Is there a Council Tax appeals/overseeing body?
Discussion
The whole CT system seems to be run along the lines of "it's this much, pay up and shut up or we'll take you to court and set the bailiffs on you." At least it is with the council I am currently trying to deal with. Their utter ineptitude and dishonesty, combined with above attitude is driving me up the wall and may result in me just having to give them a whole bunch of money (for nothing) just so I can de-stress.
So, is there an 'ombudsman' or something, or is my only option to argue it out in front of a magistrate who is almost certainly going to be biased in favour of the council?
So, is there an 'ombudsman' or something, or is my only option to argue it out in front of a magistrate who is almost certainly going to be biased in favour of the council?
There is the Local Government Ombudsman you could try. Their website is www.lgo.org.uk, or you can call them on 0300 061 0614.
First of all who are you dealing with?
Local Authority bills you. Valuation Office deals with the banding. Talk to either about the other will be pointless and frustrating.
Secondly, I hope you were not listening to Jeremy Kyle on Friday. I have never heard so much misinformation from just about everyone in my life, particularly from Eric Piccles, whose domain it falls in.
The Daily Wail likes to sensationalise. But principally the band that your house is in is set by value. If your neighbours are near the top of the band, and you are near the bottom, it can mean that you pay the same, even if your houses are different.
Golf Courses, Sea Views, new kitchens etc can make a difference. Basically if you can stand back and say I would pay more because of that feature, expect it to count. The papers like to scream unfair, but otherwise your average cottage overlooking the sea would cost the same as the town centre cottage, which does not reflect reality.
Values are set at 1991. Eric Piccles argued that a property is automatically revalued when the house is sold. Which is true, but at 1991 values, and taking the current physical (not economic) circumstances into account.
If its the Local Authority, I think you have to complain in writing, before you can go to Local Government Ombudsman.
Local Authority bills you. Valuation Office deals with the banding. Talk to either about the other will be pointless and frustrating.
Secondly, I hope you were not listening to Jeremy Kyle on Friday. I have never heard so much misinformation from just about everyone in my life, particularly from Eric Piccles, whose domain it falls in.
The Daily Wail likes to sensationalise. But principally the band that your house is in is set by value. If your neighbours are near the top of the band, and you are near the bottom, it can mean that you pay the same, even if your houses are different.
Golf Courses, Sea Views, new kitchens etc can make a difference. Basically if you can stand back and say I would pay more because of that feature, expect it to count. The papers like to scream unfair, but otherwise your average cottage overlooking the sea would cost the same as the town centre cottage, which does not reflect reality.
Values are set at 1991. Eric Piccles argued that a property is automatically revalued when the house is sold. Which is true, but at 1991 values, and taking the current physical (not economic) circumstances into account.
If its the Local Authority, I think you have to complain in writing, before you can go to Local Government Ombudsman.
You can appeal your CT banding, if you can proove that your naighbors pay less for similar valued properties. However, they are just a likely to put your neighbors banding up as to put yours down, so you could end up being 'Mr Unpopular' if you do so.
If however an appeal has already been made against your property in the past, you wont be allowed to re-appeal. So if previous owner appealed 10 years ago, tough luck.
Al this can be found out on line.
If however an appeal has already been made against your property in the past, you wont be allowed to re-appeal. So if previous owner appealed 10 years ago, tough luck.
Al this can be found out on line.
My council tax bill has just gone up to about £10 a day - I appealed, but with no luck.
£10 a day for what? Rubbish collected once a fortnight and that's about the only service I receive.
The CEO of my council has a brilliant pension pot and £200k+ a year salary, so I suppose it goes on that.
I appealed when I moved in to my current place via the local Council. I couldn't believe such a corrupt system exists. Basically the council have teams of people who crawl all over your property and don't understand the fundamental principals at work and will lie and cheat to the "independent" commission (who are anything but independent) in order to make you pay more.
In my case my house originally had a lot of land attached to it - just before I bought it the previous owner sold a lot of the land - knocking approx 15% of the value of the property off - previously it had been in the upper band by just 2%, so this easily brought it down a band.
So I put out a case with several cases of simple mathematics - I had 4 arguments, each one of which was valid:
1. Given I had an independent assessment that the house value dropped by 15%, simply lowering the 1990 price by 15% dropped me a band.
