VALUATION TRIBUNAL FOR ENGLAND
Referencer:
Local Government Finance Act 1992 - Sales Evidence – Comparable
Properties – Material Increase – Relevant Transaction – Detached House –
Appeal Allowed
Re: Mr S Maybrey, 4 Barleycroft Green, Welwyn Garden City, Herts., AL8 6JY
Band G Effective date: 27th Feb 2011
Appeal: 1950592103/017CAD
Hearing on: 22nd September 2011
At: Comet (Ramada) Hotel, Hatfield.
Parties in attendance: Mr S Maybrey (Appellant)
Mr G Heritage Representing the Listing Officer
(Respondent)
Members:
Mr J Fullerlove (Chairman)
Mrs F Higgin
Mr K Ford
The absence in this decision of a reference to any statement or item of evidence placed before it by the parties should not be
construed as being overlooked by the Panel.
Introduction: 1: The Chairman introduced the Proceedings. The independence of the Panel was
emphasised and the procedure to be followed during the hearing explained.
2: When considering and arriving at its decision, it was for the Panel to decide where
the greater weight of evidence lay and determine accordingly.
3: Mr Maybrey submitted an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal Service on 6th May 2011
which stated:
“We have been advised by the previous owners that they purchased the property in
1995 for considerably less than £160000. This differs from the information provided by
the Valuation office in their decision dated 5th April. We believe the property, in its form,
would have been worth less than £160000 on 1st April 1991. The evidence supplied by
the VOA of other properties sold around that date showed similar 4 bed houses being
sold for £150000 in both 1992 and 1993. The VOA argument is based upon the house
having been extended. The garage has indeed been converted, meaning more living
space but losing the garage. Local estate agents have advised that given the premium
on parking in the area, this would not have resulted in a significant increase in the value
of the property. The loft has been converted and whilst this has resulted in some extra
floor space, the height is very restricted and one room is not even large enough for a
single bed. In my opinion, it is not correct to market this property as having 4
bedrooms. The property should be in Band F in line with all other properties in the road,
bar one which is Band E.
1
4: The following evidence of houses located in Barleycroft Green was provided:
Address
Size
No of
Sale
Sale Date
Band
Notes
m sq
bedrooms
Price
£
4
140
3
174000
24.8.94
F
Barleycroft
148000
10.11.95
F
Green
184
4
580000
8.2.11
G
Extended from 140
m²
1 Barleycroft
131
4
152000
28.2.92
F
Green
17
131
4
149995
15.10.93
F
Barleycroft
Green
5: The Listing Officer explained that the subject dwelling had originally been extended in
the 1970s (known as a material increase) and more recently (in 2000) the loft had been
converted and the rear of the house had been extended outwards. The records held by
the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) indicated that the dwelling had originally measured
99 m². As a result of the VOA being made aware of the material increase in 2000 the
Band of the subject dwelling had been reviewed as a result of the sale (known as a
relevant transaction) to Mr Maybrey in February 2011.
6: Plans showing the location of Barleycroft Green within Welwyn Garden City were
provided together with a plan showing the position of the subject dwelling and the
dwellings considered to be comparable within Barleycroft Green. The Listing Officer
highlighted the fact that 1 and 17 Barleycroft Green were both considerably smaller than
the subject dwelling albeit situated on larger plots.
7: The Listing Officer explained that when dual tax relief came to an end in 1988 the
property market went into decline, with values falling through the Antecedent Valuation
Date (AVD) of 1st April 1991 and continuing until 1993/94. He considered that the
values of bigger, higher value properties fell to a greater extent than those smaller
properties of lower value.
8: The method of measuring properties was also explained and the Listing Officer
confirmed that any area with a head height of less than 1.5 m was excluded from the
measurements of the rooms in the loft space.
9: The Appellant explained that the 1994 sale on the subject dwelling was not an open
market sale and the occupiers did not in fact change as a result of that sale. He
expanded on the details of that sale and the reasons for the subject dwelling then
selling in 1995 as a genuine open market transaction.
10: The Appellant considered that between 1991 and 1994 houses of a lower value
were falling at a greater rate than those houses of higher value. He highlighted the
evidenced sales of 1 and 17 Barleycroft Green which sold within 18 months of each
other for similar prices.
