Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
SarahBell

150% Council Tax

Recommended Posts

April fool.

https://www.gov.uk/council-tax/second-homes-and-empty-properties

Properties empty for 2 years or more

Your Council can charge up to extra 50% Council Tax if your home has been empty and unfurnished for 2 years or more (unless it’s an annexe or you’re in the armed forces).

So maybe we should all check what our local councils do and if they don't charge more after 2 years ask why.

It's one way of encouraging people to hurry up and do something with a property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.gov.uk/council-tax/second-homes-and-empty-properties

Properties empty for 2 years or more

Your Council can charge up to extra 50% Council Tax if your home has been empty and unfurnished for 2 years or more (unless it’s an annexe or you’re in the armed forces).

So maybe we should all check what our local councils do and if they don't charge more after 2 years ask why.

It's one way of encouraging people to hurry up and do something with a property.

Excellent idea. Keeps up the image of the typical middle class Englishman/woman as an interfering nosey busybody. :-D

But seriously.....on this occasion I agree entirely with the purpose.

I too would be genuinely curious to know which councils are failing to exploit his source of revenue and if so why not.

In these days of councils pleading poverty and good property lying idle it could indeed surely only serve to bring a little extra supply to the market? Every little helps

Edited by anonguest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does empty mean? occupied every weekend? every month? how do you prove it's empty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

empty = no furniture.

Seriously?! They framed the regulations that loosely? Sounds like someone wanting to give the impression of hitting second homeowners but without actually likely ever ending up doing so. I mean. all you would need to do is place a sofa and a clapped out refrigerator in a place to 'prove' it's not 'empty'.

Surely a better test is whether any essential services are connected (e.g water, electricity)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously?! They framed the regulations that loosely? Sounds like someone wanting to give the impression of hitting second homeowners but without actually likely ever ending up doing so. I mean. all you would need to do is place a sofa and a clapped out refrigerator in a place to 'prove' it's not 'empty'.

Surely a better test is whether any essential services are connected (e.g water, electricity)?

Oh I was just guessing!

Empty properties

You’ll have to pay Council Tax on an empty and unfurnished home, but you may qualify for a discount. It’s up to your council to decide whether you get a discount and how much you get.

If the owner of a house has died, Council Tax isn’t charged for up to 6 months after probate is granted (your legal right to sell the home).

Some homes don’t get a Council Tax bill for as long as they stay empty. They include homes:

of someone in prison (except for not paying a fine or Council Tax)

of someone who’s moved into a care home or hospital

that have been repossessed

that cannot be lived in by law

that are empty because they’ve been compulsory purchased and will be demolished

You may get a discount if your home is undergoing major repair work or structural changes (eg your walls are being rebuilt).

Properties empty for 2 years or more

Your Council can charge up to extra 50% Council Tax if your home has been empty and unfurnished for 2 years or more (unless it’s an annexe or you’re in the armed forces).

So presumably your council decides what counts as empty

Oldham says:

http://www.oldham.gov.uk/info/200198/council_tax/102/exempt_properties

Unoccupied and unfurnished

From 1 April 2013 the rule which exempts unfurnished and unoccupied properties for 6 months will be amended to the following:

Discounts for unfurnished and unoccupied properties. Vacancy period

Percentage of Council Tax to be paid

0 - 1 month

No Council Tax to be paid for this period.

1 - 6 months

75%

6 - 24 months

100%

24+ months

150%

On 1 April 2013 any property which has been empty for more than 2 years will immediately be subject to the 150% Council Tax charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/200028/council_tax/5990/council_tax_charges_on_empty_properties_and_second_homes

Empty and unfurnished.

No charge for up to one month.

Full charge after that for up to two years.

Full charge + 50% after two years.

Empty and furnished. Full charge from the date the property became empty.

But a change for property renovators

Empty and substantially unfurnished because undergoing (or having undergone) major repairs or structural alteration.

50% charge for a maximum of 12 months.

Full charge after that until the end of the second year.

Full charge + 50% after two years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a moment I thought this was at least some good news for all the HPC/anti-second home owner crowd to get happy about, but....from the subsequent replies sounds to me that this 150% thing is yet another hoo hah about nothing. The 'furnished' bit is the get out for anyone wanting to keep a property vacant and not pay the extra council tax. Like i said just make sure to keep a crappy worthless sofa or two, clapped out refrigerator, etc and point to them IF and when some dogsbody queries whether or not the extra 50% is applicable.

