Revaluation 2000
Of the 114 respondents to the consultation paper, 91 commented on this section. 81 respondents emphasised the need to provide ratepayers with draft lists information at least 6 months in advance as well as announcing the details of the transitional relief scheme and the multiplier early. This would understandably facilitate planning for both businesses and local authorities. Only 1 respondent supported the retention of the current timetable. Other respondents raised issues from cowboy agents to the standardisation of billing.
Valuation Banding
102 respondents commented on this section, 93 were opposed to banding. However, 5 of the 93 agreed that banding could be useful for lower valued properties. 7 respondents supported banding, 2 respondents felt there needed to be more research/exploration on the subject and 1 respondent had no clear preference.
Other Methods of Valuation
Of the 96 respondents that commented on this section, 70 respondents were opposed to the use of blunting. Only 4 respondents expressed some support for blunting and another 4 respondents felt that the use of local indices merited further investigation/consideration. 3 respondents suggested values based on floor space and 2 were in favour of self assessment of rateable values.
Revaluation Cycles
102 respondents commented on this section of the paper. 52 were in favour of retaining the current 5 year revaluation cycle. 29 favoured a move to 3 year cycles, 4 favoured 10 year cycles, and 5 annual rolling revaluations. 8 respondents said a 3 or 5 year cycle would be acceptable, 2 respondents suggested a 7 year cycle, 1 respondent suggested that revaluations should be as frequent as possible and 1 preferred longer cycles but with no fixed revaluation dates.
Transitional Relief
103 respondents commented on this section of the paper. 16 respondents favoured the current system, 21 supported TR being fully unwound before the next revaluation or phased within a 3-5 year period. 1 respondent suggested retaining the current system and phasing TR before the next revaluation. 19 respondents supported the abolition of TR, and 9 would support the abolition of TR but if it were to be retained would favour it being phased out of the system before the next revaluation. 6 respondents were of the view that rolling/annual or more frequent revaluations would eliminate the need for TR. 11 respondents supported the creation of a permanent statutory scheme, 4 suggested TR for ratepayers facing increased bills only, 2 suggested downward TR or any deficit be funded by the Treasury. 2 respondents agreed that ratepayers should easily understand any revision to the scheme and 2 respondent supported a supplement on the multiplier.
Maintaining the Yield
In total, 70 respondents commented on this section. 19 respondents were in favour of no change to the existing method, 17 respondents favoured a move to a mixed system for recovering losses on appeal, and 16 supported annual adjustments to the multiplier
Forms of Return
73 respondents commented on this section of the paper. 15 respondents supported the use of fixed penalties or fines, 9 respondents would favour changes to the VOA’s form (complicated forms) and its information gathering process, 7 supported the use of incentives without any suggestions, and 5 were in favour of no change to the existing system. Another 5 respondents wanted longer completion periods (as much as 3 months) and suggested electronic completion of forms, and 3 suggested restricting a ratepayers ability to appeal where a form is not returned. The majority of local authorities that commented on this part of the paper were of the view that the collection of any fine should be the responsibility of the VOA.
[ Appendix 1 ] [ Contents ]
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