Valuation Trubunal for Council Tax Band-Let's Do This!
Discussion
i suspect they may well offer the size of the plot is irrelevant but i think i'll try to argue that point. how could two identical houses, one with twice as much land as the other ever be valued the same?
i've also found another property on our road that is band F that again was selling with 1.5 acres of gardens.
this argument may be a hiding to nothing however.....
i've also found another property on our road that is band F that again was selling with 1.5 acres of gardens.
this argument may be a hiding to nothing however.....
I would expect the VOA to come back to you and make an offer especially if you have some evidence to support your case.
Incidentally dont worry about searching high and wide, and if you searched high and wide when buying your house you will be able to make that comment. "My comps are all in the area we choose when house hunting"
Incidentally dont worry about searching high and wide, and if you searched high and wide when buying your house you will be able to make that comment. "My comps are all in the area we choose when house hunting"
Chrisgr31 said:
I would expect the VOA to come back to you and make an offer especially if you have some evidence to support your case.
Incidentally dont worry about searching high and wide, and if you searched high and wide when buying your house you will be able to make that comment. "My comps are all in the area we choose when house hunting"
i'm kind of hoping for that although i'm not so sure just how much of a strategy that can be. my thinking is that if i can weigh them down with comparisons i can make them cut their losses, remember that even though i've been reduced to an F i've asked for consideration to D (I know this realistically is pie in the sky) so why not meet in the middle at E?Incidentally dont worry about searching high and wide, and if you searched high and wide when buying your house you will be able to make that comment. "My comps are all in the area we choose when house hunting"
I've managed to find old particulars of another house on our road (perhaps 0.25 miles away) tonight. house has just over 1 acre more land, is the same type and construction and was sold (according to land registry) four years ago for a hundred grand more than we paid for ours last year. banded F the same as our house.
Any updates OP? I'm definitely interested to hear how the process has been for you?
We submitted a case to reduce our 4bed/3bath from G to F and it was declined so it looks like we'd have to go to tribunal if that's the only route after the VOA have given their answer to the initial request?
In our case, house was 530k in 2003, so went into bandG probably quite rightly based on that price, however it was a new build and vastly overpriced. We bought in 2016 for 570k. Neighbours behind with a comparable house (except they are a 5bed/4bath) bought new in 2014 for £560k and they have band F.
For the 2 specific properties the VOA have offered: One sold nearby in a quite country lane in 1994 but I can't seem to find out which house it was as the records only go back to 1995? The only house sold on that road in the past couple of years was last year at £925k.
The second comparison looks on paper to be similar but has a bigger garden, conservatory, is tucked at the end of a cul-de-sac, with fields on 2 sides, and a quiet village green in front.
I guess my tactic will be similar.. find as many 4bed/3bath properties that are in BandF and in the same postcode (first 4 digits).
There's also a massive brand new build estate near us so i'll see if I can find out what these have been banded.
We submitted a case to reduce our 4bed/3bath from G to F and it was declined so it looks like we'd have to go to tribunal if that's the only route after the VOA have given their answer to the initial request?
In our case, house was 530k in 2003, so went into bandG probably quite rightly based on that price, however it was a new build and vastly overpriced. We bought in 2016 for 570k. Neighbours behind with a comparable house (except they are a 5bed/4bath) bought new in 2014 for £560k and they have band F.
For the 2 specific properties the VOA have offered: One sold nearby in a quite country lane in 1994 but I can't seem to find out which house it was as the records only go back to 1995? The only house sold on that road in the past couple of years was last year at £925k.
The second comparison looks on paper to be similar but has a bigger garden, conservatory, is tucked at the end of a cul-de-sac, with fields on 2 sides, and a quiet village green in front.
I guess my tactic will be similar.. find as many 4bed/3bath properties that are in BandF and in the same postcode (first 4 digits).
There's also a massive brand new build estate near us so i'll see if I can find out what these have been banded.
Not yet but soon 
We submitted such a large volume of evidence that they moved to postpone the tribunal twice unfortunately. To be honest I complained that I felt this was unfair but the last thing I needed was to keep refusing the motion of postponement and p
s off the member of the tribunal.
So we're going back this month and we'll see how we get on
Quite excited if I'm honest!
