Sir, When I recently received from the appropriate authority notice of my proposed new tax banding to apply as from April next, I was pleasantly surprised to find that my private residence banding was to remain unchanged. At the same time, I became aware that information relative to the tax banding of all such properties throughout Pembrokeshire was readily available on the internet, so I succumbed to an attack of personal curiosity and did a bit of searching. How true the old saying - 'Where ignorance is bliss etc.' I was - to put it mildly - astonished by what I found! Firstly, it emerged that numerous properties not far removed from my own, being of similar vintage and construction, but originally of a somewhat lower cubic capacity, are to remain in their 'original' banding - one below mine - despite having undergone considerable upgrading and extension works during the intervening decades since first constructed. Assessed on completion for what at that time was rating valuation purposes, an initial 'book' value was established which, I am given to understand, primarily remains as the basis for subsequent variations in the administrative processes of raising local revenue. Of course, it may well be that some of the enhancements as made are not sufficient as to justify tax upgrading. That could only be realistically determined by a comprehensive survey of each property, a commitment which would appear to have been patently avoided so far by successive national and local authorities who are happy (no doubt partly on cost grounds) to engage local agencies to flip through their books and come up with figures currently very much of a 'hit and miss' nature. Hence the heading of this letter, 'The great council tax lottery'. Secondly, and following on from what I have just said, I wrote regarding this to the area valuation officer and to the local authority finance officer. They both voiced interest in my observations and I believe are currently reviewing the situation accordingly. But meanwhile, I have been advised that no revaluation for council tax purposes takes place until a property is sold, or until such time as a national revaluation takes place. So how does a property which has been extensively developed over a period of many years by the same owner - a period in which there may have been more than one national review - remain in its original low tax band? And what about those which have been similarly extensively enhanced in value, but then sold on, only to still remain unchanged for tax purposes? The internet ratings list reflects a number of likely cases of this nature. And the whole scene suggests a current grossly unrealistic system of valuation, whereby a person can buy a low priced property, extensively develop it over the years, yet contribute far less than his neighbours through taxation and, at the end of the day, capitalise most handsomely on his investment. This means a loss in ostensibly justifiable local authority revenue which is apparently about to be offset by increases in council tax in what would seem to be a purely random fashion - possibly grossly unfair to a significant proportion of council tax payers. Rather like an employee who gains dramatic salary increases over the years, but is not reassessed for income tax purposes until he changes his job. We all grumble about paying council tax (or at least at the prospect of having to pay more!), but unfortunately, like insurance and income tax, it is a necessary evil. The difference is that insurance premiums are largely based realistically on loss experience, while income tax bears a relation in one way or another to declared income, both being updated annually, whereas council tax seems to be very much a 'luck of the draw' situation, rarely monitored, but based largely upon outdated and frequently unrealistic figures which hardly come close to an all-round fair and equitable levy. A situation in which there may well be many winners and many losers. Beyond general market fluctuations, most significant enhancements of property values result from development through planning consent and I understand that local authority treasurers are alerted to such developments and property value increases by the planners on completion. This would seem to be the realistic time for tax revaluation, rather than at some dim and possibly distant future time, which appears to be how the law currently stands. New, or indeed completely different legislation may well be justified to offset existing anomalies and achieve an equitable system of rate charging, and the Liberal suggestion of promoting it as a local income tax could be the (right) answer. The poll tax - fairest of them all - was beaten by the overwhelming number of Artful Dodgers who still stand to benefit, quite unfairly by the present system, at the expense of the bona fide homeowners. It may be thought that the level of such anomalies is possibly insufficient as to warrant action along the lines suggested, but that is not a view I would support since it is possible that the relatively small number of instances of which I am aware locally are merely the tip of the iceberg throughout Pembrokeshire as a whole. If that is so, revenue could be handsomely increased overnight and maintained thereafter at a realistic level by implementing the measures suggested. It would seem, from all the TV chats and views of politicians as expressed throughout the media, that here is a particular opportunity upon which they are missing out - possibly on the basis that with approaching elections treading on corns could be as painful to them as it would be to the victims.
Frederic G. Morton,
Rook Howe, 16 Scandinavia Heights, Saundersfoot.