Bradford council rules , anyone clued up?

[ruston]

A mate of mine is building an extension on a house . The boiler is a long run from the new extension so he asked the builder to add another boiler to the extension to run underfloor heating , hot water, etc. The builder told him that if he does it this way in will be classed as a separate residence for rating purposes, he doubted this, so asked another builder he uses and got the same response. Can anyone confirm if this is correct.

I have told him to contact the council for clarification , but said I would ask on here to see if any of you have come across this personally.

 

[stuartcourt]

A new un asked question thank god and sorry not heard of this so interested myself

 

[ruston]

A new un asked question thank god and sorry not heard of this so interested myself

Aye , we have never heard of it up here, but he says the two local builders are adamant.

 

[MDJ]

They may be right, but do not forget builders are brain dead idiots :smilielol5:

 

[Octopus]

I have to say that sounds complete twaddle. Get your mate to contact the planning office, its not difficult and they don't bite!

 

[ruston]

That's what I think too , and that is what I have told him to do.

 

[ruston]

I have to say that sounds complete twaddle. Get your mate to contact the planning office, its not difficult and they don't bite!

Probably a local wholesalers regulation.:mickey:

 

[driverman]

Just go on Bradford's Council building control page. Al info and Q & A examples should be there. Or just call them.

 

[kingeri]

It's utter tosh. How on earth could that be justified, it would be totally ludicrous.

 

[ruston]

It's utter tosh. How on earth could that be justified, it would be totally ludicrous.

Lol , thats what he believes too , it's because these are two established builders that has him confused.

 

[ruston]

Just go on Bradford's Council building control page. Al info and Q & A examples should be there. Or just call them.

I have advised him to do that thanks. He was just told by the second builder before he left for the North East today, be back there on Monday. I said I would get him a consensus, up to now it's nearly unanimous.

 

[Darkwood]

What do you mean by a separate rating system ...are you both singing from the same song sheet or are you getting crossed wires (pardon the pun)

 

[ruston]

What do you mean by a separate rating system ...are you both singing from the same song sheet or are you getting crossed wires (pardon the pun)

The rating bands for council tax is what he is on about , he has been told that if he adds a separate boiler in the extension ,that part will be classed as a separate entity, and will not just increase the banding of the original building but will get a separate rating.

 

[Darkwood]

I get you now .... i know different councils use various methods to put property into bands but i would be surprised if this is the case but the council need to be able to define the difference between a basic extension and a separate property and an easy way on paper would be the fact it has independent systems... so i think in the instance it can be said it falls foul of regulation designed to distinguish a separate property... i assume an appeal to the local council may clear this up as it still shares all other services and no doubt is a genuine extension.

 

[ruston]

Thanks for replying.

It seems there may be something in it then . I have told him to get the council to clarify the situation. It is an extension that is part of an existing house. He has never come across this before ; and he is Bradford born , but the two builders are adamant that this is the case.

I will let you know if I get the outcome from him.

 

[shagbite]

installing a second boiler in an extension will NOT have any influence on the council tax rating of the main building. nor will it be classified as a separate entity that requires its own rating. if there is an adjoining door between the two buildings it is classed as an extension. your mate won't get charged two lots of council tax for one property.

 

[ruston]

Thanks for the reply. I will pass this on to him . I did not think it would either, but it just shows how myths are born.

As soon as he tells me what has happened I will post his info.

 

[Silly Sausage]

Thanks for the reply. I will pass this on to him . I did not think it would either, but it just shows how myths are born.

Probably read about it on the interweb. :smilielol5:

 

[Jez Wilkins]

The subject of what is, or is not, a dwelling (for Council Tax purposes) is a 'can of worms'. I know, as I used to work with this sort of stuff. If something is a dwelling, then it gets 'banded'- that is to say, entered in the Council Tax valuation list. The 'person' that does the banding is the 'Listing Officer', who is an employee of the 'Valuation Office Agency' [VOA], which is part of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs[HMRC]. So, the 'banding' is nothing to do with local Councils.



