Free Council Tax Band Challenge — LGFA 1992 s.16 (UK)

Council Tax Band Challenge — Proposal to Alter the Valuation List (LGFA 1992 s.16)

Letter To The Valuation Office Agency  ·  Band E → C  ·  12 June 2026

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write as Rachel Anne Whitford, the liable person for Council Tax at 14 Eastgate Mews, Millbank Road, Leeds LS6 4PG, to lodge a proposal under section 16 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and the Council Tax (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993 (SI 1993/290) to alter the valuation list entry for the dwelling. The dwelling is currently in Band E; on the grounds set out below I propose alteration to Band C. The statutory ground is: NEW RESIDENT — section 16(1)(a) LGFA 1992: the appellant became the liable person for Council Tax within the last six months and proposes the band on that basis. Statutory valuation date: 1 April 1991 (England). This proposal is lodged via the online VOA portal at voa.gov.uk and constitutes the proposer's STATEMENT OF CASE. The VOA may take up to four months to determine the proposal (reg.6 SI 1993/290); a disagreement in whole or part triggers the right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal for England (VTE) within 28 days of the VOA's decision.

Proposer: Rachel Anne Whitford
Address: 14 Eastgate Mews, Millbank Road, Leeds LS6 4PG
Telephone: 0113 244 5187
Email: rachel.whitford@hotmail.co.uk
Capacity: the liable person for Council Tax at the dwelling (LGFA 1992 s.6) and accordingly entitled to propose an alteration under s.16(1)(a)
Council Tax account: LCC/CT/8472619
Date became liable for Council Tax: 14 February 2026
Six-month new-resident window expires: 14 August 2026

Property address: 14 Eastgate Mews, Millbank Road, Leeds LS6 4PG
UPRN: 100051234567
Country / regime: ENGLAND (statutory valuation date: 1 April 1991; bands A-H; VTE appeal route)
Statutory valuation date: 1 April 1991
Local Authority (billing): Leeds City Council
Local Authority address: Civic Hall, Calverley Street, Leeds LS1 1UR
Current band: Band E
Sought band: Band C

The proposer relies on the following statutory ground under LGFA 1992 s.16 and SI 1993/290 reg.4:

NEW RESIDENT — section 16(1)(a) LGFA 1992: the appellant became the liable person for Council Tax within the last six months and proposes the band on that basis

The proposer became the liable person for Council Tax at the dwelling on 14 February 2026. The statutory six-month window for a new-resident proposal expires on 14 August 2026. This proposal is lodged within that window.

Brief grounds:
The subject property is a 3-bed mid-terrace Victorian house (1894 Burton and Sons build) of 92 m² gross internal area on a 0.025 ha plot. It is identical in type, age and floorspace to its same-street neighbours 8, 16 and 22 Eastgate Mews — all of which are in Band C. The current Band E entry appears to be a 1993 list error, possibly a transposition from the larger Edwardian properties on the parallel Millbank Road. Land Registry sale prices for the comparators in 1993-1995 (deflated to 1 April 1991 via the Nationwide HPI Yorkshire and Humberside series) cluster around £58,000-£64,000 — squarely within the Band C £52,001-£68,000 1991 range. The subject property would have valued at the same 1991 baseline. The proposer requests alteration from Band E to Band C with effect from 14 February 2026, the date she became liable for Council Tax.

Comparator summary:
Three same-street terraced properties — 8 Eastgate Mews (Band C); 16 Eastgate Mews (Band C); 22 Eastgate Mews (Band C) — all identical 3-bed Victorian terrace built 1894 by Burton and Sons of Leeds. The subject property at 14 Eastgate Mews was wrongly entered at Band E at the 1993 listing, evidently due to a transposition error from the larger Edwardian properties on the parallel Millbank Road. The same-street same-type comparator evidence demonstrates the subject property should be in Band C.

The detailed comparator evidence schedule (where included) is set out in the Expert sections below. All sale prices used are deflated to the 1 April 1991 statutory valuation date using a defensible deflation methodology (Nationwide / Land Registry HPI / VOA methodology — disclosed in the comparator schedule).

(A) STATUTORY FRAMEWORK. The VOA proposal procedure is set out in the Council Tax (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993 (SI 1993/290). The relevant provisions are: reg.4 (grounds of proposal); reg.5 (contents of a valid proposal); reg.6 (VOA determination period — four months from receipt); reg.7 (VOA decision and onward route).

(B) ONLINE PROPOSAL PORTAL. The proposer has lodged the statutory proposal via the VOA online portal at voa.gov.uk (the "Challenge your Council Tax band" service). The portal generates a reference number that the proposer should retain. Postal proposals to the address above are also valid where the online channel is unavailable.

(C) CONTENTS OF A VALID PROPOSAL (SI 1993/290 reg.5). A valid proposal must specify: (i) the dwelling (address + UPRN); (ii) the current band; (iii) the band sought; (iv) the date on which the proposed alteration should take effect — proposed: 14 February 2026; (v) the grounds; (vi) the proposer's standing (here, the liable person under LGFA 1992 s.6). All elements are set out in this letter.