We submitted such a large volume of evidence that they moved to postpone the tribunal twice unfortunately. To be honest I complained that I felt this was unfair but the last thing I needed was to keep refusing the motion of postponement and p
s off the member of the tribunal.So we're going back this month and we'll see how we get on
Quite excited if I'm honest!
With the idea of keeping this thread updated I have now gone through the tribunal process
What was it like? To be honest the person chairing the tribunal panel couldn't have been nicer, I know being confrontational doesn't get you far but there was a generally easy atmosphere with some (professional) banter in-between and plenty of help from the professionals.
The person from the VOA and I met again before the tribunal took place and chat was very amicable. Obviously they don't have any reason to be polite (I'm basically calling their professional judgement out) but I figured I wanted to keep things as friendly as possible. I'm not a pro at this and I figured any attitude could quite easily involve failing the personality test.
About one week before the tribunal took place I was sent the case against us. It amounted to evidence of various Council Tax Bands of houses on our street and close by and an estimation of their floor space. They had singled out 2 properties to use as evidence against me, 1 was E and 1 was F (I was seeking D remember after ours had been moved down form G).
There is a legal expert on hand who helps you along and who is there to clarify any questions with the tribunal, he seemed a really nice bloke too. I was first asked if I wanted to go first or second in giving my evidence. I said I'd go first thinking I'd bore them into submission with my masses of evidence! In hindsight, I think this could have been an error. They did explain that who goes first or second will have no bearing on the outcome but as the VOA only had 2 houses as comparison I think I could have been better going second. Could be wrong.
So, I set out explaining each and every piece of evidence I had that basically amounted to around 20 houses up for sale that could be viewed as comparative in our eyes and a couple of recently sold houses. I was reading from a sheet of paper and had given each member a copy so they could follow what I was saying.
As the VOA case file was set out as a nice booklet, I made the same with my evidence. Second mistake I feel as it was easy for the tribunal to get lost and miss the detail. It probably should have been separate sheets that they could glance at without flicking through the booklet. As we're rural I probably should have printed off a map to show how close all the other houses I was comparing to were, rather than just stating the distance in miles from our house.
Anyway, I bawled on for 35 mins (almost a record according to the chair) before the VOA put their case against me. Personally (and I would say this) I felt it was week. One of the two properties they were comparing us to was completely out of context and I feel the tribunal thought so too. There was also a huge ambiguity between when it was built and the date they had a sold value of it for. Basically it was pretty obvious the value they had on it in the early 1990's was as a plot of land not as a house. I pulled them up on this after they had finished (you can't interrupt) and the chair said they thought the same.
The VOA were a little flustered by this and sort of brushed it under the carpet. One point back to me I thought.
The other property pretty much had us bang to rights however as an example of an F banded house although it was pretty different to ours.
There closing comments stated they felt that there were enough F banded properties around us to make us the same and if we were E we would be an anomaly. My closing statements obviously were that I felt I'd proved that enough local houses were E that we should be that. At the beginning of the hearing I did make it clear that I wouldn't be pursuing a D as that was down to naivety on my part.
The tactic in claiming naivety was something I'd actively went for. My idea was that by throwing in a few D and C banded properties we could agree to discard them as they obviously had been improved over the years. My thinking was that if we could prove these were uncharacteristic of the area why couldn't we prove all my other examples were wrong too?
In fact some of them had been pulled up on improvement markers, but crucially only about 5 of them leaving me with lots of good solid evidence that couldn't be discarded.
So how did I get on, I'll find out in a couple of weeks when they write to me with the judgement. How do I think it went? Pretty well considering I'm an amateur. I think I'll be lucky if it gets dropped any further mind you. That's not to say I don't think I've a case but I do think it was very difficult to find a comparative property on our road (impossible really) which means I had to reply on farther away houses than I would have liked.
One thing I will say is I found it all very enjoyable in a strange way. We all left with handshakes and smiles and I really enjoyed doing the research, it has been way more interesting than I could have imagined
What was it like? To be honest the person chairing the tribunal panel couldn't have been nicer, I know being confrontational doesn't get you far but there was a generally easy atmosphere with some (professional) banter in-between and plenty of help from the professionals.
The person from the VOA and I met again before the tribunal took place and chat was very amicable. Obviously they don't have any reason to be polite (I'm basically calling their professional judgement out) but I figured I wanted to keep things as friendly as possible. I'm not a pro at this and I figured any attitude could quite easily involve failing the personality test.
