Council tax oddities

[bergclimber34]

Am looking at buying, rented for far too long sadly.

Am very confused and alarmed by the variance and apparent randomness of council tax banding. It seems to make little sense.

I rent a large 2 bed flat with a garage in a nice area, band A lowest band..

Looking at a flat today 50% share, basically a flat in a huge flat complex, band B, half the size living space.

Have seen 1 bed flats to rent band C even, that is craziness.

Do you think there was collusion between builders and councils in some cases, as some of it has no relevance to location, size of flat etc, I know you can challenge it, but you will only win if it is obvious your band is different to others nearby, hence the collusion query.

[smokey mow]

No

Council tax is primarily calculated on market rate so a developer would need to be underselling at below market rate for there to be any adjustment in the band.

It’s not in the councils interest to undervalue as any shortfalls in payments would need to be found elsewhere in their budgets.

[bergclimber34]

So, how does one explain why a 2 bed flat with a garage in a more affluent area outside town, is a lower band than a 1 bed basically what would have been hi rise 30 40 years go, less affluent area. Makes no sense to a layman sorry, unless you are trying to make as much money out of owners as possible, aha, there we have it, regardless of our st guidelines, all the 500 flats here are band B, or you don't build them

[ARH]

bergclimber34 said:

So, how does one explain why a 2 bed flat with a garage in a more affluent area outside town, is a lower band than a 1 bed basically what would have been hi rise 30 40 years go, less affluent area. Makes no sense to a layman sorry, unless you are trying to make as much money out of owners as possible, aha, there we have it, regardless of our st guidelines, all the 500 flats here are band B, or you don't build them

Because of the value of said property when it was valued. If it was valued when flats were cheap compared to houses that may explain it.

Also if a property has been extended it will not be subject to a new valuation until it is sold, It could then be subject to a big increase if it was doubled in size.

[C Lee Farquar]

Mine was dealt with by the Valuation Office, nothing to doing with the District Council who dealt with the planning.

[The Three D Mucketeer]

The whole of Council Tax is a complete cock up.. based on house valuations of 1991 ..... Maggie Thatcher had it right with POLL Tax paid on an individual basis ... since individual use services .... but tossers objected

[borcy]

Yes i think it's the valuation office that set the value. The councils collect the money.

[tim0409]

In Scotland (where I live) new builds are being hit with really high bandings compared to similar older properties. We recently sold a new build (we hated it), which was the second highest band (G) despite it being a fairly run of the mill four bedroom box, albeit in a nice area, and the combined CT and water was nearly £4k per annum. We built our last property before that, which was in a really nice area and worth considerable more than the new build when we sold it and it was band F. It was assessed when we built it in 2009.

[RacingStripes]

Its all to pot, I bought an extended 3 bed semi and it was band A. Put 2 extensions on it, one out the back and one above the original extension to add a 4th bed and en-suite. Sold it in 2024 and it was re valued at.........band A.

[bergclimber34]

That is absolutely insane it really is. Not because of the luck you had, but the size of the house,I have seen one bed apartments in a grotty sthole part of town at Band C ffs

[QuattroDave]

If you don't agree with the valuation you can apply to have it reviewed.

I did that to my first house, challenged it being a band C property. They reviewed it, agreed and reduced it to a band A.

Since it's original valuation in July 1991 (the date all properties are valued.... yep even 2026 newbuilds!) the cul-de-sac the house was in had a council estate added at the end, devaluing the original houses on the street. This was the primary reason for the downgrading.

[POIDH]

You can have it reviewed - but in my experience they would not budge.

I had a modest (110m2) semi detached with three bedrooms and a downstairs office/bedroom and a modest 1980's single storey extension. Band E.

The semi next door had a double storey extension and about 50% more floor area. Band D.

Next door each side were 5 bed dormer bungalows with about 100% more floor area and similar garden size, double garages etc. Band E.

I have recently moved into a new build maybe 10% larger than my last house but in a significantly 'cheaper' area, which we had the assessor come and see. Despite all the online calculations giving a valuation back in 1990whatever we would be Band E, they have put us in Band F 'because new build' which is not even a part of the calculation. And are refusing to review.

