This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
If there was an abrupt fall in house values, similar to the last one, will council tax continue to be pinned on them? And.... do councils use the values provided by those consumate professionals, estate agents? Or does my local council have it's own real estate division that assesses house values relative to the cost of council service provision?
jim.
jim.
In reply to jim robertson: Your council tax isn't based on the value of your house now. It's based on a valuation from at least 10 years ago. All houses in the country are currently being re-valued; the result of this will be quite a large rise in council tax for most people
In reply to jim robertson:
The current Council Tax list is based upon the value of your house as at the 1st April 1991.
The new list will come into effect on the 1st april 2007, based upon the value of your house as at the 1st April 2005.
One of the outcomes of the Lyons report, which was commissioned by the government to examine the impact of the revaluation is a recommendation that the bandings be revised in order to reduce the impact.
It is still out to scrutiniy but it appears that whilst their has undoubtedly been capital growth this will be reflected in the bandings, which will increase accordingly.
As to who values the properties, that is undertaken by the Valuation Office Agency and subsequently tested at Valuation Tribunal when householders appeal against their banding.
The VOA have no interest in over valuaing properties and to be fair are pretty impartial throughout the process.
The current Council Tax list is based upon the value of your house as at the 1st April 1991.
The new list will come into effect on the 1st april 2007, based upon the value of your house as at the 1st April 2005.
One of the outcomes of the Lyons report, which was commissioned by the government to examine the impact of the revaluation is a recommendation that the bandings be revised in order to reduce the impact.
It is still out to scrutiniy but it appears that whilst their has undoubtedly been capital growth this will be reflected in the bandings, which will increase accordingly.
As to who values the properties, that is undertaken by the Valuation Office Agency and subsequently tested at Valuation Tribunal when householders appeal against their banding.
The VOA have no interest in over valuaing properties and to be fair are pretty impartial throughout the process.
In reply to Party Boy:
I hear what you are saying, however council tax hasn't stayed the same for ten years, they have been using the ten year old valuation as a point of reference. As such, yes it is based on house values now, it's just that the formula used couldn't take into account the large increases in house value of the past five years and that obviously means that a new point of reference has to be established. In other words, a simple way of raising revenue above the normal increases that we have seen in council tax.
jim.
I hear what you are saying, however council tax hasn't stayed the same for ten years, they have been using the ten year old valuation as a point of reference. As such, yes it is based on house values now, it's just that the formula used couldn't take into account the large increases in house value of the past five years and that obviously means that a new point of reference has to be established. In other words, a simple way of raising revenue above the normal increases that we have seen in council tax.
jim.
In reply to John Rushby:
The VOA are an executive agency of The Inland Revenue aren't they? They don't need to "over value". The real increases in value take care of that rather conveniently.
jim.
The VOA are an executive agency of The Inland Revenue aren't they? They don't need to "over value". The real increases in value take care of that rather conveniently.
jim.
In reply to jim robertson: Is it me or has everyone missed the point of this council tax revaluing?? The amount you pay is based on the value of your house relitive to the maket. You are therefore only going to pay more if for some reason, your house has significantly increased in value when surrounding houses have stayed the same or lost value. Hence, if band A used to be £10,000 or under, it might now be £40,000 or under. You house has quadrupled in price but you are still band A.
In reply to jim robertson:
Yes, but the VOA are often accused of over valuing in order to raise more cash, wish is something they do not do.
Back to the bandings though - they have been revised to take into account the increase in property prices. How "fair" this will be is still subject to debate and review.
Yes, but the VOA are often accused of over valuing in order to raise more cash, wish is something they do not do.
Back to the bandings though - they have been revised to take into account the increase in property prices. How "fair" this will be is still subject to debate and review.
In reply to Jon Dittman:
....and the point is??
The amount you pay is based on the value of your house relitive to the maket. You are therefore only going to pay more if for some reason, your house has significantly increased in value when surrounding houses have stayed the same or lost value. Hence, if band A used to be £10,000 or under, it might now be £40,000 or under. You house has quadrupled in price but you are still band A.
.......ummm. So it has nothing to do with raising revenue, more to do with adjusting things so that if you have improved your home and your neighbours haven't then you will pay more? I'm sorry, call me old fashioned, or just cynical, but my suspiscion is that we will all be paying more. We'll see soon enough though and would be elated if proven wrong!
jim.