About one week before the tribunal took place I was sent the case against us. It amounted to evidence of various Council Tax Bands of houses on our street and close by and an estimation of their floor space. They had singled out 2 properties to use as evidence against me, 1 was E and 1 was F (I was seeking D remember after ours had been moved down form G).
There is a legal expert on hand who helps you along and who is there to clarify any questions with the tribunal, he seemed a really nice bloke too. I was first asked if I wanted to go first or second in giving my evidence. I said I'd go first thinking I'd bore them into submission with my masses of evidence! In hindsight, I think this could have been an error. They did explain that who goes first or second will have no bearing on the outcome but as the VOA only had 2 houses as comparison I think I could have been better going second. Could be wrong.
So, I set out explaining each and every piece of evidence I had that basically amounted to around 20 houses up for sale that could be viewed as comparative in our eyes and a couple of recently sold houses. I was reading from a sheet of paper and had given each member a copy so they could follow what I was saying.
As the VOA case file was set out as a nice booklet, I made the same with my evidence. Second mistake I feel as it was easy for the tribunal to get lost and miss the detail. It probably should have been separate sheets that they could glance at without flicking through the booklet. As we're rural I probably should have printed off a map to show how close all the other houses I was comparing to were, rather than just stating the distance in miles from our house.
Anyway, I bawled on for 35 mins (almost a record according to the chair) before the VOA put their case against me. Personally (and I would say this) I felt it was week. One of the two properties they were comparing us to was completely out of context and I feel the tribunal thought so too. There was also a huge ambiguity between when it was built and the date they had a sold value of it for. Basically it was pretty obvious the value they had on it in the early 1990's was as a plot of land not as a house. I pulled them up on this after they had finished (you can't interrupt) and the chair said they thought the same.
The VOA were a little flustered by this and sort of brushed it under the carpet. One point back to me I thought.
The other property pretty much had us bang to rights however as an example of an F banded house although it was pretty different to ours.
There closing comments stated they felt that there were enough F banded properties around us to make us the same and if we were E we would be an anomaly. My closing statements obviously were that I felt I'd proved that enough local houses were E that we should be that. At the beginning of the hearing I did make it clear that I wouldn't be pursuing a D as that was down to naivety on my part.
The tactic in claiming naivety was something I'd actively went for. My idea was that by throwing in a few D and C banded properties we could agree to discard them as they obviously had been improved over the years. My thinking was that if we could prove these were uncharacteristic of the area why couldn't we prove all my other examples were wrong too?
In fact some of them had been pulled up on improvement markers, but crucially only about 5 of them leaving me with lots of good solid evidence that couldn't be discarded.
So how did I get on, I'll find out in a couple of weeks when they write to me with the judgement. How do I think it went? Pretty well considering I'm an amateur. I think I'll be lucky if it gets dropped any further mind you. That's not to say I don't think I've a case but I do think it was very difficult to find a comparative property on our road (impossible really) which means I had to reply on farther away houses than I would have liked.
One thing I will say is I found it all very enjoyable in a strange way. We all left with handshakes and smiles and I really enjoyed doing the research, it has been way more interesting than I could have imagined
I hadn't seen this thread before but just read the whole thing while on a conference call ;-)
My brother used to work for the valuation office in Perth and the impression he gave me was that they were very open to challenge. Hardly anyone ever complained though.
Well done for going through the process and whatever the outcome, you can feel good that you gave it your best shot!
I do find it slightly weird that the VOA's evidence of their valuation was to compare your place against a couple of others. I would have expected them to use information on property value changes over time, prices per sq m etc to justify the actual figure and not just present a comparative measurement.
My brother used to work for the valuation office in Perth and the impression he gave me was that they were very open to challenge. Hardly anyone ever complained though.
Well done for going through the process and whatever the outcome, you can feel good that you gave it your best shot!
I do find it slightly weird that the VOA's evidence of their valuation was to compare your place against a couple of others. I would have expected them to use information on property value changes over time, prices per sq m etc to justify the actual figure and not just present a comparative measurement.
It will be interesting to see how your case turns out. Quite often the VO does break back the comparables to a rate per square metre. There were probably reasons why they did not do so on this occasion.
