Hammersmith & Fulham Council Tax 2026

How to read this stock pattern

Here the standard Band D benchmark and the most common property group point to the same part of the distribution. That makes Hammersmith & Fulham less sensitive than most authorities to the familiar criticism that Band D is merely a reference property. The stock-weighted amount is still useful: it incorporates the lower and upper bands instead of treating the modal group as the whole area. It should be read as a corpus comparison, not as the bill of a particular address.

Hammersmith & Fulham has a broad valuation-band profile: the largest 3 groups are needed before the cumulative share passes half of the stock. No single band dominates the local picture, which makes a one-band headline especially incomplete. The weighted result is useful for comparing this authority with peers, but the spread across 8 published bands matters just as much. A broad mix also means the area-level mean is less representative of any one household than it is in a concentrated council.

Hammersmith & Fulham falls in the lower quarter of the London stock-weighted ordering, below the regional median of £2,261.38. Its Band D figure may sit elsewhere in the national table, but applying the local stock mix produces a cheaper regional comparison. That difference is precisely why both measures are shown. Neither replaces an address-level bill, which depends on the property's valuation band and any applicable reductions.

Closest housing-stock shape: Windsor & Maidenhead

Windsor & Maidenhead is the closest full-distribution match for Hammersmith & Fulham. The profiles are close rather than identical: 4.5% of dwellings would need to shift between valuation bands for their published shares to align. The comparison therefore tests the whole ladder, not just the largest band.

Four largest band differences

• The largest separation falls on the reference band itself. Band D contains 27.1% of Hammersmith & Fulham's stock but 24.6% of Windsor & Maidenhead's, so the national headline describes more of the local distribution here.
• A smaller distinction is an upper-band difference at Band G. Windsor & Maidenhead records 14.8% of dwellings there, compared with 12.8% in Hammersmith & Fulham, so the peer carries more of its stock at that higher rung.
• A smaller distinction is an upper-band difference at Band E. Windsor & Maidenhead records 20.1% of dwellings there, compared with 18.5% in Hammersmith & Fulham, so the peer carries more of its stock at that higher rung.
• A smaller distinction is lower on the ladder at Band A: Hammersmith & Fulham has 4.3% of dwellings there, against 3.2% in Windsor & Maidenhead. That extra lower-band weight pulls its stock profile away from the peer.

How the wider profile compares

Show every band direction

• Band A leans toward Hammersmith & Fulham
• Band B leans toward Hammersmith & Fulham
• Band C leans toward Windsor & Maidenhead
• Band D leans toward Hammersmith & Fulham
• Band E leans toward Windsor & Maidenhead
• Band F is closely balanced
• Band G leans toward Windsor & Maidenhead
• Band H is closely balanced

This sequence is read from the lowest published band to the highest.

Other close England matches for Hammersmith & Fulham: Three Rivers (4.9% redistribution distance); Guildford (5.3% redistribution distance); Surrey Heath (5.5% redistribution distance); Reigate & Banstead (6.1% redistribution distance). Ranked across every published band in the England valuation system, this shortlist shows whether Windsor & Maidenhead stands alone or sits in a cluster of similarly shaped authorities.