11: The Appellant suggested that both of these comparable properties comprised 4
proper bedrooms whereas the 4th bedroom in the subject dwelling was very small. He
believed that it was appropriate to consider properties from within Barleycroft Green and
2
described this area as a microcosm, being fairly unique and different to any of the
surrounding roads.
Decision and Reasons:
12: The Panel was aware that Band G covered a range of values, £160001 to £320000
at the Antecedent Valuation Date (AVD) of 1st April 1991 and Band F covered a range of
values £120001 to £160000 at the same date.
11: The Council Tax (Situation and Valuation of Dwellings) Regulations SI 1992/550
(amended by SI 1994/1747) stated:
‘the value of any dwelling shall be taken to be the amount which, on the assumptions
mentioned in paragraphs (2) and (3), the dwelling might reasonably have been
expected to realise if it had been sold in the open market by a willing Vendor on 1st April
1991(known as the Antecedent Valuation Date – (AVD)).
The assumptions are made to place all valuations on a common footing, the main
assumptions are:-
a) that the sale was with vacant possession;
b) that the interest sold was the freehold or, in the case of a flat, a lease for 99
years at a nominal rent (The actual lease term is ignored);
c) that the size, layout and character of the dwelling and the physical state of its
locality, were the same as at the relevant date;
d) that the dwelling was in a state of reasonable repair;
Any significant change to the dwelling between 1st April 1991 and 1st April 1993 (or a
later date depending on why the alteration is being made) being reflected in the
valuation banding.’
When a property was sold, Particulars Delivered were sent to the Commissioners of
Inland Revenue for Stamp Duty purposes and this evidence was analysed in
accordance with the statutory definition of market value i.e.
1. The sale was achieved in the open market with a willing vendor,
2. Vacant possession was given on completion,
3. The tenure was not significantly different (in value terms) to that stated in the
Regulations,
4. The state of repair of the property accorded to the statutory definition i.e. a
reasonable state of repair,
5. The sale reflected the property’s value at the date of the transaction and did not
include any element which was attributable to any value for an alternative use or
for any development value other than for minor development permitted under the
General Development Order.
13: From the above, the Panel agreed that the best evidence was that of actual sales of
similar types of properties in Barleycroft Green, occurring on, or close to the AVD.
14: From the location plan provided by the Listing Officer, the Panel noted the position,
layout and plot size of the subject dwelling in comparison to 1 & 17 Barleycroft Green.
Both of these comparable properties were well situated on larger plots and completely
detached from any other property. The Panel noted that these comparables were
smaller than the subject dwelling but agreed the location and situation of each of these
3
dwellings would, to an extent, negate any effect on value created by the subject
dwelling which had been extended to increase its accommodation.
15: The Appellant had outlined details of the August 1994 sale of the subject property
and the Listing Officer could not agree or disagree that this sale was an open market
transaction. As it was evident that the 1994 sale was between connected parties the
Panel did not place great weight on this particular piece of evidence.
16: The Panel noted the Feb 1992 sale on 1 Barleycroft Green and the October 1993
sale on 17 Barleycroft Green (a difference of £2005 in approximately 20 months). This
evidence supported the Appellant’s view that the decline in values was not so significant
in properties of this type.
17: The Panel accepted that there were differences between the houses within
Barleycroft Green itself, both in 1991 and now. It was agreed that the subject dwelling
was larger than either of the comparables but the Panel accepted that a property
extended by converting the garage space and extending to the rear and also creating a
room in the loft space, would not increase the value of the subject dwelling to the same
degree as a property which had been originally built to a size of 184 m². The subject
dwelling did not benefit from a garage, either inside or outside its curtilage and was
linked to the neighbouring property.
18: From the above, the Panel determined that the subject dwelling would not have
attracted a value above the threshold of Band G, had it existed in its current form at the
AVD and would be of similar value to the comparables of 1 & 17 Barleycroft Green. The
alterations made to the dwelling were not of such significance to warrant an increase in
the Band from F to G.
19: The appeal was therefore allowed.
Orders:
20: Under the provisions of Regulation 38 (2) and (9) of The Valuation Tribunal for
England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009 the VTE
orders the Listing Officer to alter the List within two weeks of the date of this order to
show a Council Tax Band of F with effect from 27th February 2011.
Date: 3rd October 2011
Tribunal Officer: Miss J Schofield
Ref: JS/mb
4