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.

Jude57

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82094580#Comment_82094580

Just to correct your comment, the Council has nothing to do with Council Tax banding. That's entirely the remit of the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), a separate entity altogether.

To OP, I'm tagging the long-standing and well respected member @lincroft1710 who used to work at VOA and can hopefully offer some advice.

lincroft1710

The chalet bungalows would not be considered comparable as they are not single storey dwellings. VOA use total external floor area and tend not to take room usage into account. Quite common for there not to be comparable properties nearby, so those further afield have to be used.

I would say that I am surprised a partial garage conversion has triggered a band increase and can only assume that the pre conversion 1991 value was close to the £120,000 Band E max. Was your purchase price higher than asking prices of other 2 bed bungalows in the area

Woodstok2000

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82095270#Comment_82095270

If we're getting really pedantic, it's not the VOA either since April when HMRC took it over and VOA was disbanded, but I'm sure OP managed to work out what I meant.

Uplander1111

Thanks for the various contributions. The sale price of all the two bedroom bungalows was, as far as I know, the same.

I suppose it goes to the heart of my confusion but if chalet and two bedroom bungalows were built and sold at the same time, the chalets were more expensive then, the chalets were and are E's, and if our floor area is less than the chalet now, well I am confused as to why it is not relevant.

We also have a bungalow that was identical to ours two doors away, they have gone up into the roof, there is no improvement indicator and again this has been ignored by VOA.

I cannot help but feel they skew their comparisons to suit.

As a final point, if you take the sale price in 1978 and use one of these online converters then it comes out at £113604.

lincroft1710

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82095368#Comment_82095368

Instead of being an Executive Agency of HMRC, the VO has reverted to being part of HMRC. Originally the VO was part of the Inland Revenue, but around 1989 became an Executive Agency as did several other government departments. The VO still functions as such

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/voa-integration-with-hmrc

lincroft1710

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82095409#Comment_82095409

Online converters are inaccurate, so no real help. You compare bungalows with bungalows, comparison with chalets will not help your case, neither will the lack of improvement indicator on a neighbouring property (they may never have applied for planning permission).

See if you can find any bungalows the same size as yours in Band E and don't restrict yourself to the immediate neighbourhood.

Uplander1111

Thanks for your help lincroft1710 it is appreciated. May I pick your brains just a little more?

Regarding size - is this the external footprint?

I ask because in their rejection (of the appeal) they said the bungalow had been extended which is not true. The external footprint is the same.

lincroft1710

It is the external footprint of the actual living accommodation, garages or outbuildings are excluded from the area calculation. So the VO are correct in saying the bungalow has been extended.