One of the ways in which something can be classed as a dwelling is if it constitutes a 'self-contained unit'. What is, or is not, a 'self-contained unit', depends upon the facts of the situation. The test is a 'bricks and mortar' test - in other words, is what is physically there, a 'self-contained unit'? What is/or was, in the mind of the person who did the construction is irrelevant (the High Court has commented in decisions that such a person might, in any event, not be around to ask, depending upon how long ago the construction was carried out).



I don’t know that I would be so bold as to state (i) that the fact that an interconnecting door exists between an ‘extension’ and the ‘original property’ means that the two could never be classed as separate ‘self-contained units’ and therefore attract their own separate bandings in the Council Tax valuation list, or, (ii) that two boilers, one in an ‘original property’ and one in an ‘extension’ would always result in separate valuation list entries. As previously stated, it is a ’bricks and mortar’ test, on the particular facts of each case. The last I knew, there were at least around half a dozen High Court decisions on this sort of situation – colloquially referred to as ‘granny annexes’.



The best people to speak to about this are the Valuation Office Agency, not the council. These are the contact details:

The Listing Officer / Valuation Officer

Eastgate House

42 Eastgate

Leeds

West Yorkshire

LS2 7JL

Tel:08456021507

Fax: 0113 3884602/3 (There is also an email address , which this site would not let me post.)



There is more reading, if anybody is interested, on the VOA website, in their Council Tax Manual, particularly Practice Note 5: Disaggregation of Dwellings. I tried to post a link, but this site won't let me.



Be aware, though, that this is just the VOA’s ‘take’ on the legislation and case law – Surveyors in private practice might take a different view.



Hope this helps.



Cheers,


Jez Wilkins.

 

[ruston]

The subject of what is, or is not, a dwelling (for Council Tax purposes) is a 'can of worms'. I know, as I used to work with this sort of stuff. If something is a dwelling, then it gets 'banded'- that is to say, entered in the Council Tax valuation list. The 'person' that does the banding is the 'Listing Officer', who is an employee of the 'Valuation Office Agency' [VOA], which is part of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs[HMRC]. So, the 'banding' is nothing to do with local Councils.



One of the ways in which something can be classed as a dwelling is if it constitutes a 'self-contained unit'. What is, or is not, a 'self-contained unit', depends upon the facts of the situation. The test is a 'bricks and mortar' test - in other words, is what is physically there, a 'self-contained unit'? What is/or was, in the mind of the person who did the construction is irrelevant (the High Court has commented in decisions that such a person might, in any event, not be around to ask, depending upon how long ago the construction was carried out).



I don’t know that I would be so bold as to state (i) that the fact that an interconnecting door exists between an ‘extension’ and the ‘original property’ means that the two could never be classed as separate ‘self-contained units’ and therefore attract their own separate bandings in the Council Tax valuation list, or, (ii) that two boilers, one in an ‘original property’ and one in an ‘extension’ would always result in separate valuation list entries. As previously stated, it is a ’bricks and mortar’ test, on the particular facts of each case. The last I knew, there were at least around half a dozen High Court decisions on this sort of situation – colloquially referred to as ‘granny annexes’.



The best people to speak to about this are the Valuation Office Agency, not the council. These are the contact details:

The Listing Officer / Valuation Officer

Eastgate House

42 Eastgate

Leeds

West Yorkshire

LS2 7JL

Tel:08456021507

Fax: 0113 3884602/3 (There is also an email address , which this site would not let me post.)



There is more reading, if anybody is interested, on the VOA website, in their Council Tax Manual, particularly Practice Note 5: Disaggregation of Dwellings. I tried to post a link, but this site won't let me.



Be aware, though, that this is just the VOA’s ‘take’ on the legislation and case law – Surveyors in private practice might take a different view.



Hope this helps.



Cheers,


Jez Wilkins.

Lol yes it does, but I will read it again in the morning.