SECRET COUNCIL TAX REVALUATION PLANS EXPOSED

New answers to Parliamentary Questions have forced the Government to publish the minutes of the Valuation Office Agency's Council Tax Revaluation Programme Board. The Valuation Office Agency are England’s council tax inspectors, and are an arm of HM Revenue & Customs (thus, at the time, overseen by Gordon Brown).

“Mr. Pickles: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Valuation Office Agency's Council Tax Revaluation Programme Board (England) of 22 November 2005.

John Healey: I have been asked to reply. A copy of the minutes will be placed in the Library of the House.”

Hansard, 19 February 2008, col. 613W.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080219/text/80219w0031.htm#0802211001653

The minutes show the fallout after the controversial plans for a council tax revaluation in May 2007 were postponed in October 2005.

The Revaluation Board minutes include a series of comments which are blacked out, since they relate to “an ongoing policy issue”. However, the PDF file of the electronic minutes produced in answer to the Parliamentary Question did not completely blacked out the redacted elements, and in an embarrassing blunder by officials, the original text underneath can be uncovered under the blacked out sections.

Original – with comments blacked out

http://www.conservatives.com/pdf/DEP2008-0478-original.pdf

Amended with redacted comments uncovered

http://www.conservatives.com/pdf/DEP2008-0478-withfulltext.pdf

Ministers have previously denied that the council tax inspectors of Valuation Office Agency are continuing work on the revaluation.

“We have no plans for revaluation” (Hazel Blears, Hansard, 27 November 2007, col. 134)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm071127/debtext/71127-0002.htm#07112749000433

Yet the secret comments show:

·          The Government has a strategy for future revaluations. By definition, a strategy on “future revaluations” is logically consistent with a statement there are ‘no plans’ for a revaluation.

“HG [Hugh Grover - government official] has been tasked with developing the ODPM strategy towards future revaluations” - (This item has been redacted as it remains an ongoing policy issue).

·          The revaluation exercise identified that certain homes in certain streets were currently wrongly banded, and paying over the odds (so-called ‘consequentials’). Yet they covered up this information due to the implications for councils, who would lose money, having to pay refunds and create bad press coverage.

“MJ questioned what action should be taken by Groups on consequentials identified following data enhancement. Concern was expressed about the possible knock on implications for billing authorities and adverse press coverage this could generate in the current climate. Action Point – TE to establish potential numbers involved with GVOs. Action will then be agreed with ODPM and Ministers”. (This item has been redacted, as it remains an ongoing policy issue).

·          The officials wanted to put pressure on Conservative MP, Caroline Spelman, to stop her campaign against the council tax revaluation.

“Action Point – HG & ODPM to consideration setting up a briefing session with Caroline Spelman MP, ODPM and the VOA.” - (Action point withheld as this relates to an ongoing policy issue)

Revaluation database still being developed

The Revaluation Board Minutes also shows:

·          Ministerial approval was given to continue the creation and maintenance of the revaluation council tax revaluation database (the ‘Automated Valuation Model’) despite the postponement of the revaluation in England. (p.1).

·          The American contractors, Cole Layer Trumble (CLT), were paid a ‘success fee’ for their work in creating the revaluation database (p.2).

·          The database continues to be updated and refined under a process of “continuous calibration” (p.2).

New answers to Parliamentary Questions show that the Government has spent almost £6 million on refining the council tax revaluation database after the supposed postponement of the revaluation in England.

“Robert Neill: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Valuation Office Agency has spent in relation to its automated valuation model on  (a) consultancy,  (b) payments to CapGemini including those indirectly to CLT,  (c) hardware,  (d) staffing and  (e) other costs since September 2005.

Jane Kennedy: Since September 2005, when the Council Tax Revaluation in England was postponed, approximately £5.5 million has been spent by the Valuation Office Agency on IT development (software, hardware and technical consultancy) and on other support costs associated with securing the investment in its automated valuation model (AVM). This will allow the AVM to be used as a support for the Agency’s day-to-day work, including maintenance of council tax valuation lists. Staffing costs associated with developing and maintaining the AVM are not recorded separately.”

Hansard, 18 February 2008, col. 372W.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080218/text/80218w0086.htm#column_371W

The ‘Big Brother’ property database uses controversial 'Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal' technology, bought in from America. The sole purpose of the AVM database is to calculate new valuations for property to tax them. Ministers have explicitly stated:

“…The Automated Valuation Model, developed for the (now postponed) 2007 revaluation…”

Hansard, 6 Nov 2006, col. 900W.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo061106/text/61106w0045.htm#06110764001661

ERRORS WITH COUNCIL TAX BANDING

A revaluation is not needed to correct council tax banding errors. It is already the case that anyone can make an appeal against their current council tax banding. Indeed, a revaluation would potentially create MORE errors not less. In the Welsh council tax revaluation in 2005, four times as many homes moved up a band as moved down a band.

Financial guru, Martin Lewis (‘MoneySavingExpert’), has run a big campaign on errors in council tax banding, highlighting errors by the Valuation Office Agency.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6296849.stm

The council tax revaluation in Wales identified that 24,373 “consequentials” - equivalent to 1.85 per cent of all properties.

Valuation Office Agency, Council Tax Wales Revaluation 2005: Post Evaluation Review of the operational aspects of the project, June 2007, p.19.

http://www.voa.gov.uk/publications/cr-reval-project-evaluation/ct-reval-wales-2005-project-evaluation.pdf

Across the 22 million properties in England, this suggests there could be 400,000 consequentials.

Martin Lewis’s campaign has lead to a surge in the number of council tax appeals recently – and an increasing number being accepted. There were 25,000 appeals from April 2007 to December 2007 (suggesting a trend of 33,500 for 2007-08).

“Robert Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many council tax appeals relating to England have been considered in (a) 2005-06, (b) 2006-07 and (c) 2007-08 to date by the Valuation Tribunal Service; what proportion and how many resulted in a lower council tax banding for the householder.

John Healey: The Valuation Tribunal Service (VTS) has held information centrally on the number of successful appeals since the beginning of 2006-07.

	Number of council tax appeals received	Number of council tax appeals considered by tribunals	Percentage of considered appeals that were allowed or allowed in part
2005-06	21,805	not available	not available
2006-07	27,130	5,274	12.25
2007-08 (to 31 December 2007)	25,141	4,176	19.01

It is wrong to assume that all banding appeals are about reducing a property’s banding. An appeal can be made on other grounds, such as how a previously single dwelling should be split up into a number of separate units (e.g. flats), and from what date the change should appear in the valuation list. The VTS does not currently keep information on whether allowing an appeal, in full or in part, results in a change of banding.”

Hansard, 1 February 2008, col. 688W.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080201/text/80201w0001.htm#08020150002677

PLANS FOR REGULAR REVALUATIONS

Gordon Brown's review into town hall finances last March, by Sir Michael Lyons, called for regular revaluations, using the Automated Valuation technology that the Valuation Office Agency has developed.

“Subsequent revaluations should take place regularly and automatically at intervals of no more than five years” (p.240).

“Substantial work was done in preparation for a 2007 revaluation in England (based on 2005 values), including the development of new valuations software in the Valuation Office Agency. This technology provides the opportunity to undertake a revaluation exercise… Moving to more frequent revaluations would promote stronger public understanding” (p.234).

Lyons Inquiry final report and recommendations, March 2007.

http://www.lyonsinquiry.org/

ENDS