker point does not actually mean there are no facilities for cooking, a microwave and a 2 burner "Camping Gaz" stove (or similar) with cylinder would suffice and I have come across these in annexes (I'm ex VOA). However I think lack of a cooker point would be the angle to argue at Tribunal. 

I would take Lincrofts advice seriously, A similar thing happened to me when i bought my house in 2021. The previous owners had done an extension creating another bedroom and more ground space downstairs. My banding went up by 2 bands. I was able to appeal to have it lowered by one band grade due to the similarity of other properties in the street. 

This is called an improvement indicator and only happens when the house is sold, i don't agree with it as i feel it should be part of the building regs process but it is what it is.