> Is it me or has everyone missed the point of this council tax revaluing??
....and the point is??
The amount you pay is based on the value of your house relitive to the maket. You are therefore only going to pay more if for some reason, your house has significantly increased in value when surrounding houses have stayed the same or lost value. Hence, if band A used to be £10,000 or under, it might now be £40,000 or under. You house has quadrupled in price but you are still band A.
.......ummm. So it has nothing to do with raising revenue, more to do with adjusting things so that if you have improved your home and your neighbours haven't then you will pay more? I'm sorry, call me old fashioned, or just cynical, but my suspiscion is that we will all be paying more. We'll see soon enough though and would be elated if proven wrong!
jim.
In reply to John Rushby:
But they're bringing in what, 2 new bands? I suspect they won't be at the "lower relative value" end.
When Welsh homes were revalued something like 37% of homes went up at least one band. Virtually no homes went down by a band (*some* homes must surely have fallen, percentage-wise, against the average for their bands?).
The *average* increase in CT in Wales attributed to revaluation *alone* is 9.1%. Surely if the revaluation exercise was just a reshuffling of individual homes against the "benchmark average" in each band, the net overall effect would have been tax-neutral?
But they're bringing in what, 2 new bands? I suspect they won't be at the "lower relative value" end.
When Welsh homes were revalued something like 37% of homes went up at least one band. Virtually no homes went down by a band (*some* homes must surely have fallen, percentage-wise, against the average for their bands?).
The *average* increase in CT in Wales attributed to revaluation *alone* is 9.1%. Surely if the revaluation exercise was just a reshuffling of individual homes against the "benchmark average" in each band, the net overall effect would have been tax-neutral?
In reply to jim robertson:
Not quite - the value of the improvements will be taken into account but only when the property is sold, until that date it will be valued on the tone of the area, so if your neghbours all have crap house then you valuation will be reflective of this.
Not quite - the value of the improvements will be taken into account but only when the property is sold, until that date it will be valued on the tone of the area, so if your neghbours all have crap house then you valuation will be reflective of this.
In reply to Rob Naylor:
That is what the Lyons Report wants to see. It is something of a moving feast at the moment. I think there are ongoing discussion as to Transitional Relief in the eventthat large scale increases are going to happen.
It aint a perfect system but I think there is a lot of misinformation about it due to electioneering.
That is what the Lyons Report wants to see. It is something of a moving feast at the moment. I think there are ongoing discussion as to Transitional Relief in the eventthat large scale increases are going to happen.
It aint a perfect system but I think there is a lot of misinformation about it due to electioneering.
In reply to John Rushby:
I'd still like an explanation for why, if it's just a "relative realignment" of individual values against new averages, the effect in Wales has clearly *not* been tax-neutral overall.
I'd still like an explanation for why, if it's just a "relative realignment" of individual values against new averages, the effect in Wales has clearly *not* been tax-neutral overall.
In reply to Rob Naylor:
No, Wales has not. The idea is a relative realignment, the problem is that growth outstripped expectations, so in certain areas the bandings were obsolete to some extent.
That is really the inherent flaw - in a rising market the antecedent valuation date is going to be to a greater extent hypothetical, since the bandings will have been agreed some time prior.
No, Wales has not. The idea is a relative realignment, the problem is that growth outstripped expectations, so in certain areas the bandings were obsolete to some extent.
That is really the inherent flaw - in a rising market the antecedent valuation date is going to be to a greater extent hypothetical, since the bandings will have been agreed some time prior.
In reply to Rob Naylor: Our house has increased in value from approx 75,000 to approx. 130,000 since being built in 1999. The recent rebanding (I'm in wales) reflected the huge increases in prices around here and we did drop a band. As a 75,000 house new build house in 1999 we were quite expensive/highly rated property. I think we were bottom end one band and are now top end of the next down band (does that make sense - a bit like regrading a route).
It hasn't made much difference to what we pay though as the council increased payments across the board anyway.
It hasn't made much difference to what we pay though as the council increased payments across the board anyway.