On the many occasions I have been to the Tribunal independent ratepayers or council taxpayers have forgotten to say what hey are actually looking for so at least you did at.
In the non-domestic Tribunal we are obliged to produce bound documents of evidence so the panel should be used to handling them. Yes a map showing locations would have been useful but if you mentioned distances you should be ok.
On the many occasions I have been to the Tribunal independent ratepayers or council taxpayers have forgotten to say what hey are actually looking for so at least you did at.
In the non-domestic Tribunal we are obliged to produce bound documents of evidence so the panel should be used to handling them. Yes a map showing locations would have been useful but if you mentioned distances you should be ok.
It's interesting you both mention this
One thing that was noted was the chair asked the VOA about my houses position in band F. Now, when we complained about being band G they huffed and puffed about being very close to both but I could just scrape into band F so they would reduce it(how they would know this I don't know as there was little evidence back then). Now, band F goes from (1993 prices) £120k-£160k, a massive spread when you think about it, but "apparently" we could just keep under it.
So the chair asked where the VOA thought our house fitted in band F, the higher end or the lower end? The VOA chose their words carefully and said in their opinion it wasn't in the higher end of that bracket. I felt another small victory on this.
mcbook said:
I do find it slightly weird that the VOA's evidence of their valuation was to compare your place against a couple of others. I would have expected them to use information on property value changes over time, prices per sq m etc to justify the actual figure and not just present a comparative measurement.
There may indeed be a good reason for their not basing their argument on value/sq metre, it might not prove them correct! Again, with perhaps more experience having seen the tables in my evidence pack I could have done some homework on this were it to be the case. Too late now I suppose.One thing that was noted was the chair asked the VOA about my houses position in band F. Now, when we complained about being band G they huffed and puffed about being very close to both but I could just scrape into band F so they would reduce it(how they would know this I don't know as there was little evidence back then). Now, band F goes from (1993 prices) £120k-£160k, a massive spread when you think about it, but "apparently" we could just keep under it.
So the chair asked where the VOA thought our house fitted in band F, the higher end or the lower end? The VOA chose their words carefully and said in their opinion it wasn't in the higher end of that bracket. I felt another small victory on this.
Just to resurrect this one.. any news OP??
Hopefully you don't mind me combining my experience into this thread as well! I now have a date for my tribunal but it's only 4 weeks away and with a stload on at the mo i'm not confident in preparing as fully as possible before then. I have however had a very decent chat with the VOA officer. She is sending me in the post the 5 houses that they will be using as their evidence, and talked me through a few of them.
What seems to be difficult for me to fully grasp is that she has stated that it's down to what our house would be worth in 1991, with the village in the same state it was in 1991. Back then it was a village, half a mile from the M4. Now it's pretty much one large development after 3500 are built. So she is saying that it is based on what they believe the house would have been worth had there not been any development.
When I pushed the question of "What if another house (new build), with more bedrooms, which sold for £30k more for ours, was recently given the band F... how does that fit in with your view?".. she proceeded to say that using other properties in the area wasn't likely to be accepted by the tribunal.
i'm awaiting their letter/case but she said that she's chosen 5 houses, including some up to 6 miles away (which are still in country villages), rather than any in the direct vicinity of ours, and that she has chosen these as she can demonstrate their value in 1991.
The final element i'm not quite up to speed on, is that she has said that I can ask for full details of 5 local houses, and they will confirm from their records what the price would be in 1991. This feels like shooting for a needle in a haystack. Surely if she has access to all the data (from 1991) then she will have cherry picked the 5 houses that suit her case. I am told I cannot do the same, but can only pick 5 houses at random?
My current plan to start with is to finish my first step in plotting all properties sold within the past 24 months, and finding those which have sold for more than ours, with equal or more bedrooms, but are in the band lower than ours. I'm currently at 28 houses and i've only just started. Her words however do have me concerned that i could go in with over 100 houses, but the tribunal will just say they are not a relevant comparison as they weren't built in 1991 or earlier?