As said, IMHO, the real test of being unoccupied should be whether or not essential services are connected. A homeowner will either to be able to show recent bills or they won't.

Edited by anonguest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Council tax is such a fundamentally flawed system that it is difficult to sensibly implement ideas like this. It will largely go unenforced (am I the only one who thinks the poll tax was a fairer idea, just very badly implemented).

It would be smarter to simply force people to declare second (or more) properties and charge them 150% for them.

Ultimately shifting to a land tax with burden on the freeholder is the only way to have a more coherent tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Council tax is such a fundamentally flawed system that it is difficult to sensibly implement ideas like this. It will largely go unenforced (am I the only one who thinks the poll tax was a fairer idea, just very badly implemented).

It would be smarter to simply force people to declare second (or more) properties and charge them 150% for them.

Ultimately shifting to a land tax with burden on the freeholder is the only way to have a more coherent tax.

This should be a neat trick

Poll Tax - Taxation based on occupancy, completely ignoring the unearned monopoly value of location

LVT - Taxation based on Monopoly value of location, completely ignoring occupancy

Id love too here how those two circles are squared.

Effectively one is a tax on monopoly benefit, the other is a tax on productivity, god knows how anyone could support such diametric economic influences

In fact id love to see it, every HMO in Peckham and probably cleethorpes would be blatantly paying more and subsidising every unoccupied property in Kensington Gardens, that would be funny as fck

Edited by Maria Gorska

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting aside the somewhat straw man argument you made, I'm more interested in the way you think - this bit

subsidising every unoccupied property

Are you saying that the buildings owe tax? The actual buildings are liable for tax - ergo they are subsidised? They're actually unemployed so we should be paying them welfare and tax credits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a moment I thought this was at least some good news for all the HPC/anti-second home owner crowd to get happy about, but....from the subsequent replies sounds to me that this 150% thing is yet another hoo hah about nothing. The 'furnished' bit is the get out for anyone wanting to keep a property vacant and not pay the extra council tax. Like i said just make sure to keep a crappy worthless sofa or two, clapped out refrigerator, etc and point to them IF and when some dogsbody queries whether or not the extra 50% is applicable.

As said, IMHO, the real test of being unoccupied should be whether or not essential services are connected. A homeowner will either to be able to show recent bills or they won't.

Not sure, if it's furnished someone is living in it and therefore that person will be liable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely a better test is whether any essential services are connected (e.g water, electricity)?

I'm guessing most hoarders would have essential services connected...don't want burst pipes or damp getting a hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are really turning the screws now. They have to, otherwise how will council employees be able to work for twenty years then retire on half pay for the next thirty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A land tax would be so much simpler. The government would require no information on the state of the property, who lives there or why they don't live there. The only penalty for non-payment would be forfeiture of the property once arrears amounted to (say) £25K. Like in the USA the current freehold owner would be liable for all arrears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting aside the somewhat straw man argument you made, I'm more interested in the way you think - this bit

Are you saying that the buildings owe tax? The actual buildings are liable for tax - ergo they are subsidised? They're actually unemployed so we should be paying them welfare and tax credits.

Clearly not, buildings are productive, Bricks and mortar, whether they be occupied or not, the land underneath the buildings however are pure monopoly

No building owes tax, the private collection of a natural resource "land" is clearly where the tax should be applied for neutralisation of the advantage the state forcibly bestows

Its pretty much as i highlighted you dont recognise monopoly

Clearly the rent differential in Kensington Gardens on an identical property in cleethorpes is purely locational/monopoly driven

I have no issue with the current system of rewarding monopoly as long as its recognised.

Clearly by your retort you have no interest in a land value tax (which is fair enough) because you dont even recognise a violently inflicted monopoly

If you actually work your thoughts through economically, you back punishing productivity (10 people economically occupying a space, poll tax) and yet advocate rewarding monopoly (1 person economically occupying that space, poll tax)

Whilst then you back punishing lack of productivity (1 person economically occupying that space, LVT)

This is the problem on here, there is absolutely no economic consistency, the Poll tax and LVT are diametrically opposed on a behavioural economic basis

Edited by Maria Gorska

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.