In reply to jim robertson:
I'm old enough to have owned houses through two previous revaluations, and remember to old rating system on which it was based.
Whilst the rateable value in monetary terms increased, it's relative value to similar properties remained the same. ( unless major alteration works had been carried out - extension or loft conversion which would affect the number of habitable rooms and thus the value).
Whilst there may have been a 50 or 60% increase in rateable value, the rate in the pound payable was reduced accordingly. Whilst there was an increase in the total amount of rates payable on the property, (isn't there always each year anyway - inflation etc) it was generally only by a few percentage points.
I have seen no evidence that the current proposed revaluations and consequent adjustments to the rate in the pound payable will not be carried out in a similar manner.
I have also moved house between regions where similar sized properties have had widely differing rateable values, yet for council tax purposes were in similar bands, and the total tax payable was broadly similar irrespective of the difference in valuations.
A lot of political scaremongering is going on over the latest revaluation round, which should be seen as a regular update of the system.
Whether local taxes should be raised via a charge based on property values, or whether it should be based on a household's income and the ability to pay is a different argument altogether.
I'm old enough to have owned houses through two previous revaluations, and remember to old rating system on which it was based.
Whilst the rateable value in monetary terms increased, it's relative value to similar properties remained the same. ( unless major alteration works had been carried out - extension or loft conversion which would affect the number of habitable rooms and thus the value).
Whilst there may have been a 50 or 60% increase in rateable value, the rate in the pound payable was reduced accordingly. Whilst there was an increase in the total amount of rates payable on the property, (isn't there always each year anyway - inflation etc) it was generally only by a few percentage points.
I have seen no evidence that the current proposed revaluations and consequent adjustments to the rate in the pound payable will not be carried out in a similar manner.
I have also moved house between regions where similar sized properties have had widely differing rateable values, yet for council tax purposes were in similar bands, and the total tax payable was broadly similar irrespective of the difference in valuations.
A lot of political scaremongering is going on over the latest revaluation round, which should be seen as a regular update of the system.
Whether local taxes should be raised via a charge based on property values, or whether it should be based on a household's income and the ability to pay is a different argument altogether.
In reply to Jon Dittman: its not just how much your house has gone up relative to your area, but also how much your council area has gone up relative to the national average. If your area has gone up lots, the council gets a smaller grant from central gov. so it has to raise more from council tax (only ~25% of council income comes from council tax).
http://www.axethetax.org.uk/pages/rebanding-faq.html
http://www.axethetax.org.uk/pages/rebanding-faq.html
Having read the thread and taken on board the various explanations, I am still slightly bemused by the concept of official government offices basing a charging regime upon completely arbitrary and fickle property values. Surely the only reliable figures are the number of occupants, their income, and how much space the property occupies?
jim.
jim.
In reply to jim robertson:
Given that the parties are in relentless pursuit of the grey vote, you would have thought that something that actively penalises older people with their own homes would be off the menu.
Trouble is, for Local Income Tax, read 'Poll Tax MkII'.
The idea of getting individuals to pay for the services they actually personally consume, rather than the number of bricks in their house and how close they are to a good school is bound to get people trashing trafalgar square again.
Given that the parties are in relentless pursuit of the grey vote, you would have thought that something that actively penalises older people with their own homes would be off the menu.
Trouble is, for Local Income Tax, read 'Poll Tax MkII'.
The idea of getting individuals to pay for the services they actually personally consume, rather than the number of bricks in their house and how close they are to a good school is bound to get people trashing trafalgar square again.
In reply to Alan Stark:
The evidence is in the Wales revaluation: there has been an *average* 9.1% increase in Council Tax since the revaluation there *in addition* to the "normal" general annual rises. that 9.1% is solely attributable to the revaluation. When the annual budgetted increases are added in, the average rise is more like 13%.
> (In reply to jim robertson)
>
>
> Whilst there may have been a 50 or 60% increase in rateable value, the rate in the pound payable was reduced accordingly. Whilst there was an increase in the total amount of rates payable on the property, (isn't there always each year anyway - inflation etc) it was generally only by a few percentage points.
>
> I have seen no evidence that the current proposed revaluations and consequent adjustments to the rate in the pound payable will not be carried out in a similar manner.