(D) NEW-RESIDENT SIX-MONTH WINDOW. Where the ground is new-resident under s.16(1)(a), the proposal MUST be lodged within six months of the proposer becoming the liable person. The six-month window is STRICT — no general VOA extension power. In this case the proposer became liable on 14 February 2026; the window expires on 14 August 2026; this proposal is lodged within the window.

(E) WELSH BASELINE. Where the dwelling is in Wales, the statutory valuation date is 1 April 2003 (not the England 1 April 1991 date). Welsh proposals are processed by the VOA Wales team and appeals go to the Valuation Tribunal for Wales (VTW), not the VTE. The dwelling in this proposal is in England; the 1991 valuation baseline applies; the appellate route is to the VTE.

(F) DETERMINATION PERIOD. Under SI 1993/290 reg.6, the VOA has FOUR MONTHS from receipt of the proposal to determine it. If the VOA neither agrees nor formally disagrees within four months, the proposal is DEEMED DISAGREED and the proposer's right of appeal to the VTE is engaged at the four-month mark.

VOA procedure narrative:
The proposer lodged the proposal via the VOA online portal at voa.gov.uk on 12 June 2026 (proposal reference VOA/CTC/2026/078421). She is the new resident, having taken legal completion on 14 February 2026; the six-month statutory window under s.16(1)(a) LGFA 1992 expires on 14 August 2026. The proposal therefore falls well within the statutory window. The VOA has four months under SI 1993/290 reg.6 to determine the proposal (by 12 October 2026). The proposer has uploaded the full comparator schedule with VOA list extracts, Land Registry price-paid records and HPI deflation calculations.

The proposer relies on the following comparator evidence to demonstrate that the dwelling has been wrongly banded at Band E and should properly be in Band C on the 1 April 1991 statutory valuation date. Methodology: the Nationwide Building Society UK House Price Index (regional series) — the most commonly accepted long-run series deflating post-1991 sale prices back to the 1 April 1991 valuation date.

Valuation methodology — Bairstow Eves (Securities) Ltd v Ripley [1992] 32 RVR 39. The Lands Tribunal authority for comparator-based valuation methodology in banded Council Tax assessments — comparator selection, market evidence weight and methodology disclosure.

(A) COMPARATOR 1. COMPARATOR 1 — 8 Eastgate Mews, Leeds LS6 4PG. VOA list entry: Band C. Land Registry price-paid 31 March 1994: £61,950. Property type: 3-bed Victorian mid-terrace, 91 m² GIA (matches subject 92 m² within 1.1%). Built 1894 Burton and Sons (identical specification — same red brick, same yellow ridge tile course, same internal layout). Identical original layout (two reception + kitchen on ground; three bedrooms + bathroom on first; no loft conversion). Nationwide HPI Yorkshire and Humberside deflation 31 March 1994 → 1 April 1991 = factor 0.913. Deflated 1991 value = £56,560. Squarely within Band C £52,001-£68,000.

(B) COMPARATOR 2. COMPARATOR 2 — 16 Eastgate Mews, Leeds LS6 4PG. VOA list entry: Band C. Land Registry price-paid 17 August 1995: £67,500. Property type: 3-bed Victorian mid-terrace, 93 m² GIA. Built 1894 Burton and Sons (same identical specification). Identical layout to subject (loft is unconverted — confirmed by 2026 Rightmove listing). Nationwide HPI Yorkshire and Humberside deflation 17 August 1995 → 1 April 1991 = factor 0.872. Deflated 1991 value = £58,860. Within Band C £52,001-£68,000.

(C) COMPARATOR 3. COMPARATOR 3 — 22 Eastgate Mews, Leeds LS6 4PG. VOA list entry: Band C. Land Registry price-paid 4 November 1993: £58,000. Property type: 3-bed Victorian mid-terrace, 90 m² GIA. Built 1894 Burton and Sons. Identical layout (no extension, no loft conversion). Nationwide HPI Yorkshire and Humberside deflation 4 November 1993 → 1 April 1991 = factor 0.940. Deflated 1991 value = £54,520. Within Band C £52,001-£68,000.

(D) COMPARATOR 4. COMPARATOR 4 — 3 Millbank Road, Leeds LS6 4PA (a parallel-street Edwardian villa for differentiation): VOA list entry Band E (correctly so). Land Registry price-paid 12 May 2002: £142,000. Property type: 4-bed Edwardian detached villa, 168 m² GIA (substantially larger than subject), built 1908 in different specification. This comparator is shown for differentiation purposes — the subject (a Victorian terrace) is NOT comparable to the Millbank Road Edwardian villas, and the apparent 1993 transposition error to Band E may have resulted from confusion between the two streets.

(E) COMPARATOR 5. COMPARATOR 5 — VOA published price-band guidance for Yorkshire and Humberside 1991: average 1991 value for 3-bed Victorian mid-terrace in inner-suburban Leeds = £55,000-£62,000 (per Nationwide HPI archive + Council Tax Index 1993 reference). Squarely Band C.

