Bought house, still not sold the other - 2 lots of Council Tax...

gingercordial

Cpt_Kenrow wrote: »

As per the title. Am paying two full lots of council tax although only living in one house. Had one month exemption but this has been going on for 4 months.

One thought I had was to say that I was living alone in the more expensive house, which is actually empty. This would (perversely) net me a 25% discount.

Any suggestions?
Thanks

Have you carefully checked your council's discount list?

For example in my council (Haringey) you can get a one month exemption for a second property which is unoccupied and unfurnished. It sounds like that's what you've already claimed.

However there's also a 50% exemption for up to one year for properties undergoing "major repair or structural alteration". If your local council has something similar, could your building works be described as major?

Just be careful as here after two years of being empty the second house goes up to 150% council tax as a disincentive to people having spare second homes.

Cpt_Kenrow

gingercordial wrote: »

However there's also a 50% exemption for up to one year for properties undergoing "major repair or structural alteration". If your local council has something similar, could your building works be described as major?
.

Thanks. Had a look at this. Am currently trying to speak to a human at the council tax office...

Nobbie1967

mumps wrote: »

I don't see any reason why a couple can't live one in each house for a while. When we moved 200 miles I moved quickly with children, start of term and all that, husband stayed at the other property while sale completed and he tied up everything at that end.

A couple living in separate houses isn't that unusual, particularly while a move is going on. I had a friend who bought an old house and husband moved in to do renovations while his wife stayed to sell the old place.

If that's the actual situation then there's no problem, but the OP was suggesting lying about living alone in the expensive house when in reality it was empty. That's fraud and I can't see why they should be surprised at the negative reaction it got.

Maybe the OP should have done a bit more research beforehand if money really is that tight.

Cpt_Kenrow

Nobbie1967 wrote: »

Maybe the OP should have done a bit more research beforehand if money really is that tight.

Sorry, where does it say money is that tight? Answer the question but don't lecture me on finances.

May be I just don't like paying out money for a service I don't feel I am receiving.
If you can't see that it is slightly illogical to charge 100% for a house that is being renovated whilst if one person lived there it would be reduced you are a fool.

Innys1

Cpt_Kenrow wrote: »

You sir are a sanctimonious ...... At a guess you are retired and probably comfortably retired on your final salary public sector pension.

Whilst an extra £200 pcm may not be much to you, I'd rather not be spending it on something I do not believe I am getting full value from, i.e. a service tax on a temporarily empty house.
From what I know the gist of the changes to CT policy in 2013 were aimed at people with long term empty properties or holiday homes, not those in my position.

As for how I price my house; please try not to be patronising - although I suspect that would be difficult with such as sense of moral superiority.

Do you think all taxpayers think they are getting full value for their taxes? I certainly don't and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

Nobbie1967

Cpt_Kenrow wrote: »

Sorry, where does it say money is that tight? Answer the question but don't lecture me on finances.

May be I just don't like paying out money for a service I don't feel I am receiving.
If you can't see that it is slightly illogical to charge 100% for a house that is being renovated whilst if one person lived there it would be reduced you are a fool.

It's not a charge for services, it's a tax and is therefore perfectly logical to charge it on all property to ensure a regular income for the council.

Sorry if I presumed money was a bit tight, it's just when people suggest fraud, you kind of assume they're in a tight spot, but obviously in your case fraud against the taxpayer is just another form of money saving :money:

mumps

Nobbie1967 wrote: »

If that's the actual situation then there's no problem, but the OP was suggesting lying about living alone in the expensive house when in reality it was empty. That's fraud and I can't see why they should be surprised at the negative reaction it got.

Maybe the OP should have done a bit more research beforehand if money really is that tight.

But I said I can't see any reason why they can't do that, he can easily move a few things into the house that's being renovated and sleep there and save 25%, maybe his wife can also get the discount on the new home unless they have other adults living there. This is a money saving site and that is a way he can save money.

Cpt_Kenrow

Nobbie1967 wrote: »

obviously in your case fraud against the taxpayer is just another form of money saving :money:

Oh please! Whilst I can accept your pedantically pointed out fact that it is a tax and in no way reflects the service offered, I really can't be doing with the above kind of self righteous twaddle.

The original post only mooted this as a possibility. And how, would me changing it to my main residence constitute fraud if I spend a significant amount of time there?

Obviously next time I post to MSE I need to put in a clause about no self-righteous, sanctimonious, naive, jobsworth, only-following-orders, pedants need respond.

Cpt_Kenrow

mumps wrote: »

But I said I can't see any reason why they can't do that, he can easily move a few things into the house that's being renovated and sleep there and save 25%, maybe his wife can also get the discount on the new home unless they have other adults living there. This is a money saving site and that is a way he can save money.

Thanks for this. I do spend half my time there too - so where I call my main residence is fairly subjective.


However, round here it seems like "rules is rules" and even the meerest creativity to remedy what IMHO is a slightly unjust situation will be met with pompous self-righteousness.

booksurr

Cpt_Kenrow wrote: »

You sir are a sanctimonious ...... At a guess you are retired and probably comfortably retired on your final salary public sector pension.

wrong :rotfl:

Cpt_Kenrow wrote: »

As for how I price my house; please try not to be patronising - although I suspect that would be difficult with such as sense of moral superiority.

how many posts are there on this board from people unable to sell who receive advice about change the photos , put a bunch of twigs in a vase, declutter etc. If a property has been on the market for a "fair" while and has not sold then the market considers it overpriced. That is basic economics, not superior thinking.

Cpt_Kenrow wrote: »

May be I just don't like paying out money for a service I don't feel I am receiving.
If you can't see that it is slightly illogical to charge 100% for a house that is being renovated whilst if one person lived there it would be reduced you are a fool.

wrong. Council tax is a tax levied against a property, it is not a charge for services received so has no bearing on what level of activity occurs in either of your empty or occupied houses

you may dislike paying 2 lots of CT but that is no excuse you asking how to commit tax fraud