Council Tax Band tribunal evidence - House Size vs Land Size

lincroft1710

From 144 sq m to 314 sq m is a huge increase, it is more than double. Size is one of the paramount factors affecting the band. Your one saving grace may be that the Tribunal consider your home to be overextended for the locale i.e. someone wanting a property that size would be looking in a (no offence intended) more select area.
A colleague dealt with an appeal on an extended 1980s house which so filled the plot (we were surprised planning permission was granted for the extension) there was only room for a small patio. Cannot remember band or size but we both agreed the band should be reduced as the house was worth a lot less than a purpose built 1980s house of the same size on a suitable plot.


I can now understand why the VOA  have used properties from a wide area. Trying to find anything that size is very difficult. In my home town (not the area I worked) I can think of 2 examples of recently built houses, possibly 250 sq m, but with £1,000,000 price tags. Other than a manor house in spacious grounds I can't think of anything I've come across measuring 300 sq m

mark_ashley

lincroft1710 said:

From 144 sq m to 314 sq m is a huge increase, it is more than double. Size is one of the paramount factors affecting the band. Your one saving grace may be that the Tribunal consider your home to be overextended for the locale i.e. someone wanting a property that size would be looking in a (no offence intended) more select area.
A colleague dealt with an appeal on an extended 1980s house which so filled the plot (we were surprised planning permission was granted for the extension) there was only room for a small patio. Cannot remember band or size but we both agreed the band should be reduced as the house was worth a lot less than a purpose built 1980s house of the same size on a suitable plot.

No offence taken and my argument with the VOA is about where they have drawn the comparisons as their selected areas are where the house price would reasonably be expected to be greater.

Your example seems similar to my situation. We struggled with planning permission in the first instance because the appearance of the original drawing was not fitting with the street. We had to change the design to satisfy planning but to have the space we wanted resulted in going bigger than we really wanted and potentially cost more than would have been worth (in a purely financial sense). 

lincroft1710 said:

I can now understand why the VOA  have used properties from a wide area. Trying to find anything that size is very difficult. In my home town (not the area I worked) I can think of 2 examples of recently built houses, possibly 250 sq m, but with £1,000,000 price tags. Other than a manor house in spacious grounds I can't think of anything I've come across measuring 300 sq m

In doing my research, I have found several properties within ~800m radius that I feel are comparable. They are character properties in a nicer area, but are as close as I can get. My two concerns are:

1) They are still not like for like, but I think they are close enough and I can use the land registry data to show their bandings are accurate and estimate values in 1995, but finding the prices in 1991 or even sold prices in 1995 is difficult - I assume this is taken into consideration by the VOA and VTE?

2) I am starting to wonder if I would have better success in asking for evaluation as band F. I am still happy that the property it isn't a Band G and I my evidence shows this, but I do not want to discredit the work I have put in by making it look like I have unrealistic expectations if I remain adamant on Band E. On the start of this journey I had a different point of view based on what I had at that time, I now have more information and evidence. Have you been involved in the tribunals before, do you think there would be appreciation or frustration if I was to change my point of view? I still have evidence for Band E, but it would be easier to challenge.

lincroft1710

In my area 1995 prices were about 25% lower than 1991.


The Tribunal do not make allowances regarding difficulty of obtaining evidence, they expect both parties to be able to present a cogent case to back up their belief in the accuracy of the band. VOA have access to 99.99% of all house prices in England & Wales and are likely to emphasise to the Tribunal any weak points of your evidence


Not knowing whereabouts in the country you are, nor the 1991 house prices I can't really say if Band F is viable. It makes a lot more sense than Band E.


I would not mention the fact you spent more than you intended on the construction, it will not help your case.


I think all you can do is present whatever evidence you have found which you believe supports your case. The trouble with Band G is the band width, your home in its current form may only have been worth £165,000 in 1991. but it will be correctly in the same band as those worth £300,000.

mark_ashley

lincroft1710 said:

In my area 1995 prices were about 25% lower than 1991.


The Tribunal do not make allowances regarding difficulty of obtaining evidence, they expect both parties to be able to present a cogent case to back up their belief in the accuracy of the band. VOA have access to 99.99% of all house prices in England & Wales and are likely to emphasise to the Tribunal any weak points of your evidence


Not knowing whereabouts in the country you are, nor the 1991 house prices I can't really say if Band F is viable. It makes a lot more sense than Band E.


I would not mention the fact you spent more than you intended on the construction, it will not help your case.


I think all you can do is present whatever evidence you have found which you believe supports your case. The trouble with Band G is the band width, your home in its current form may only have been worth £165,000 in 1991. but it will be correctly in the same band as those worth £300,000.

Yes, the bandwidth for G is very wide, I did clock on to that.

I think I am set, I've done about as much as I can and spent enough late nights getting the report together. Its one of those jobs whereby good examples of reports/evidence would be useful but very hard to come by. I was expecting the VOA to send through some information I requested but it didn't arrive and I have to submit tomorrow, but I don't think it will make too much difference to what I am going to present. 

From what I have learnt about it all, if I get any movement then I will consider it an overwhelming achievement for the underdog!

I had a call with VTE earlier and covered a couple of areas I was unsure of. The exact banding and also the rebuttal of some of the VOA evidence. The VTE were seemed quite supportive on both points so I guess it is just up to what gets said on the day. 

I will be sure not to mention more than I have to - I need to get the hearing moved first as it is planned on a day when I am in America. The VTE representative I spoke to when they contacted me to confirm the date seemed to think that wouldn't be an issue - seemed to suggest they couldn't proceed without me being in the country.

lincroft1710

What info have the VOA not supplied?


Bear in mind you would probably have spoken to one of the admin staff at VTE who will have no influence on what will happen on the actual day.


Things must have changed because in the past a CT payer could request their case be heard in absentia. 

mark_ashley

lincroft1710 said:

What info have the VOA not supplied?


Bear in mind you would probably have spoken to one of the admin staff at VTE who will have no influence on what will happen on the actual day.


Things must have changed because in the past a CT payer could request their case be heard in absentia. 

Yes, it did surprise me. The general feeling I had was that it would go ahead on the date regardless, but they seemed to suggest with me being out the country it would need to be moved? Cant recall the exact reason why.

The VTE rep was just admin, I was not expecting them to answer on behalf of the panel, I was only asking them about etiquette and expectations. 

Only minor I suppose but the the process, and the VOA state the following (which I am sure you are aware):
 

"The law allows you to view the documents I have referred to in the schedule. If you wish to see these, please

give 5 days written notice and I will arrange to do this either in person at one of our offices or we will agree an

alternative option. You can also ask for sales evidence of four additional properties, or the number that appear

on my schedule, if it is more than four. Please note you must provide specific addresses. You can view the

documents, and make notes, but you cannot photocopy them or make a digital copy."

I asked for the documents and gave details of six other properties (they chose six), but had no response. Chased up with a phone call but nothing received. They will probably turn up one minute to midnight 

lincroft1710

I would have expected the VOA to have replied within a week unless the caseworker was on leave

mark_ashley

lincroft1710 said:

I would have expected the VOA to have replied within a week unless the caseworker was on leave

Nah, I spoke to the case worker a couple of days after sending the email to clarify a couple of points. 

I don’t imagne they have to be too concerned about satisfying my requests. It’s not like I can give them a bad review on Trustpilot 🙃

lincroft1710

You should definitely chase it up

mark_ashley

I shall do. The submission date has just passed. But the VTE said I can always ask for an opportunity to amend if/when the info arrives since I have requested the information and chased it up already. Cheers for the advice up to this point, its been useful as there isnt much out there, from people have worked in the industry, on this subject.