Hopefully you don't mind me combining my experience into this thread as well! I now have a date for my tribunal but it's only 4 weeks away and with a s
tload on at the mo i'm not confident in preparing as fully as possible before then. I have however had a very decent chat with the VOA officer. She is sending me in the post the 5 houses that they will be using as their evidence, and talked me through a few of them. What seems to be difficult for me to fully grasp is that she has stated that it's down to what our house would be worth in 1991, with the village in the same state it was in 1991. Back then it was a village, half a mile from the M4. Now it's pretty much one large development after 3500 are built. So she is saying that it is based on what they believe the house would have been worth had there not been any development.
When I pushed the question of "What if another house (new build), with more bedrooms, which sold for £30k more for ours, was recently given the band F... how does that fit in with your view?".. she proceeded to say that using other properties in the area wasn't likely to be accepted by the tribunal.
i'm awaiting their letter/case but she said that she's chosen 5 houses, including some up to 6 miles away (which are still in country villages), rather than any in the direct vicinity of ours, and that she has chosen these as she can demonstrate their value in 1991.
The final element i'm not quite up to speed on, is that she has said that I can ask for full details of 5 local houses, and they will confirm from their records what the price would be in 1991. This feels like shooting for a needle in a haystack. Surely if she has access to all the data (from 1991) then she will have cherry picked the 5 houses that suit her case. I am told I cannot do the same, but can only pick 5 houses at random?
My current plan to start with is to finish my first step in plotting all properties sold within the past 24 months, and finding those which have sold for more than ours, with equal or more bedrooms, but are in the band lower than ours. I'm currently at 28 houses and i've only just started. Her words however do have me concerned that i could go in with over 100 houses, but the tribunal will just say they are not a relevant comparison as they weren't built in 1991 or earlier?
I am not sure about council tax because I do business rates. We have similar issues about the historic valuation date but it seems to me you should be valuing with the current facts (ie the 3,500 new houses) but at 1991 values. So would the additional houses have lead to a drop in values? If so that needs to be reflected.
I would say dont go in with hundreds of comparables, or at least dont drown the tribunal with them. Find a few and then look up the prices on Zoopla. Might be worth checking VOs comps on Zoopla, see if they have sold since 1991 and at what price. How does the increase compare? Are they actually comparable?
I would say dont go in with hundreds of comparables, or at least dont drown the tribunal with them. Find a few and then look up the prices on Zoopla. Might be worth checking VOs comps on Zoopla, see if they have sold since 1991 and at what price. How does the increase compare? Are they actually comparable?
I lost!
We'll sort of as I got mine reduced to F from G so not all's lost! I am however typing next to a sleeping baby so I can't go into full details tonight, read through my posts again tonight and perhaps give me a day to respond properly. It might be easier to spend 5 mins on the phone however...
Apologies for not updating the thread it completely slipped my mind
We'll sort of as I got mine reduced to F from G so not all's lost! I am however typing next to a sleeping baby so I can't go into full details tonight, read through my posts again tonight and perhaps give me a day to respond properly. It might be easier to spend 5 mins on the phone however...
Apologies for not updating the thread it completely slipped my mind
Bit of an update on my case, with an interesting twist!
Had all of the VOA's paperwork through, and they have picked 3 band G and 2 band F houses to use as their case. One of these is in a completely different postcode to ours, and the other band F looks the same as ours!
They also have started using some square meter figures for the size of our house vs these comparisons, except that for our house they have used the outside dimensions, and for the other houses they are using the internal dimensions (i.e. the floor area that an estate agent would quote you).
They are quoting ours at 192sqm, however if you measure internally, I get max 155sqm so quite a difference.
I've put all these points back to the VOA officer so lets see what she comes back with as I don't think we're comparing apples with apples at present.
On the slight twist..... my neighbour was Band F, and I used their house as an example in the original appeal... has just had a letter stating that they are rebanding theirs to G with immediate effect. We were under the impression that a rebanding can only take place after a house is sold, i.e. The VOA should put an improvement marker against the house, and when it is next sold it would move up a band.
Instead they have indeed gone ahead and rebanded it! I'm going to sit with my neighbour to look at the paperwork as this doesn't sound right. Their house was new in 2012, planning permission was for a 4bed, and the only thing that I can see is that we think the developer built it as a 5 bed (using the loft). I'm struggling to work out how they are allowed to reband their house 4yrs after it was built but obviously i don't know the finer details of how these things work. The gov wesbite seems to suggest they can only do so if a load of other houses in the "immediate vicinity" have also been rebanded (which isn't the case).
