Challenging Council Tax Band - Sqm same but 1 more bedroom as neighbours

sarahlwhite444

Has anyone successfully challenged their Council Tax band when their property has more bedrooms but similar floor area to their neighbours?

I’ve just submitted a Council Tax band challenge for our detached 5-bed house (Band F), based on clear evidence that five almost-identical homes on our street, all 4-beds, all similar size (within 3–10% of ours), and same estate/developer are all in Band E.

The VOA guidance says “size” includes both bedroom count and total floor area, but in newer builds where exact sqm is known, it seems like floor area should matter most? I have all of the floor plans as evidence, as well as current valuations (3 are currently on the market, as is ours).

Has anyone here had a Band F to Band E rebanding approved when they had one extra bedroom but near-identical square meterage to their neighbours? Would love to hear your experience.

Caz3121

are there any other 5 beds on your street? would the 5 beds not be a more expensive property than the 4 beds?

lincroft1710

How old are the houses and what was the difference in price when they were first sold? Because there is a probability the 5 beds were more expensive, especially as they are larger in size and this is why your home is in Band F

sarahlwhite444

There are other 5 beds, however they are much larger than our house. The next door 4 bed is pretty much exactly the same size as ours, the layout is slightly different. It is currently on Zoopla at the same price we have ours on the market for. The prices were slightly different at the time, approx £20K.

lincroft1710

£20K needs to be in context, 4 beds £100,000, 5 beds £120,000 then 5 beds 20% more expensive. 4 beds £200,000, 5 beds £220,000, 5 beds10% more expensive.


Why are you challenging the band when you are selling the house? The new owner will be in a better position as they will be able to make a formal appeal and take it to the (independent) Valuation Tribunal if the VOA say no

keith160377

I'm sort of in the same boat. I've just checked my area and most of the houses (Bungalows)in my close (including mine) are Band B, however there are 4 houses that are Band A. These are roughly the same size and age however I believe that these 4 properties have 2 bedrooms. (I think these were built in the 60's but not sure).

I did a property evaluation via the Nationwide and it that in 1991 it has been estimated that the house was worth around £32,500 (so less than the £40,000 suggested banding in 1991) even though it is owned by a housing association. In your opinion folks, would you believe that this is sufficient grounds to challenge? Many thanks!

lincroft1710

keith160377 said:

I'm sort of in the same boat. I've just checked my area and most of the houses (Bungalows)in my close (including mine) are Band B, however there are 4 houses that are Band A. These are roughly the same size and age however I believe that these 4 properties have 2 bedrooms. (I think these were built in the 60's but not sure).

I did a property evaluation via the Nationwide and it that in 1991 it has been estimated that the house was worth around £32,500 (so less than the £40,000 suggested banding in 1991) even though it is owned by a housing association. In your opinion folks, would you believe that this is sufficient grounds to challenge? Many thanks!

NW 1991 price estimates are unreliable and would not be accepted by the VOA as evidence your band was incorrect. Bungalows tend to be worth more than houses of a similar size.

knightstyle

I thought council tax was based on the rental value so a 5 bed should be more than a 4 bed?

lincroft1710

knightstyle said:

I thought council tax was based on the rental value so a 5 bed should be more than a 4 bed?

In England and Scotland CT is based on the capital value of a property as at 1 April 1991 (Wales 1 April 2003). Size of property is more important than number of bedrooms,


Non domestic rating is based on rental values as was the old domestic rating system which ended on 31 March 1990..