01616090630

this is really not an update nor new news, it is something that has already been anticipated and prepared for by every agent in the country.
It still requires an appeal to be lodged to try and secure a reduction.
EVERY agent lodges speculative appeals you numpty as that is the only way you can get a reduction.
Do you really thi nk some agents operate on a 100% success rate ?
Love to hear which firms that could be as the VO stats say that the worst stats in the industry are Colliers International at 1 in 4 .
CVS is 1 in 2
Gerald Eve 1 in 3
GL Hearn 60 %
etc etc etc

So what the hell are you on about with your speculative appeals. ALL AGENTS lodge speculative appeals as it is the only way to get a reduction

Go get some real news

ah so you are saying all agents are as bad as each other but some better than others ?
Who is the best and can you guarantee if they lodge my appeal they will get me a reduction ?

i think sometimes these sites can be a little unfair . i too have been charged for 7 years of savings but had i not appealed then i would now not have been able to claim my rebate.
So to say CVS are rotten to the core as some posters suggest is a little below the belt as had it not been for them i would still be paying an inflated figure for my rates.
Don't quite understand all the negativity if they are no win no fee
Let everyone make their own mind up on whether 50% is fair but it seem s a sensible figure to me

CVS has a 50% success rate? Really? I smell bovine faeces!

Firstly, I seriously doubt the VOA would publish statistics that show how each rating agent performs. That would be commercially sensitive. However, having said that, I do recall a couple of years ago when CVS were in the press criticising the VOA for their appeal backlog, a VOA spokesperson did let slip something interesting. It went that of all the proposals submitted by CVS, 90% of them resulted in no change to the rateable value; well below the average.

Now I don't know for sure which is closer to reality - 50% or 10% - but from my own anecdotal observations, I'd put a tidy wager on the latter.

I'm going to answer this by pretending that you are actually a genuine business owner who benefitted from a rates reduction thanks to CVS…

Congratulations on being one of the incidental lucky ones who got a reduction. You probably think they're the bees knees, don't you? But I have to ask, would you feel the same way about them if you'd instead got a rates increase? That's a very real and common outcome of the no-win-no-fee business model. No consequences for the agent, so no incentive to conduct business in a reputable manner.

Some of these posts are quite bewildering. This is a telemarketing website and cvs are a telemarketer as they make quite clear. Anyone in business knows that telemarketers make things up and cvs admit to that as well. None of the big UK multiples go near them and they go to Gerald eve etc. It is odd that cvs get quoted on business rates in some press articles when none of their board has any expertise. Must be better at sales and pr than Gerald eve etc. Or that the big firms don't need their clients to be told who the top people are. They already know. Cvs could publish all of the facts that support their claims but they don't. Read into that what you will

The problem with your theory is that there can't just be incidental lucky ones can there....CVS have many offices with leases and staff pay and they must be doing something right to be able to pay all these staff so it cant just be the odd few...they must actually do loads..

Data that CVS are actually in possession of show that they achieve a reduction on between 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 appeals, which is quite low. Their estimate of about an average reduction of 8% per successful appeal, is about right, but is again quite low. To make up for the low success rate they charge 50% of 7 years saving in rates which is more than twice what most other firms charge, plus extras in their T&C's. None of those facts, though, make for a good sales pitch

Why , if what you say is true , do CVS claim all over their literature and website that hey have a success rate of 1 in 2 ??
You may not choose to Bellevue that as it doesn't fit with your claims but even a dimwit like you should know they would be not be allowed to make this claim in writing if it wasn't true
it just shows how biased and prejudiced against CVS this site is.
Why don't you go on public record saying the things you say on this site - because you and I know they would sue you to death so you carry on peddling your lies and petty criticism on this stupid site

Why , if what you say is true , do CVS claim all over their literature and website that hey have a success rate of 1 in 2 ??
You may not choose to beleive  that as it doesn't fit with your claims but even a dimwit like you should know they would be not be allowed to make this claim in writing if it wasn't true
it just shows how biased and prejudiced against CVS this site is.
Why don't you go on public record saying the things you say on this site - because you and I know they would sue you to death so you carry on peddling your lies and petty criticism on this stupid site you moron

This second post added because your forgot to put "you moron" at the end the first time.       Pot, Kettle?

And you've really answered the point with that comment haven't you , moron

The don't make that claim prominently on their website because it isn't true.

If you knew anything about CVS you would know that this is the thrust of their sales patter and is on every piece of sales literature they produce
How do they get away with it if it isn't true ?
I agree with rubbish in that you do seem to be a moron

Interesting question. If the 1 in 2 success rate is not true, how can they be allowed to keep on using it in their marketing? I think I've figured it out, so pay attention.

It's all down to the legal difference between proposals and appeals. When you 'appeal' to the VOA, what you're actually doing is submitting a proposal to alter the rating list. It only legally becomes an appeal if agreement cannot be reached with the VOA and it has to be referred to the Valuation Tribunal. Generally speaking, only proposals that potential have merit make it this far, which of course excludes proposals that are withdrawn.

So, the 50% success rate may actually be correct as it pertains to appeals - i.e. proposals they've decided to try their luck on - but that excludes the vast majority of proposals they didn't bother to fight too hard on because they never had any merit in the first place. Which does make holding up the "1 in 2" success rate as… let's say conveniently easy to misinterpret.

And as for other rating agents with supposed inferior success rates go, maybe this means they're taking a larger percentage of their proposals further to appeal stage where CVS would have thrown in the towel and withdrawn much sooner.

Just shows how you can use selective statistics to prove anything you want.

A proposal becomes an appeal when it is transmitted to the Valuation Tribunal and as the VO doesn't discuss appeals before that time, all proposals are settled as appeals. So I don't think it is that. What they may be doing is just referring to a particularly good week or month when they had a 1 in 2 success rate. The true facts are so easy for them to publish and the actual appeal results are published by the Valuation Office and Valuation Tribunal for anyone who cares to look. Valuation Tribunal has around 13000 CVS appeals struck out  in the past few years. But I guess the Tribunal is against them as well!

When they submit as many proposals as they do, there's bound to be the occasional one that comes up trumps. But it is an 'incidental success' because it wouldn't have been submitted on the basis that it was known to have merit, but because it started life as speculative off the back of a cold call. It would have only found to have merit as it progressed. The other ~90% would have had no merit and were withdrawn or dismissed. Some of which would have progressed to an increase instead. They don't dwell too much on that in their sales patter.

As as to how they can make a successful business from such a poor success rate, it comes down to sheer volume. It's like spammers. They only need a tiny fraction of a percent of incidental successes to make it worthwhile. Especially when their charges for success are so high.

£600m saved for clients -FACT
just the odd one ????

Oh Steven , go to bed

If smoking has nothing to do with rates and you are on here due to rates...the question has to be asked how do you know so much about steven and his smoking? Where are these debates taking place and have you attended.....the only thing that makes sense is that you are steven and you are praising up yourself....like when you pretended to be the restaurant guy.... You sad little man