Help council tax on empty property increasing to 150%

angel00079

Well I received a letter today, dated yesterday about the premium. I can't believe that only given three weeks notice.

I going to have to wait until tomorrow to speak to council and get empty homes pack. There does not seem to be very much info on the website. The letter says "Properties empty longer than 2 years will now pay a premium of 50% on top of the full council tax change".

elaine-b

Wywth wrote: »

I'm not sure is different water company's have different policies, but I know ours do not charge a for unoccupied and unfurnished properties - whether or not it is on a meter is irrelevant

Some suppliers even offer a no standing charge, low user option where meters are fitted.
So no usage = no cost anyway

Back to the council charge, on what basis do you wish to contest it? If it is correctly applied and in line with the council's policy then you can't really. If you think it isn't, then your council should offer an appeals process for any council tax decisions.

If you want to discuss the councils policy, I suggest you contact your local councillor. If you don't agree with them, then all you can do is display that next time the ballot box comes out.



The annexe does not have a separate feed for water/gas or electric - it all comes from the main house meters.

My argument is it is not empty - we use it on a daily basis as part of our family home - we have a gym in there.

I knew when we moved here we would have to pay council tax on the annexe as we had the bathroom and kitchen fitted in it - because eventually we will want to sell the house and downsize - but then we qualified for discount - this discount along with the main house council tax made it the same price as band H which I think if we contested it with the valuation office they would have put us in band H (believe we can't do that now as we've been here 8 years and you have to do it within 6 months of moving in). But now they are just taking the you know what - as it is part of our home - we use it on a daily basis (we have several pieces of gym equipment in there) - TV and sky set up in there.

So I assume even if I go out and spend money on furniture for the upstairs area to go with the bed that's currently in there - then this does not make it furnished either?

Even though it has a fitted kitchen with means to cook a dinner and a bathroom with means to wash ones self?? Because these were the reasons given in the early days of us living here as to why we had to pay council tax on it and it was also the fact we had stuff in there (be it gym or the bed) that made it furnished.

Having done some reading I read somewhere one councillor has said that it's a privilege to have a second home and that is why people should pay more! - BUT this is not a second home - it's our main home!

elaine-b

Wywth wrote: »

I suggest you ask them.
More correctly, the legislation does not call for a property to be substantailly furnished, but rather that a property substantially unfurnished may become liable.
Subtle difference, but a difference all the same.

Sorry I'm confused - what exactly does substantially unfurnished mean?

And who decides whether it is substantially unfurnished - no one from the council has ever been here to inspect our property so how do they know it's substantially unfurnished.

As I say my biggest gripe is in the early days we didn't qualify to get our council tax free for 6 months and then 50% for the remainder of the year as they said because we have the gym equipment and the stuff up in the bedroom that it was furnished. Now they say it's substantially unfurnished. They are contradicting themselves. There is also another property exactly the same (actually worse than our's - our annexe is attached to the main house via the garage - no access via the garage though but imagine a L shape - then that is how our house looks - their annexe is completely separate from the main property) - they don't pay council tax on that there - I checked thanks to something on this website.

elaine-b

anniecave wrote: »

If you seriously don't ever intend to use it as a separate dwelling, have you investigated what you would need to do to make it no longer an "annexe" and have it counted as part of the main building for council tax purposes?

Yes I have Annie - according to the valuation office, just removing the kitchen and bathroom fitments would not do - I suggested we put an extension on the rear of the property between our utility area and creating a hallway to the annexe so we could only access it from the main house (it has a rear door, no front door at present) - but apparently that is not enough. If for instance it came off of a lounge then that would be acceptable. But the way our house is built it's not possible to do that! Also we don't intend to stay here forever, so it has to be worth it. Not sure we would get our money back for any extensions we now add to the property. Especially in the current climate!

lincroft1710

elaine-b wrote: »

- according to the valuation office, just removing the kitchen and bathroom fitments would not do -

Don't agree with this.

I'm ex VOA and dealt with many annex situations. One of the basics of an annex being a separate dwelling is having kitchen or as it is termed facilities for the preparation of food. So if you remove the kitchen fitments, cap the gas/electric supply for the cooker and cap the water supply for the sink and make good the walls that should suffice.

elaine-b

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Don't agree with this.

I'm ex VOA and dealt with many annex situations. One of the basics of an annex being a separate dwelling is having kitchen or as it is termed facilities for the preparation of food. So if you remove the kitchen fitments, cap the gas/electric supply for the cooker and cap the water supply for the sink and make good the walls that should suffice.

Well then - maybe I need to go back to the valuation office - but I was told just removing the kitchen would not be enough! We don't need the kitchen in there and we have the facility to store the fitments (there isn't much in there at all). So basically take out all the fittings etc in the kitchen and leave it as a bare room?? When we come to sell we tell any prospective buyers that we have the fittings - they just need to reinstate them if they want them?

What about the fitted bathroom - this would be less easy to remove??!!

And can I request that the valuation office come here to discuss or will they not do that?

elaine-b

I want to alter the annexe so that it becomes part of the main house and is no longer viewed as self-contained. Can you help?

We are unable to give specific advice on building or structural matters. If you have detailed proposals or plans, however, we will be happy to consider them and explain how these would affect your council tax banding. As a very rough guide, we always view the property as being in a reasonable state of repair; therefore simply removing fittings that could normally be renewed does not mean that the property is no longer self-contained. For example, if you remove a cooker, cap off the gas point or remove a sink but leave the plumbing and drainage intact, these measures would most probably be insufficient on their own to change the self-contained status. Any alterations must be much more significant and change the character of the room completely, so that it can no longer be used in its original form without having to carry out substantial works of reinstatement.

elaine-b

lincroft 1710

I have just found this on the actual valuation office website :-(

lincroft1710

Elaine - see my answer on the other thread

earl-gray

Hi all, Well how many more of us are there in this situation? I have had a similar experience with a renovation project. I have written to my local MP, he said not its really a government decision but I am going to reply and remind him the government put the legislation in place to allow councils to rip us off.
Anyway I have lived in a caravan since April 1st at one property while my wife remained in our other house as our renovation project was not complete and I am willing to challenge them in court as this is totally unfair to anyone concerned.
I do not know if this is even legal as council tax has been paid in good faith at the previous rate until April 2013, the decision was taken to apply the charges from April 2013 in December 2012 so if the charge is applied from April 2013 then the legislation is being applied to a previous period retrospectively and the 2 year period should count from April 2013 not 2011 as it is. I am not sure how it applies to this situation for sure and no doubt the council will have an exemption. I always had the understanding legislation could not be applied retrospectively unless it was an exceptional safety issue, maybe a legal person can advise/confirm?
Our council tax inspector visited yesterday 25/7/13 to check my project as after a conversation with manager at the council tax office I was told if my roof was complete I would only be charged 100% not the 150% as they then consider it habitable (there is a bit of history with this inspector asking intrusive and private inappropriate questions on her previous visit) this time she just asked if the roof was on and was I using any part of the house as it has curtains up in a room (did not request to look inside) I said yes to both and she went away I will see what happens and report back.
I have requested a copy of the legislation and or guidelines from my council that they work from for reference as I want to stay inside the law. I know a lot of it is down to interpretation but you can guess weather my request was granted or NOT can't you!!!!