Any thoughts? (apart from that my neighbour might be pissed at me!)
Had all of the VOA's paperwork through, and they have picked 3 band G and 2 band F houses to use as their case. One of these is in a completely different postcode to ours, and the other band F looks the same as ours!
They also have started using some square meter figures for the size of our house vs these comparisons, except that for our house they have used the outside dimensions, and for the other houses they are using the internal dimensions (i.e. the floor area that an estate agent would quote you).
They are quoting ours at 192sqm, however if you measure internally, I get max 155sqm so quite a difference.
I've put all these points back to the VOA officer so lets see what she comes back with as I don't think we're comparing apples with apples at present.
On the slight twist..... my neighbour was Band F, and I used their house as an example in the original appeal... has just had a letter stating that they are rebanding theirs to G with immediate effect. We were under the impression that a rebanding can only take place after a house is sold, i.e. The VOA should put an improvement marker against the house, and when it is next sold it would move up a band.
Instead they have indeed gone ahead and rebanded it! I'm going to sit with my neighbour to look at the paperwork as this doesn't sound right. Their house was new in 2012, planning permission was for a 4bed, and the only thing that I can see is that we think the developer built it as a 5 bed (using the loft). I'm struggling to work out how they are allowed to reband their house 4yrs after it was built but obviously i don't know the finer details of how these things work. The gov wesbite seems to suggest they can only do so if a load of other houses in the "immediate vicinity" have also been rebanded (which isn't the case).
Any thoughts? (apart from that my neighbour might be pissed at me!)
My in-laws had their house rebanded with immediate effect. We appealed on the grounds, as you've identified, that they can't do anything until the house is sold. They backed down immediately, so that sort of nonsense does happen.
Your neighbour's situation is slightly different if they were banded as a 4-bed when a 5-bed had been built, but presumably the Council signed the house off, so they've not only just become aware. I doubt they can pretend they've just found out and change the banding now.
Your neighbour's situation is slightly different if they were banded as a 4-bed when a 5-bed had been built, but presumably the Council signed the house off, so they've not only just become aware. I doubt they can pretend they've just found out and change the banding now.
Thought i'd resurrect this one as I postponed my original tribunal and they only gave me a date in July so i've just had the results in....
And my appeal was rejected! Yay
I'll try to keep this a brief summary but hopefully someone may find it helpful/interesting! I ended up putting way more work into it than planned but only because the deeper i looked, the stronger my case felt (to me at least). The actual hearing was fine, not difficult/unnerving, and the independent people were clear and helpful. The VOA presented their case first, with 3 houses that in their view were "comparable" in size/number of rooms, and 2 houses which were band F, despite still being 4 bedroom, and one being bigger than ours, were described in such a way as to show that mine was sufficiently different/larger.
Sitting there listening quietly it can be tempting to blurt out a reply/question but I stayed quiet, and calmly asked a few questions at the end. I didn't need to ask many as part of my presentation was to show that the VOA references were not comparable.
I split my presentation into 3 bits:
Pricing:
I'd downloaded the land registry data for the 3 local postcode areas, and cross references these against the council tax bands. What it showed was for my location, average prices had increased 53% since 2003. My house had only increased 8%. I then plotted these on a graph to show a value of 570k in 2016 was attributable to under £160k in 1991.
I then showed that for all local sales during the 6 months before and after we purchased, our house was below the average band F sale price (by around 80k), and below the average band G sale by over 200k!). For me this was clear to show that my case was not a borderline one, and that our purchase price was squarely in line with band F houses.
VOA data:
I then chose to remark on the VOA houses, to show that they are not comparable. I found sale prices some 200k over ours, and that even the band F reference house was larger, had a conservatory. What I did see though is that where possible, they'd chosen houses that had not sold at all since 1991. This helps them muddy the waters. For example, they presented one "comparable" house, which is very close to mine, but is on a private road, with views over countryside, and a larger plot. This house has no sale records. I then managed to find an identical house 3 doors down, which had sold 3 yrs before ours, for £190k more than ours, so showed this as clearly as possible to attempt to prove that they are not comparable price wise.