2. Comparing the sell price compared to other recently sold houses in bands above and below put me firmly in the lower band.
3. Using actual house prices over the years since 1990 I extrapolated a graph showing the value of the house in 1990 compared to actual selling price.
4. As with 3, but using government official stats on house price rises in my area, created the same graph.
All 4 items firmly put my house in the lower band. I turned up at the "hearing" and the council argued:
1. They don't accept land changes will change valuation for this purpose.
2. They don't accept the actual sale prices, and only accept what they think the houses should have sold for.
3. They had a graph similar to 3, but with incomplete (i.e. took out the prices which would be in my favour) and simply incorrect data
4. They don't accept government official figures as these are too "broad stroked" to be applied locally
For #1 the sheer arrogance staggered me - they were making up the rules on which valuations were based, and basically dismissed the reality that the valuation is based on actual prices in 1990.
For #3 they basically lied, knew they were lying and I called them on it and was warned by the "independent" board that I can't publicly accuse a council official of lying or they will terminate the hearing there and then.
It was a stitch-up, so I got up and left.
In my case my house originally had a lot of land attached to it - just before I bought it the previous owner sold a lot of the land - knocking approx 15% of the value of the property off - previously it had been in the upper band by just 2%, so this easily brought it down a band.
So I put out a case with several cases of simple mathematics - I had 4 arguments, each one of which was valid:
1. Given I had an independent assessment that the house value dropped by 15%, simply lowering the 1990 price by 15% dropped me a band.
2. Comparing the sell price compared to other recently sold houses in bands above and below put me firmly in the lower band.
3. Using actual house prices over the years since 1990 I extrapolated a graph showing the value of the house in 1990 compared to actual selling price.
4. As with 3, but using government official stats on house price rises in my area, created the same graph.
All 4 items firmly put my house in the lower band. I turned up at the "hearing" and the council argued:
1. They don't accept land changes will change valuation for this purpose.
2. They don't accept the actual sale prices, and only accept what they think the houses should have sold for.
3. They had a graph similar to 3, but with incomplete (i.e. took out the prices which would be in my favour) and simply incorrect data
4. They don't accept government official figures as these are too "broad stroked" to be applied locally
For #1 the sheer arrogance staggered me - they were making up the rules on which valuations were based, and basically dismissed the reality that the valuation is based on actual prices in 1990.
For #3 they basically lied, knew they were lying and I called them on it and was warned by the "independent" board that I can't publicly accuse a council official of lying or they will terminate the hearing there and then.
It was a stitch-up, so I got up and left.
Edited by GreigM on Monday 27th September 11:47
I was amazed by the council's intransigence when I appealed mine years ago. 
We bought our house in the exact same month the valuations were done, the price we paid put us two bands lower than they had valued us. It took months of arguing to even go down one band, they totally refused to consider putting us in the band that matched the value of the house.
We bought our house in the exact same month the valuations were done, the price we paid put us two bands lower than they had valued us. It took months of arguing to even go down one band, they totally refused to consider putting us in the band that matched the value of the house.
Edited by manic47 on Monday 27th September 14:29
manic47 said:
I was amazed by the council's intransigence when I appealed mine years ago.
We bought our house in the exact same month the valuations were done, the price we paid put us two bands lower than they had valued us. It took months of arguing to even go down one band, they totally refused to consider putting us in the band that matched the value of the house.
That's what the Valuation Tribunal is for. Based on that evidence you would have had a hard time losing...We bought our house in the exact same month the valuations were done, the price we paid put us two bands lower than they had valued us. It took months of arguing to even go down one band, they totally refused to consider putting us in the band that matched the value of the house.
Edited by manic47 on Monday 27th September 14:29
When Council Tax was brought in I felt my house was in a band too high because it's only a 3 bedroom and the others round it are 4 bedroom, yet we were all banded the same. I appealed and the Council said no, but that I could take it to an arbitration hearing instead. Being certain of my case I chose it, and shortly afterwards (before any hearing) the Council gave up without a fight. So they were just trying it on. Pity those who gave up, because it saved me many Ks over the years.
Poll Tax please. £200 a year IIRC.
Poll Tax please. £200 a year IIRC.
