Rates on empty houses

highrisklowreturn

saverbuyer wrote: »

No it isn't. If it is considered "habitable" it is considered ratable. Boarded up won't count. If it needs a new kitchen or bathroom it wont count. If it hasn't go a roof it will be exempt.

Wrong - how do you expect a valuer to get into a boarded up property to inspect if it's habitable? Do you imagine LPS carry crow bars to assist in inspection?

If they see it's boarded up, considering the number of applications they'll be getting, it will be ticked as such. You forget modern government, for all its advancement in progress, is generally no more advanced than box ticking and bureaucracy.

saverbuyer

highrisklowreturn wrote: »

Wrong - how do you expect a valuer to get into a boarded up property to inspect if it's habitable? Do you imagine LPS carry crow bars to assist in inspection?

If they see it's boarded up, considering the number of applications they'll be getting, it will be ticked as such. You forget modern government, for all its advancement in progress, is generally no more advanced than box ticking and bureaucracy.

It's designed to collect £10 million per year. I don't know what LPS attitude is to residential rating. I know what they are like with commercial. It really wouldn't surprise me if they look to see if there's a roof and charged if there was. Who cares if the windows are boarded? If it has a roof it's habitable. That's what this is a tax on. Habitable housing.

ballyblack

I'm sure it will turn out an administrative nightmare for collection.

Some rates will never be paid until a change in ownership and a charge will be made against the property deeds!

saverbuyer

ballyblack wrote: »

I'm sure it will turn out an administrative nightmare for collection.

Some rates will never be paid until a change in ownership and a charge will be made against the property deeds!

I originally thought this would be the case. Having read the exemptions in looks to me now that they’ll exempt developers and new builds with out fuss, but LL will have a much more difficult time proving the house is no “habitable”. This will be key with the burden of proof on the landlords.

ballyblack

Many years ago in the Republic rates was payable on all property regardless of condition.

This lead to a spate of removing the entire roof to avoid a rates bill

saverbuyer

ballyblack wrote: »

Many years ago in the Republic rates was payable on all property regardless of condition.

This lead to a spate of removing the entire roof to avoid a rates bill

Yeah but house prices were what back then? How much does it cost for a new roof compared to the average £800 per year rates bill?

A.L.D.A

ballyblack wrote: »

Many years ago in the Republic rates was payable on all property regardless of condition.

This lead to a spate of removing the entire roof to avoid a rates bill

If true this is a really bad idea, and we can already see the result you describe on many commercial properties in the North. It eventually leads to demolition and site clearance. Because a building has a roof does not make it habitable.

I don't see anything in the exclusion list that includes 'not habitable'. Have I missing something?

This is just another way to raise tax.

highrisklowreturn

Just stick boards on the window = not habitable.

It's a fair point I suppose about roof removals you make alda. However the government doesn't care less - the government is interested in stable income streams, not a just and even distribution of tax. Rates are in taxation terms considered non-hypothecated, which is the smart way of saying there is no correlation between what you pay and what you get, or expect to get, once the collected revenue is splurged on transalation costs, gay pride fetes, diversity awareness away days, teaching civil servants how to use grammar and spell properly etc ad infinitum ad nauseum.

A.L.D.A

highrisklowreturn wrote: »

Just stick boards on the window = not habitable.

It's a fair point I suppose about roof removals you make alda. However the government doesn't care less - the government is interested in stable income streams, not a just and even distribution of tax. Rates are in taxation terms considered non-hypothecated, which is the smart way of saying there is no correlation between what you pay and what you get, or expect to get, once the collected revenue is splurged on transalation costs, gay pride fetes, diversity awareness away days, teaching civil servants how to use grammar and spell properly etc ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Empathise with where you are heading. I also have a long list of 'Services' that I would like to see axed. So easy to spend someone else's money.