Council Tax - Comparable Properties Query

Uplander1111

We live in a two-bedroom bungalow, on a development built around 1980 on a hill off a main road. We live at the bottom of the hill and the bungalows from ours down to the main road are all Band E, be they 2 bedroom bungalows or 3 bedroom chalet bungalows. They all have internal garages but understandably the floor area of the chalet bungalows is somewhat larger than the two-bedroom bungalows. At the time the development was built the chalets sold for more than the two bedroom bungalows.

Two or three years back the previous owners of our home cut the internal garage (entrance off the utility) into two. Two thirds is a room on the same level as the rest of the bungalow, then there is a door and steps down to the remaining third of the garage which could be described as a store. The two thirds part measures approximately 75 square feet, is sandwiched between the pre-existing utility area and the remaining part of the garage, has four doors, two windows, a boiler, plumbing and the steps into the remaining part of the garage. It could be used as a gym or home office (hardly ideal for anything else) but in fact we use it as part of the utility area.

An improvement indicator was applied and after our purchase the band was raised to "F"; we appealed, they rejected our appeal and we are now contemplating a tribunal. In rejecting our appeal one thing I note is that they have justified their decision by selecting bungalows with a similar floor space to ours but ones that are in better areas of the town. This seems quite deliberate.

When I appealed I mentioned the E band bungalows around us (both types), they simply said that these had a smaller footprint but presumably chose to ignore the chalet bungalows. Thanks to the work done on the garage it is true that ours is slightly larger than the other two-bedroom bungalows but it is not true of the chalet bungalows.  If I do take this to the tribunal I would like to pursue the chalet angle as properties in the immediate vicinity seem appropriate to cite. However, in the Martin Lewis article on this topic it says that the properties you identify should be as similar as possible to your own. It goes on to say that comparable properties can be smaller or larger, but should be within 10% of your own.

Martin Lewis knows a great deal more about this subject than I do and it would seem we cannot cite the chalet bungalows. I just wonder why this should be so, and would be grateful for any informed clarification.

Sorry to write War and Peace but I felt that giving a full picture might help anyone willing to assist. Thanks.

Woodstok2000

You can cite whatever properties you want, MSE is giving advice on how to maximise your chance of success. The key wording is 'as similar as possible'.

The council have taken the view that the most similar properties are those of the same type and floorspace but in a different part of town.

Your view is that a property of a different type, but similar floorspace and in the same part of town is a better match.

The point of the tribunal would be to decide who is right.

Uplander1111

Thank you for this - to somebody like me this is all a tad confusing so some clarification is so helpful.