My References:
I presented a full detailed account of 9 local houses which have sold recently as band F, where they are comparable in size, no. of rooms etc, but the sale prices are far in excess of my own. I also gave a list of basic details of over 135 other similar houses, again all band F, sold for higher value, and the house appears comparable.
The VOA officer argued that these (and she used the words "all of these") houses are probably in the wrong band, and had been extended at some point. She asserted that if they weren't aware of an extension then it's hard for them to ensure they review them after they sell, but that they all seemed to have had work done. I argued that any significant extension would have needed planning permission, so they would have been aware, and that if they were unaware of work done on the house, then the assumption must be that no work has been done!
Anyway long story short... they've rejected the case, to quote some snippets:
"The Panel found that even though the properties the Listing Officer’s representative submitted were not all mirror images of the appeal property, there were sufficient similarities for them to be treated as comparable"
"Further evidence from the Appellant of the bandings of other properties in the locality was given less weight by the Panel as the Listing Officer’s representative was not aware of them before the hearing." - NOTE i was never asked or told that I had to present my evidence to the VOA themselves ahead of the tribunal.
"The Panel considered that notwithstanding the anomalies of bandings in the valuation list, the Listing Officer’s comparables were close enough to the appeal property to be reflective of values in the locality for that property. Moreover, the Panel is satisfied that based on the sales and tonal evidence presented to it at the hearing, in particular by the Listing Officer’s representative, a detached house the size of the appeal property in this location, would have sold for a value in excess of £160,000 in April 1991."
So, it seems to be that their mindset seems to be more firmly aligned with the size of a house, rather than its value, and that as the VOA presented 3 houses which are similar sized, even though i proved they were worth signficantly more, they were comparable so the band should remain as G.
Overall an interesting experience, I rate it 2/10
And my appeal was rejected! Yay
I'll try to keep this a brief summary but hopefully someone may find it helpful/interesting! I ended up putting way more work into it than planned but only because the deeper i looked, the stronger my case felt (to me at least). The actual hearing was fine, not difficult/unnerving, and the independent people were clear and helpful. The VOA presented their case first, with 3 houses that in their view were "comparable" in size/number of rooms, and 2 houses which were band F, despite still being 4 bedroom, and one being bigger than ours, were described in such a way as to show that mine was sufficiently different/larger.
Sitting there listening quietly it can be tempting to blurt out a reply/question but I stayed quiet, and calmly asked a few questions at the end. I didn't need to ask many as part of my presentation was to show that the VOA references were not comparable.
I split my presentation into 3 bits:
Pricing:
I'd downloaded the land registry data for the 3 local postcode areas, and cross references these against the council tax bands. What it showed was for my location, average prices had increased 53% since 2003. My house had only increased 8%. I then plotted these on a graph to show a value of 570k in 2016 was attributable to under £160k in 1991.
I then showed that for all local sales during the 6 months before and after we purchased, our house was below the average band F sale price (by around 80k), and below the average band G sale by over 200k!). For me this was clear to show that my case was not a borderline one, and that our purchase price was squarely in line with band F houses.
VOA data:
I then chose to remark on the VOA houses, to show that they are not comparable. I found sale prices some 200k over ours, and that even the band F reference house was larger, had a conservatory. What I did see though is that where possible, they'd chosen houses that had not sold at all since 1991. This helps them muddy the waters. For example, they presented one "comparable" house, which is very close to mine, but is on a private road, with views over countryside, and a larger plot. This house has no sale records. I then managed to find an identical house 3 doors down, which had sold 3 yrs before ours, for £190k more than ours, so showed this as clearly as possible to attempt to prove that they are not comparable price wise.
My References:
I presented a full detailed account of 9 local houses which have sold recently as band F, where they are comparable in size, no. of rooms etc, but the sale prices are far in excess of my own. I also gave a list of basic details of over 135 other similar houses, again all band F, sold for higher value, and the house appears comparable.
The VOA officer argued that these (and she used the words "all of these") houses are probably in the wrong band, and had been extended at some point. She asserted that if they weren't aware of an extension then it's hard for them to ensure they review them after they sell, but that they all seemed to have had work done. I argued that any significant extension would have needed planning permission, so they would have been aware, and that if they were unaware of work done on the house, then the assumption must be that no work has been done!