[sam greenock]

The Three D Mucketeer said:

The whole of Council Tax is a complete cock up.. based on house valuations of 1991 ..... Maggie Thatcher had it right with POLL Tax paid on an individual basis ... since individual use services .... but tossers objected

The Poll Tax was fundamentally wrong as it didn't take "ability to pay" into account -just charging everyone a flat rate whither they were multi-millionaires or not - that was the problem, not puerile nonsense like your er ahem "claim" !

Personally speaking some sort of Local IncomeTax (LIT) based entirely on ability to pay, would ensure that everyone would pay something, why should a house donating a family of 5 working adults say pay a single charge based on house, yet someone next door, living alone pays the same as those 5 adults next door in total, also why should, iusing your (and Thatcher's) ill thought out one charge for all nonsense pay the same as a possible multi-millionaire next door

Back in 2007, the then SNP Scottish Government( a minority one) wanted to introduce LIT but Gordon Brown and the then UK labour government threatened to withhold money if they went ahead and did that, aided and abetted by the Scottish Branch Offices of teh UK Labour Party, The UK lib-dems and UK Conservatives

[rlg43p]

sam greenock said:

why should, iusing your (and Thatcher's) ill thought out one charge for all nonsense pay the same as a possible multi-millionaire next door

Maybe because each of those individuals would use the same amount of council provided services as each other?

In fact the millionaire probably uses less council services. (e.g.: may send kids to private school)

In fact if everything was charged on the basis of ability to pay perhaps a VW Golf should cost someone on minimum wage £20k, but a millionaire should pay £100k.

(Not saying this is my opinion, just playing devil's advocate)

[SunsetZed]

It's the same here, there are about 25 houses in our road and they're self build so whilst some are the same there is a lot of variety. Some 3 bed, some 4 bed, some 5 bed and they're all just classed as Band F even though some have almost twice the amount of floorspace as others.

[POIDH]

sam greenock said:

Personally speaking some sort of Local IncomeTax (LIT) based entirely on ability to pay, would ensure that everyone would pay something, why should a house donating a family of 5 working adults say pay a single charge based on house, yet someone next door, living alone pays the same as those 5 adults next door in total, also why should, iusing your (and Thatcher's) ill thought out one charge for all nonsense pay the same as a possible multi-millionaire next door

For the next 30 years your inherited wealth, which in the UK is most commonly in the form of property, will be the defining factor in an individuals wealth. Your earning has minimal impact on wealth.
So if we do not tax houses there is an unfair advantage to those who can shuffle money in to housing. This would increase house prices again, pricing out many, and excessively favouring those who are already wealthy.
I know that every solution has shortcomings, but I do wonder if there is a middle ground between property tax and an income based tax. I am not aware if any such model exists.

[.:ian:.]

SunsetZed said:

It's the same here, there are about 25 houses in our road and they're self build so whilst some are the same there is a lot of variety. Some 3 bed, some 4 bed, some 5 bed and they're all just classed as Band F even though some have almost twice the amount of floorspace as others.

Same for me, most of the houses in my postcode are band F. They range from 2 bed bungalows, to 5 bed detached with probably an acre of land!
Pretty sure if I requested a review, I would stay on F and the larger houses would get bumped up a few bands

[sam greenock]

rlg43p said:

sam greenock said:

why should, iusing your (and Thatcher's) ill thought out one charge for all nonsense pay the same as a possible multi-millionaire next door

Maybe because each of those individuals would use the same amount of council provided services as each other?

In fact the millionaire probably uses less council services. (e.g.: may send kids to private school)

In fact if everything was charged on the basis of ability to pay perhaps a VW Golf should cost someone on minimum wage £20k, but a millionaire should pay £100k.

(Not saying this is my opinion, just playing devil's advocate)

Alas buying/running a VW Golf(other cars are available) is a choice and not a public provided service, buying a car is based on ability to pay though - you need either the lump some or finance - finance is usually based on ability to pay

Millionaires or whoever sending their kids to private school is a choice, there's nothing to stop them sending their kids to state schools.

I don't use all the council or state provided services available but then I'm not whinging about that - its same as paying income tax -I'm not happy with pushing money up against the wall on white elephant aircraft carriers, royal family etc but I accept it as part of living in a society that does