>
>
> Whilst there may have been a 50 or 60% increase in rateable value, the rate in the pound payable was reduced accordingly. Whilst there was an increase in the total amount of rates payable on the property, (isn't there always each year anyway - inflation etc) it was generally only by a few percentage points.
>
> I have seen no evidence that the current proposed revaluations and consequent adjustments to the rate in the pound payable will not be carried out in a similar manner.
The evidence is in the Wales revaluation: there has been an *average* 9.1% increase in Council Tax since the revaluation there *in addition* to the "normal" general annual rises. that 9.1% is solely attributable to the revaluation. When the annual budgetted increases are added in, the average rise is more like 13%.
In reply to jim robertson:
At the end of the tax year the Tax Office sent an inspector to audit the books of a synagogue. While he was checking the books he turned to the Rabbi and said,
"I notice you buy a lot of candles. What do you do with the candle drippings?"
"Good question," noted the Rabbi.
"We save them up and send them back to the candle makers and every now and then they send us a free box of candles."
"Oh," replied the auditor, somewhat disappointed that his unusual question had a practical answer.
But on he went, in his obnoxious way:
"I see," replied the auditor, thinking hard about how he could fluster the know-it-all Rabbi.
"Well, Rabbi," he went on, "what do you do with all the leftover foreskins from the circumcisions you perform?"
"Here, too, we do not waste," answered the Rabbi.
"What we do is save up all the foreskins and send them to the Tax Office and about once a year they send us a complete d|ck like you"
At the end of the tax year the Tax Office sent an inspector to audit the books of a synagogue. While he was checking the books he turned to the Rabbi and said,
"I notice you buy a lot of candles. What do you do with the candle drippings?"
"Good question," noted the Rabbi.
"We save them up and send them back to the candle makers and every now and then they send us a free box of candles."
"Oh," replied the auditor, somewhat disappointed that his unusual question had a practical answer.
But on he went, in his obnoxious way:
> > "What about all these loaves of bread? What do you do with the crumbs?"
"Ah, yes," replied the Rabbi, realising that the inspector was trying to trap him with an unanswerable question. "We collect them and send them back to the manufacturers and every now and then they send a free loaf of bread."
"I see," replied the auditor, thinking hard about how he could fluster the know-it-all Rabbi.
"Well, Rabbi," he went on, "what do you do with all the leftover foreskins from the circumcisions you perform?"
"Here, too, we do not waste," answered the Rabbi.
"What we do is save up all the foreskins and send them to the Tax Office and about once a year they send us a complete d|ck like you"
In reply to JRobertson:
A Dad walks into a market with his young son. The kid is holding a 50p coin. Suddenly, the boy starts choking, going blue in the
face. The dad realizes the boy has swallowed the coin and starts panicking, shouting for help.
A well dressed, attractive, but serious looking woman in a blue business suit is sitting at a coffee bar in the market reading her
newspaper and sipping a cup of coffee. At the sound of the commotion, she looks up, puts her coffee cup down on the saucer,
neatly folds her newspaper and places it on the counter, gets up from her seat and makes her way, unhurried across the market.
Reaching the boy, the woman carefully takes hold of the boy's testicles and starts to squeeze, gently at first and then ever more
firmly.
After a few seconds the boy convulses violently and coughs up the 50p, which the woman deftly catches in her free hand.
Releasing the boy the woman hands the coin to the father and walks back to her seat in the coffee bar without saying a word.
As soon as he was sure his son suffered no lasting ill effects, the father rushes over to the woman and starts thanking her saying,
"I've never seen anybody do anything like that before, it was fantastic. Are you a doctor?" "No," the woman replies. "I work for
the Inland Revenue
A Dad walks into a market with his young son. The kid is holding a 50p coin. Suddenly, the boy starts choking, going blue in the
face. The dad realizes the boy has swallowed the coin and starts panicking, shouting for help.
A well dressed, attractive, but serious looking woman in a blue business suit is sitting at a coffee bar in the market reading her
newspaper and sipping a cup of coffee. At the sound of the commotion, she looks up, puts her coffee cup down on the saucer,
neatly folds her newspaper and places it on the counter, gets up from her seat and makes her way, unhurried across the market.
Reaching the boy, the woman carefully takes hold of the boy's testicles and starts to squeeze, gently at first and then ever more
firmly.
After a few seconds the boy convulses violently and coughs up the 50p, which the woman deftly catches in her free hand.
Releasing the boy the woman hands the coin to the father and walks back to her seat in the coffee bar without saying a word.
As soon as he was sure his son suffered no lasting ill effects, the father rushes over to the woman and starts thanking her saying,
"I've never seen anybody do anything like that before, it was fantastic. Are you a doctor?" "No," the woman replies. "I work for
the Inland Revenue
In reply to Rob Naylor: its gone up 10% every year in darlo for the last 5 years, and I have to pay on the house I renovate, paying twice!!! makes me soo ******* angry, its all bollocks, lying cheating incompetant arseholes the lot of them.
In reply to ICE:
I agree.
My flat is in a renovated area of central glasgow (merchant city). There were very few comparable flats here in 1991. So the good old valuation people have chosen a band based on the first ever landmark and very prestigous development in the area (completed in 1991 and sold at hugely inflated prices).
And guess what, it's about two or three bands higher than houses of comparable value in other parts of town.
Tried to appeal, but once you get into the legal documents and court hearings, you quickly realise it's all a big revenue raising stitch up.
I think the housing market has changed so much, that a revaluation is long overdue. If the effect is to raise revenue (as in wales) then everyone will see what a bunch of lying b*stards central and local government are...
To continue my rant, I propose a PR system in which political parties have one MP per 50000 votes (for sake of argument). That way, less votes, less politicians. Or as my old flatmate used to say, "don't vote, it only encourages them."
Rant over.
I agree.
My flat is in a renovated area of central glasgow (merchant city). There were very few comparable flats here in 1991. So the good old valuation people have chosen a band based on the first ever landmark and very prestigous development in the area (completed in 1991 and sold at hugely inflated prices).
And guess what, it's about two or three bands higher than houses of comparable value in other parts of town.
Tried to appeal, but once you get into the legal documents and court hearings, you quickly realise it's all a big revenue raising stitch up.
I think the housing market has changed so much, that a revaluation is long overdue. If the effect is to raise revenue (as in wales) then everyone will see what a bunch of lying b*stards central and local government are...
To continue my rant, I propose a PR system in which political parties have one MP per 50000 votes (for sake of argument). That way, less votes, less politicians. Or as my old flatmate used to say, "don't vote, it only encourages them."
Rant over.
In reply to steveP:
Should not cost you anything to appeal. The first stage is at the Valuation Tribunal which is an informal affair and you can represent yourself or use an agent. The tribunal are usually 3 good old sorts, with a clerk and the VO represent themsleves.
I have doen quite a few and at the end, depsite the outcome, found myself a few times having a beer with the householder
Should not cost you anything to appeal. The first stage is at the Valuation Tribunal which is an informal affair and you can represent yourself or use an agent. The tribunal are usually 3 good old sorts, with a clerk and the VO represent themsleves.
I have doen quite a few and at the end, depsite the outcome, found myself a few times having a beer with the householder
In reply to jim robertson:
>Surely the only reliable figures are the number of occupants, their income, and how much space the property occupies?
Well that's an alternative, isn't it, a local income tax? A long-standing LibDem policy, I believe, and in fact the fact the very one where Charlie K forgot his party's sums to the tune of a few billion when electioneering a few days after the birth of his son (as anyone might, to be fair).
jcm
>Surely the only reliable figures are the number of occupants, their income, and how much space the property occupies?
Well that's an alternative, isn't it, a local income tax? A long-standing LibDem policy, I believe, and in fact the fact the very one where Charlie K forgot his party's sums to the tune of a few billion when electioneering a few days after the birth of his son (as anyone might, to be fair).
jcm
In reply to hutchm:
>Trouble is, for Local Income Tax, read 'Poll Tax MkII'.
Eh? The objection to the poll tax was precisely the reverse surely - that it was a flat rate payable by millionnaires and pensioners alike.
jcm
>Trouble is, for Local Income Tax, read 'Poll Tax MkII'.
Eh? The objection to the poll tax was precisely the reverse surely - that it was a flat rate payable by millionnaires and pensioners alike.
jcm
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...