Anyway long story short... they've rejected the case, to quote some snippets:
"The Panel found that even though the properties the Listing Officer’s representative submitted were not all mirror images of the appeal property, there were sufficient similarities for them to be treated as comparable"
"Further evidence from the Appellant of the bandings of other properties in the locality was given less weight by the Panel as the Listing Officer’s representative was not aware of them before the hearing." - NOTE i was never asked or told that I had to present my evidence to the VOA themselves ahead of the tribunal.
"The Panel considered that notwithstanding the anomalies of bandings in the valuation list, the Listing Officer’s comparables were close enough to the appeal property to be reflective of values in the locality for that property. Moreover, the Panel is satisfied that based on the sales and tonal evidence presented to it at the hearing, in particular by the Listing Officer’s representative, a detached house the size of the appeal property in this location, would have sold for a value in excess of £160,000 in April 1991."
So, it seems to be that their mindset seems to be more firmly aligned with the size of a house, rather than its value, and that as the VOA presented 3 houses which are similar sized, even though i proved they were worth signficantly more, they were comparable so the band should remain as G.
Overall an interesting experience, I rate it 2/10
Interesting thread.
Seeing it just prompted me to put mine in for reassessment which i have just done now.
We are sitting in the highest band so it's not going to have any ill effect on any of the neighbours.
My argument is using house price data our house fits in the lower end of band G and there is houses in the same street/band here with an extra 2/3 beds, 2 baths and in some cases swimming pools that have a fairly significantly higher value than ours.
Will see how we get on but we have little to lose by giving it a go.
Seeing it just prompted me to put mine in for reassessment which i have just done now.
We are sitting in the highest band so it's not going to have any ill effect on any of the neighbours.
My argument is using house price data our house fits in the lower end of band G and there is houses in the same street/band here with an extra 2/3 beds, 2 baths and in some cases swimming pools that have a fairly significantly higher value than ours.
Will see how we get on but we have little to lose by giving it a go.
To add to the information here, I challenged my council tax banding a few years ago. As I had been in the property for a while I couldn't use the Valuation Tribunal route mentioned in this thread, but on the basis the VOA had a duty to maintain an accurate register, so really 'asking nicely'.
I did as the mentioned in the thread, found comparable properties which were in lower bands to show mine was too high so raised it with the VOA.
As with the other cases here, my house was built long after 1991, so there was nothing I could directly compare to, only similar sized properties in the same area.
Initially the VOA disagreed with my view, arguing that it was close, but mine just sneaked into the higher band.
As mentioned by others, I was offered the 'we will give you details of five houses' but instead what I did was I went through the local newspaper archives in the local library for 1990 to 1992 to see what the houses in the area were actually being advertised for. That was a fun afternoon in front of a microfiche. Of course an advertised price doesn't give a selling price, but it is a pretty strong indication.However by doing that I was able to select properties that helped my case.
The VOA came back and argued that my house had a larger amount of floor space than the ones I was comparing to, so I ended up 'measuring' the houses I was comparing against by pacing out the dimensions from walking around them (not sure why I didn't get arrested for appearing to be acting so oddly).
With that the VOA had a surprising change of heart and agreed to reduce the banding. Even better when a few weeks later I had a cheque from the council for the difference between the two bands for the years I had been paying the higher amount.
I did as the mentioned in the thread, found comparable properties which were in lower bands to show mine was too high so raised it with the VOA.
As with the other cases here, my house was built long after 1991, so there was nothing I could directly compare to, only similar sized properties in the same area.
Initially the VOA disagreed with my view, arguing that it was close, but mine just sneaked into the higher band.
As mentioned by others, I was offered the 'we will give you details of five houses' but instead what I did was I went through the local newspaper archives in the local library for 1990 to 1992 to see what the houses in the area were actually being advertised for. That was a fun afternoon in front of a microfiche. Of course an advertised price doesn't give a selling price, but it is a pretty strong indication.However by doing that I was able to select properties that helped my case.
The VOA came back and argued that my house had a larger amount of floor space than the ones I was comparing to, so I ended up 'measuring' the houses I was comparing against by pacing out the dimensions from walking around them (not sure why I didn't get arrested for appearing to be acting so oddly).
With that the VOA had a surprising change of heart and agreed to reduce the banding. Even better when a few weeks later I had a cheque from the council for the difference between the two bands for the years I had been paying the higher amount.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff