Empty Property Premium - on a house just purchased

jjlandlord

Of course, no-one likes to pay tax, and even less a premium on tax.

That said, in the grand scheme of your project (purchase + refurbishment) the extra council tax is very small wrt. your total budget and it's just the way council tax works.
All in all, just a smallish cost of business that you overlooked.

theEnd

Why not just say it's occupied?

mrschaucer

Quite. The council have already said it's "not uninhabitable". And if only one of you moves in (tent?) wouldn't you get a 25% discount?

freeisgood

Booksurr, if you are not living in a property, because it is not habitable, and not putting rubbish out, using local services etc, then how can you say a council service is being provided to the property, or indeed the occupants of the property, when there are none?
Anyway paying the full amount is unfair, we are not talking about paying nothing. Even a single occupancy gets a discount.

AdrianC

pippin30 wrote: »

warwick district council

http://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/info/20593/council_tax/365/council_tax_reforms_2013

EmmyLou30

Just been stung like this myself. Thought we had our local council's 3 month allowance of empty property exemption (I did look it up on their website before purchasing), but assumed it was each owner. Like the OP has said, why is it my problem what the previous owner chose to do with their property!? He had it empty for over 3 months before selling it so I had to pay 100% council tax straight away.....even though it was unfurnished and undergoing renovation for 4 months before we moved in (though not 'major' enough to qualify as refurbishment to the council who offer a pathetic exemption of 10% for that). So I feel for the OP, as we were paying 100% council tax for 4 months on two properties a stone's throw from eachother to the same council, and we can't even get the single occupant discount. So an empty home pays 100%....one person pays 75%. Ludicrous. I get the councils idea to get empty houses inhabited but it does punish those people who are just between houses and have every intention of not leaving the property empty. Had we known we'd have told a porkie and said one of us lived at each to at least get single person discount!

maas

Yeah I was shocked to find out this as well when I was looking to buy and refurbish properties.

The regulations are based on the property and not the ownership, and if the previous owner enjoyed the discounts, then they will not be given out again just because the property changes hands.

REDDDRAGGON

I'd (genuinely) move in on my own, and pay the council tax with a 25% single person discount.

And then your partner can get the 25% single person discount on the current place (assuming they are the only one liable for CT there)

lincroft1710

freeisgood wrote: »

Booksurr, if you are not living in a property, because it is not habitable, and not putting rubbish out, using local services etc, then how can you say a council service is being provided to the property, or indeed the occupants of the property, when there are none?

Council Tax is not a direct payment for services, it is tax on residential property which goes towards funding council spending.

booksurr

freeisgood wrote: »

Booksurr, if you are not living in a property, because it is not habitable, and not putting rubbish out, using local services etc, then how can you say a council service is being provided to the property, or indeed the occupants of the property, when there are none?
Anyway paying the full amount is unfair, we are not talking about paying nothing. Even a single occupancy gets a discount.

oh dear I see you suffer from the usual blindness when it comes to considering the place of council tax in the world at large. An unoccupied property "consumes" services, here are some examples of payments at work:
- the street lights work deterring burglars looking for empty property
- the police exist thereby benefiting the area at large
- the council provide youth services which keep at least some unwashed scrotes off the streets and therefore less likely to vandalise or set fire to an empty property
- the fire brigade exist thereby able to put it out

I agree it is harsh that the refurbishment exemption period does not start afresh with a change in owners, but if that were the case it would be simple to circumvent such a rule with artificial ownership changes and thus total tax avoidance. Hence the law is written the way it is...

a punishing CT rate is applied as part of social engineering to "encourage" actual living occupants, whether that be a sole person or a full house. People in a property generally tend to have some interaction with the rest of the community and thereby establish a local economy to the benefit of all. An unoccupied house mostly does not (apart from probably some maintenance works).