G144. The review consultation paper canvassed views on whether any other method of approach to valuation should be considered. It offered two alternatives as a starting point for discussion:
- Blunting, where properties would continue to be valued individually as at present, but changes to value on appeal would only be granted if the value moved outside a certain threshold, perhaps 5 or 10% of the original value.
- Greater use of indices, so that all properties in a locality were valued on the same basis.
Discussion
G145. By fixing values within a range of their starting point, blunting produces what is in effect a floating band system - each ratepayer has their own band, which is 5% or 10% either side of their valuation. This raises similar concerns over fairness as for banding. The use of ratepayer panels and a more co-operative valuation process, with more prior agreement of values, discussed above, should in any case reduce the scope for appeals following future valuations. This would reduce the need for a mechanism such as blunting, which only comes into effect when appeals are made.
G146. Consultation respondents largely saw blunting as a means of limiting ratepayers’ rights to appeal, although in practice it would limit the effect of any appeals, rather than the right to make them. Wherever the blunting threshold was struck, it would mean that a ratepayer could be denied a potential refund of rates, if on appeal the rateable value was found to be too high, but within the blunting limit. It was considered unfair by virtually all those who commented - 70 respondents out of 114 opposed blunting, while 4 supported it.
G147. Blunting would not necessarily reduce the amount of rateable value lost on appeal in all cases. It may be that cases that would otherwise have been settled below the blunting threshold would instead be settled at that threshold, leading to a lower rateable value. That would be to the advantage of such properties, where it occurred.
G148. The use of local indices to produce valuations also lacked support from respondents, some commenting that this did not actually appear to differ very much from the current system whereby the VOA set the tone of the lists. Again, only 4 though it worth further consideration.
Conclusions
G149. The review group felt that blunting and local indices should not be pursued. While blunting would help to maintain yield by limiting the effect of appeals (see below) it raises similar concerns about fairness raised by a banding system.
[ Annex G Section5 ] [ Contents ] [ Annex G Section7 ]
Published on 19 September 2000
Return to Local Government Finance Index
Return to Local Government and the Regions Index
Return to DTLR Home Page
DTLR Web Site Terms