Help us challenge a council's rebanding decision

System

This discussion was created from comments split from: Council Tax Band Success - are my council right?.

JustPeachie

Good afternoon,

My relative lives in a semi detached property and since the council tax was introduced in 1994, they have been paying a higher band than all of their neighbours in identical properties.

I requested a re-banding and this was refused.  Most of the data the Council used was highly inaccurate.

They also sent someone out to measure the house.  Despite living in a mirror image semi-detached property, the Council had already been stating that their house measured a much higher sq m that the neighbours.  After re-measuring, they came up with an even higher figure.

I gave numerous examples of similar properties which had been purchased around the same time as my relative and which had a similar value in 1994.

I also gave examples of how all the properties in the higher band that my relative was in were all much larger properties and found valuations around similar time periods showing the higher valuations.

I had acknowledged that we are outwith the legislative timescale for appeal however when first notified of the banding my relative did go to the Council on two occasions and challenged it.  On both occasions he was told this was due to the garage that had been built in the garden (not adjoining the property - and we now know this response was incorrect). As the Council have a legal duty to ensure the valuations are correct, fair and consistent, I asked for it to be reviewed.

In response, I have been shut down and told they will not re-band as we are out of time to appeal.

They have also sent me an appeal form...

I have seen so many success stories on the Martin Lewis website where people have had repayments backdated years but their Council are really doubling down.

Can anyone offer any advice? Many thanks!

MSE_ForumTeam5

@JustPeachie we've split your question into a thread of its own, as your situation is different from the other thread

JustPeachie

Sorry I posted in the wrong place. Thank you!

lincroft1710

JustPeachie said:

Good afternoon,

My relative lives in a semi detached property and since the council tax was introduced in 1994, they have been paying a higher band than all of their neighbours in identical properties.

I requested a re-banding and this was refused.  Most of the data the Council used was highly inaccurate.

It is the Valuation Office Agency (part of HMRC) who deal with CT banding not the council. CT came into force on 1 April 1993 and uses a valuation date of 1 April 1991 not 1994. What is inaccurate about the data used by the VOA?

They also sent someone out to measure the house.  Despite living in a mirror image semi-detached property, the Council had already been stating that their house measured a much higher sq m that the neighbours.  After re-measuring, they came up with an even higher figure.

Do you disagree with the area arrived at by the VOA when they remeasured?

I gave numerous examples of similar properties which had been purchased around the same time as my relative and which had a similar value in 1994.

Yes, but were these in a lower band? From where did you obtain the 1994 values? If it was by using a house price index, then these are not accurate and will not be considered by the VOA 

I also gave examples of how all the properties in the higher band that my relative was in were all much larger properties and found valuations around similar time periods showing the higher valuations.

I can't see any relevance in the statement that properties in a higher band are much larger, that is to be expected.

I had acknowledged that we are outwith the legislative timescale for appeal however when first notified of the banding my relative did go to the Council on two occasions and challenged it.  On both occasions he was told this was due to the garage that had been built in the garden (not adjoining the property - and we now know this response was incorrect). As the Council have a legal duty to ensure the valuations are correct, fair and consistent, I asked for it to be reviewed.

In response, I have been shut down and told they will not re-band as we are out of time to appeal.

They have also sent me an appeal form...

I have seen so many success stories on the Martin Lewis website where people have had repayments backdated years but their Council are really doubling down.

Can anyone offer any advice? Many thanks!

There have now been 3 failed attempts to lower the band of your relative's home. To be perfectly frank, nothing you have said above would be good evidence that your relative's band is incorrect, which is probably why the VOA have rejected a claim for the third time.


I'm ex VOA and the only way I can see the VOA even considering this a fourth time is finding semi--detached houses with a garage, of the same age and re-calculated area in the same neighbourhood as your relative's in a lower band..

.

JustPeachie

Thanks I appreciate your response.

I've posted in haste! Yes sorry I did put council, yes it is the VOA. And yes I know it is a valuation date of 1st April 1991.

So much of their data was inaccurate (the irony!). They were comparing relative's house to completely different property builds, much larger. I was able to screenshot online estate agents listings showing a recent sale of the adjoining semi detached property versus the example property they were using and you could clearly see the difference in sq m.  It was also obvious just from the outside shots of the properties that there was a significant difference in size.

When they remeasured, they have actually increased sq m even further, like I say, the house is a mirror image of the one on the other side.

I used 1991 property values of only identical houses.  These are all in the lower band.  I took the prices from actual sales at that time, these were taken from the land register (which is what the VOA also used).

I ensured the house sales were mostly within one year, some at a max of two to give further examples.

The VOA examples were 6-8 years later (and so obviously higher).  

They put an estimated sale value on the property which they said took it into the higher bracket.  All the other identical properties had a much lower valuation at that date.  The value they assigned was in line with the larger properties.

My point was that they are stating both the size and the value of relatives property is the same as the larger properties in the street.  Making it significantly more expensive and larger in size to the identical properties in the row they live in.

So the other, identical semi-detached houses, also with a garage, of the same age and in the same street as relatives are all in a lower band.  They are the single only ones with the higher band in that house size going through the neighbouring streets.

Sorry if my earlier post wasn't clear enough. I would really appreciate your thoughts one more time - thank you.

JustPeachie

Also, to add, the property valuations the VOA supplied (as well as being years later) were all carried out on the larger style of house with the exception of only one which was the same size.  So obviously coming in at larger valuations which matched the 'estimate' the put on relatives property.

lincroft1710

I'm sorry but a lot of what you are saying isn't making sense.


The Land Registry did not start recording prices until 1994, so you cannot have obtained 1991 prices from them. The VOA have their own database of property sales which for many years was supplied by the Stamps Office (certainly in 1991). 1991 house prices are not in the public domain.


Unless there is a Valuation Tribunal case pending, the VOA do not (or should not) reveal house prices and if they did I do not understand why they would use late 1990s prices - it doesn't add up.


I will ask again, do you agree that the revised measurements of your relative's property are correct, because if it is larger than originally believed to be the VOA would be correct in comparing it with properties of a similar size. If it is larger than originally believed then the identical semis may be banded too low. If you can prove that YRH has been re-measured incorrectly you may have a starting point. 


 

JustPeachie

Hi, we are in Scotland and the Land Registry valuations go back to the 1980's.

No, it has definitely been measured incorrectly.  It has been measured at slightly above even the larger properties.  They seem convinced relatives house is in that bracket.

I have documentary evidence from online property listings, of the identical semi-detached house (including the one next door) with the correct, much smaller sq m, all of the houses in that row are that identical, smaller,  size.

lincroft1710

If you are in Scotland then it will be the Assessor you will be dealing with not the VOA and if you can find it there is an exceptionally long thread on this board about the Assessor, which is worth a read.


I'm sorry but I don't know enough about the Assessor's way of working to advise, they operate slightly differently from the VOA

p00hsticks

JustPeachie said:

The VOA examples were 6-8 years later (and so obviously higher).  

If we're talking 1990's there's no 'obviously higher' about it - prices when down considerably in some parts of the country during that decade and only recovered towards the end