GreigM said:
1. They don't accept land changes will change valuation for this purpose.
Sorry. That made me chortle. They are complete feckers.
"They don't accept land changes will change valuation for this purpose?" Are they having a laugh? My last house had an increase in rates because I'd had the garden landscaped! I can only assume this makes the bins more expensive to collect for some reason.
On a more positive note, my wife appealed ours and we dropped a band to be in line with neighbouring properties.
The houses used to look out over fields, these were built on 10 years ago, all the neighbours got their council tax dropped a band. The previous owner of our house didn't, my wife noticed the discrepency, complained, and we got cash back for 7 years over payment and a reduction.
The houses used to look out over fields, these were built on 10 years ago, all the neighbours got their council tax dropped a band. The previous owner of our house didn't, my wife noticed the discrepency, complained, and we got cash back for 7 years over payment and a reduction.
As a general rule, after a few experiences, plus a bit of expertise on Business Rates which is also administered by the VOA.
1. If you have been there more than 6 months, you have no right of appeal.
2. If there has been changes in the area you can quote these. It could be something as simple as new parking restrictions, a new housing estate. It can't be economic, and must be 'physical'. Backdating will be restricted.
3. If all else fails the valuation office are under a duty to maintain a fair and correct list. You are at their mercy though.
4. Their first response will always be no.
5. Their second response from a referencer will also be a no.
6. When you get a Valuation Officer and nearer a Tribunal you are getting somewhere. If your property is a little 'unique' a reduction is easier. If it's on an estate the VOA will be keen to protect the list, as if they amend one, to maintain a fair and correct list they should review them all.
7. Prepare for the unexpected. We used to live in an old farm house. During a discussion it became obvious that the VOA thought the house was 3 bed, not 4. My interest in pushing the appeal wained, and I decided that I could not make it when he wanted to inspect. The check blighter saw the misses car, and knocked on the door. Fortunately this was an individual house and as 2 bedrooms was singles, we got a reduction, much to my surprise.
8. They can increase. reductions are backdated to start of list or last material change. Increases where the fault is VOA are limited to date of change.
9. New estates are a problem as no evidence will exist. I lost spectacularly on one of these, as there was no evidence to help my case.
10. Tribunals are not as bad as they sound. The members do tend to be elderly, and are used to the VO's though, and I reckon the public start at a disadvantage.
1. If you have been there more than 6 months, you have no right of appeal.
2. If there has been changes in the area you can quote these. It could be something as simple as new parking restrictions, a new housing estate. It can't be economic, and must be 'physical'. Backdating will be restricted.
3. If all else fails the valuation office are under a duty to maintain a fair and correct list. You are at their mercy though.
4. Their first response will always be no.
5. Their second response from a referencer will also be a no.
6. When you get a Valuation Officer and nearer a Tribunal you are getting somewhere. If your property is a little 'unique' a reduction is easier. If it's on an estate the VOA will be keen to protect the list, as if they amend one, to maintain a fair and correct list they should review them all.
7. Prepare for the unexpected. We used to live in an old farm house. During a discussion it became obvious that the VOA thought the house was 3 bed, not 4. My interest in pushing the appeal wained, and I decided that I could not make it when he wanted to inspect. The check blighter saw the misses car, and knocked on the door. Fortunately this was an individual house and as 2 bedrooms was singles, we got a reduction, much to my surprise.
8. They can increase. reductions are backdated to start of list or last material change. Increases where the fault is VOA are limited to date of change.
9. New estates are a problem as no evidence will exist. I lost spectacularly on one of these, as there was no evidence to help my case.
10. Tribunals are not as bad as they sound. The members do tend to be elderly, and are used to the VO's though, and I reckon the public start at a disadvantage.
Dunno if anything on here could help, or has already been covered?
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/council-t...
Trace
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/council-t...
Trace
Ace-T said:
Dunno if anything on here could help, or has already been covered?
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/council-t...
Trace
That was interesting... doesn't help my case unfortunately as the value of my house in 1991 was over their upper limit.http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/council-t...
Trace
The thing that's irritating is why do I have to pay more for my bins to be collected. I'm not using more services than my neighbours, probably less actually.
Pointless me moaning about it as nothing is going to be done about it. It just hacks me off and makes me resentful. The council are the enemy.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff