COUNCIL TAX IRREGULARITIES IN BROUGH

FIRST PUBLISHED BY: THIS IS HULL AND EAST RIDING

THIS IS AN ACTUAL CASE - SHOCKING WHAT THEY WILL DO TO ALL OF US.

The house we occupy on the Bovis estate in Brough is described as 'The Kingsley' and is situated in the middle one of three parallel cul-de-sacs on the east side of the estate bordering on Common Lane. In this part of the estate just eight 'Kingsley' design houses were built. In my cul-de-sac our Kingsley house was one of nine houses of differing designs. 

When we moved in we learned that of the nine houses, seven were banded as 'G' whilst the two smaller houses were banded as 'F'. As our house was one of those banded as 'G' we saw no reason to complain. After living in the property for some five years, and quite by chance, we learned that five of the seven houses that had originally been banded as 'G' had, at some point in the previous three years been re-banded to 'F' by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) leaving only our house and one other as 'G'. 

I assembled a portfolio of evidence on the pricing of houses in the area and made representation to the VOA and was told here was nothing we could do. We then approached the Valuation Tribulation (VT) who told us they could do nothing as I had gone past the 6 month dead line for appealing against a banding. Of course we pointed out to the VT that we would not have needed to know about the appeal process as , initially, most of our immediate neighbours were on the same band as us, and the VOA had not told us that they were going to re-band the other houses in the cul-de-sac.

Then the VT dropped a bombshell. They told us that a resident of a 'Kingsley' design house in one of the other cul-de-sacs had won a successful appeal against his 'G' band and had been re-banded as 'F'. As might be imagined we were furious that someone in a house of identical design to ours was now paying £500 a year less in Council Tax than we were. 

We were even more taken aback when the VT sent us the papers on that successful appeal. The package of data sent in by the resident of that identiical 'Kingsley' property was, in almost every respect, identical to the evidence we had submitted even though we had never spoken to the owner and knew nothing of his appeal. We should add that there is one important difference between my 'Kingsley' house and his 'Kingsley' house which is that his plot is larger than mine.

We went back to the VOA who told us there were "differences" between the two cases but would not tell us what they were. The VT told us that it was usual and customary for the VOA to take the decisions of the VT and apply them to "similar" properties in the "vicinity" of a successful appeal. When we asked the VOA why they would not apply the VT decision to not just our 'Kingsley' design house, but to the other six 'Kingsley' houses in the vicinity they refused to say.

We then went to the local government ombudsman who said they could do nothing but suggested we went to the HMRC adjudicator in London. This we did but it was only possible to do so by going through our local MP, David Davis. The Adjudicator said the VOA were refusing to back down and she could not force them to apply the VT decision. 

The adjucator did suggest that we might be able to put forward a case for re-banding our property on the basis that the nature of the estate had changed substantially as a consequence of the council allowing a greater density of houses to be built than was originally allowed for. I refused to do this as there was already a precedent for re-banding 'Kingsley' design houses which had been take some years previously as a result of the VT decision. 

Additionally, the Adjudicator told us that a significant element of the original banding decision by the VOA had been the square footage of the houses. It was immediately apparent to us that the two houses in our cul-de-sac who did not get their banding changed by the VOA had integral double garages whilst the other five houses that did have their banding changed had detached or linked double garages. 

I then discovered that the VOA was counting the square footage of our double garage as part of the living accommodation of the house. When we pointed this out to the Adjudicator she said the VOA was still not going to change their original banding of our house.

Despite the very obvious injustice of this case we are still in the position of paying £500 a year more in Council Tax than a fellow resident of this estate who lives in an identical house to ours. This has now been going on for over six years. The amount in question now exceeds £2,500. We are now at a loss as to what to do next but surely there must be some way of rectifying this dreadful state of affairs.


'This Case just shows you that everybody needs professional guidance and help from us. These Government departments will put obstacles in your way to prevent you from claiming back your Council Tax over-payments'.  


Please contact Rebates UK Claims & Services Ltd for help in claiming back all your over-payments. Working with you: to give the Council a bloody nose together.


Call us on: 0161 209 3132 today! 

READ WHAT: ERIC PICKLES ‘SECRETARY OF STATE’ SAYS ABOUT OVER-CHARGED COUNCIL TAX.


ARE YOU PAYING TOO MUCH COUNCIL TAX - CHECK HERE?