Council Tax Band tribunal evidence - House Size vs Land Size

mark_ashley

Good morning all, 

I am currently navigate my way through a claim to adjust my property banding. I have made it to the point where we are prepping for the tribunal. I have received the 6 week pack containing the COA evidence for their increase and I am in the process of discrediting their evidence and providing my own.

Obviously the challenge is to demonstrate the expected value of my property should it have sold in 1991 - and so I need to find similar (which is a proving difficult for both sides).

I note that the VOA have therefore used properties from neighbouring towns and also from areas in my town where the "tone" is markedly different to the estate where my property is located. However, one other issue seems to be that the VOA have compared my property to others based only on the overall m2 and made no comment on the size of the area of land on which the property resides. 

For example, the VOA have likened my property (an extended 1970s house on on a 950m2 plot of land) to a similar sized Georgian property in a different area of the town with gardens (which include a swimming pool) amounting to around 2800m2.

What I am struggling to find is any case or evidence to reference that would show that the value of a property is not only based on the footprint of the building, but on the land that forms part of the property. It is common sense that if, hypothetically, you had two exact buildings, one with a small garden and one with two acres of land, it would be reasonable to expect the property values, and as such the council tax band, to be different. My experience so far is that common sense does not prevail when dealing with the tax man.

Does anyone have experience or have any thoughts on this point?

Kind regards, 

Mark.

lincroft1710

The VOA rarely had details of garden size so tended not to reflect this in banding. Non garden land cannot be reflected in the band, so in most cases the 2 acres would have to be ignored. Even if you could include it, because of the way banding works both properties could still be in the same band. Also 2800 sq m is only 0.69 acres. A swimming pool can be a liability in some peoples' eyes.


Rather than just trying to discredit the VOA evidence, you should be providing evidence to prove your case as the onus is on you to prove the band is incorrect, not the VOA to prove it is correct 


Look at property sales at around the same time as your purchase in the areas used by the VOA and see what sold at a similar price. Similarly try and find similar size properties in those areas in a lower band.

mark_ashley

Yes. Thanks for that. The weight of the argument is based on the latter point you mentioned. 

It does feel like a game with goal posts they can move at will, so I have very little confidence that any of my evidence will avoid being discounted. 

Also, to note, the issue I have is that the increase in band has followed building work, so I don’t have an accurate sale price for mine and they won’t accept estimates from estate agents. 

housebuyer143

mark_ashley said:

Yes. Thanks for that. The weight of the argument is based on the latter point you mentioned. 

It does feel like a game with goal posts they can move at will, so I have very little confidence that any of my evidence will avoid being discounted. 

Also, to note, the issue I have is that the increase in band has followed building work, so I don’t have an accurate sale price for mine and they won’t accept estimates from estate agents. 

Can you get a RICS surveyor in to value it for you? They can't disregard that. 
Have you remortgaged after you did the work? If so, you would have a valuation report potentially from that.

mark_ashley

housebuyer143 said:

mark_ashley said:

Yes. Thanks for that. The weight of the argument is based on the latter point you mentioned. 

It does feel like a game with goal posts they can move at will, so I have very little confidence that any of my evidence will avoid being discounted. 

Also, to note, the issue I have is that the increase in band has followed building work, so I don’t have an accurate sale price for mine and they won’t accept estimates from estate agents. 

Can you get a RICS surveyor in to value it for you? They can't disregard that. 
Have you remortgaged after you did the work? If so, you would have a valuation report potentially from that.

I hadn't thought of getting a RICS surveyor, I could look into that, although as they VOA do not consider indices I cant get it right in my head how I would demonstrate that todays valuation has an impact on the 1992 value. No remortgage either. 

lincroft1710

Surely your purchase price reflected any building work carried out prior to your purchase?

mark_ashley

lincroft1710 said:

Surely your purchase price reflected any building work carried out prior to your purchase?

I purchased the property with the intention of extending and then moving in. It was full of asbestos (as many 70s houses are) and just after the removal of the asbestos by the contractor, COVID really bit and we had to stop all work so the house was de-banded.

Two and a half yrs later we finished and I notified the VOA. The house was immediately moved up to Band E (from D) which I did expect as its only right to do so. The estate is split between Band D and E - the larger properties being the E. About a month later we had a second letter through the post to say it had been moved up again to Band G - this is where we are at. No other houses on the estate are Band G, or even F to my knowledge, and there are some nice big bungalows with large gardens directly across the road (Band E), so going up to a G was a bit of a shock.

lincroft1710

Did you not query why after the VOA had brought the property back into the Valuation List at Band E, they decided to increase it to Band G. What was the Gross External Area before and after the extension.

mark_ashley

lincroft1710 said:

Did you not query why after the VOA had brought the property back into the Valuation List at Band E, they decided to increase it to Band G. What was the Gross External Area before and after the extension.

I did ask but was never given an explanation. It was a point I was always eager to find out. The GEA has effectively doubled from ~180 to ~330. 

lincroft1710

180 sq m is large, in my area (I'm ex VOA) a 1970s detached would be top Band F/bottom Band G. 330 sq m is huge and would be well, well into Band G, in the best areas probably Band H

mark_ashley

You probably live in a nice area though 

to edit what I said, it was 144m2 initially. It’s now about 314m2.   

It’s good to get your thoughts as ex VOA and maybe they reinforce the feeling of mine that I am going to get no where due to unconscious bias - the feeling that I should be in a certain band just because of the size of the house, rather than considering all other details that effect the price. Area included. I suppose I hope that the VTS have a balanced view based on what evidence they are given. 

It takes me back to my original question, as there are houses in the town with maybe 50m2 less GEA, but far more character, far bigger gardens and on far more sought after roads, and these are in E and F. So, will the VTS consider all these factors, or merely the GEA. 

I wonder how much decision making is influenced by the “tone” of the estate. This comes up a lot, is it seen as an important factor?