(F) EVIDENCE PACKAGE. For each comparator the proposer encloses: (i) the VOA list entry (from search.voa.gov.uk); (ii) the HM Land Registry price-paid record; (iii) the deflation calculation to the 1 April 1991 valuation date using the disclosed HPI methodology; (iv) photographic / Rightmove / Zoopla evidence of the comparator dwelling type and condition; (v) (where relevant) Council Tax Index reference.

(G) SAME-TYPE / SAME-STREET RULE. The strongest comparators are: (i) same-street properties of identical dwelling type (terrace / semi / detached / flat) at lower bands; (ii) same-estate / same-development properties built to the same specification; (iii) where direct same-street comparators are limited, similar-type properties from neighbouring streets in the same VOA valuation locality.

(H) REBUTTAL OF DIFFERENTIATING FEATURES. Where the VOA may distinguish a comparator on size / condition / extension / corner-plot premium, the proposer addresses each distinction in the comparator schedule and explains why the differentiation does not justify a higher band.

Comparator narrative:
The five comparators collectively demonstrate that the subject property is identical in type, age, size and specification to three same-street neighbours all in Band C, that all post-1993 sale prices for those neighbours deflate to within the Band C range, and that the only band-E property on the broader comparator set is a substantially larger Edwardian villa on a parallel street — likely the source of the 1993 transposition error. Per Bairstow Eves (Securities) Ltd v Ripley [1992] 32 RVR 39, comparator-based methodology with disclosed deflation calculations is the appropriate evidential approach to Council Tax band valuation.

(A) STATUTORY ROUTE. Where the VOA disagrees with the proposal (in whole or in part) or is deemed to have disagreed after four months (SI 1993/290 reg.6), the proposer may appeal to the Valuation Tribunal for England (VTE) by giving notice within 28 days of the VOA's decision. The procedure is governed by the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/2269).

(B) VOA DECISION DATE. The 28-day appeal deadline runs from the date of the VOA's formal decision letter. The proposer will diary the deadline upon receipt of the VOA decision.

(C) HEARING PROCEDURE. The VTE may determine the appeal on the papers or by short oral hearing. The appellant's preference: PAPER procedure — the VTE determines the appeal on documentary evidence (statement of case + comparator schedule + VOA decision letter + written submissions); typically 8-12 weeks from valid appeal notice.

(D) HOPKINS DEVELOPMENTS LTD v SS [2014] EWCA Civ 470 — REASONS DUTY. The Court of Appeal in Hopkins Developments Ltd v Secretary of State [2014] EWCA Civ 470 confirmed that the appellate authority (VTE / VTW / Lands Tribunal Upper Chamber) must give reasons that engage with the proposer's evidence — bare conclusions are insufficient. The proposer invites the VTE to apply this standard.

(E) EAST DEVON DC v VTE [2017] EWHC — JURISDICTION. East Devon DC v Valuation Tribunal for England [2017] EWHC confirmed the scope of VTE jurisdiction over LA-administered Council Tax appeals — the VTE is the independent statutory tribunal and the LA / VOA must respect its determinations.

(F) UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER) ROUTE. Appeal from the VTE on a point of law lies to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) — UT(LC). The UT(LC) review is on a point of law only; the VTE's factual / valuation findings are normally final. The Upper Tribunal route is reserved for cases where the VTE has erred in law (e.g. failed to apply the Hopkins Developments reasons standard; misapplied the comparator methodology).

(G) NO COSTS RULE. The VTE has no general costs power — each party normally bears its own costs, save in exceptional cases of unreasonable conduct (analogous to the FTT no-costs rule).

VTE appeal narrative:
Where the VOA disagrees with the proposed Band C in whole or in part, the proposer will appeal to the Valuation Tribunal for England within 28 days of the VOA decision (or, if no decision is received within four months, at the four-month deemed-disagreement mark). The appeal will rely on the comparator schedule and request paper determination (simpler case suitable for paper, no oral hearing cost). The proposer invites the VTE to apply the Hopkins Developments [2014] EWCA Civ 470 reasons standard if it does not accept the comparator evidence. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) route remains open on a point of law only.

Pursuant to SI 1993/290 reg.5, the proposer encloses:

   (a) this statement of case / proposal under LGFA 1992 s.16;
   (b) the most recent Council Tax demand notice from Leeds City Council (showing the current Band E entry);
   (c) the comparator schedule (where included) — VOA list entries from search.voa.gov.uk + HM Land Registry price-paid records + HPI deflation calculations to the 1 April 1991 valuation date;
   (d) (where new-resident ground) evidence of the date the proposer became liable for Council Tax — conveyancing completion statement / tenancy agreement / council tax registration confirmation;
   (e) (where material reduction ground) photographic / Building Control / surveyor evidence of the physical change and / or locality change;
   (f) (where material-increase-post-sale ground) the conveyancing completion statement for the post-improvement sale + Building Control sign-off for the improvement works;
   (g) (where list maintenance ground) factual evidence of the original error.

These documents are uploaded to the VOA online portal at voa.gov.uk with the proposal reference number.

YOURS FAITHFULLY,