Council tax on empty property

Flossied

Sorry not really asking advice, just having a moan!!

I have an empty house currently for sale so will remain empty til sold. I have to pay 100% of the council tax despite it being empty. Whereas if the house was occupied with 1 person they’d get a 25% single person discount 🤬🤬🤬🤬 where’s the logic in that?!

anselld

Depending on the Council it can double if you leave it empty long enough.
The logic is to discourage empties (and to raise revenue obviously).

AdrianC

It's almost like your council are trying to encourage owners of properties to let them out or sell them rather than leave them empty.

Anybody'd think there was a shortage of properties...


If the difference starts to become a big issue, then the house isn't selling quickly enough - which means it's overpriced.

CIS

Council Tax isn't based on consumption of services.

In the original system of council tax an unoccupied property was given a 50% discount whereas a single occupier was given 25%. A 6 month exemption (class c) also existed for an unoccupied property.

The government later removed the class c exemption and did away with the 50% discount (in most cases). They then allowed councils the concession of being able to set the rate at 100% on an unoccupied property at their discretion - this would done to reduce central budgets and encourage councils to collect the monies locally instead.

A property that is classed as a long term empty property can also be subject to a premium.

theartfullodger

You expect logic in rules & laws? Wow! Well, triumph of optimism over sense.


I'd these days expect 200% for an empty property. And clearly if you claimed to live there but didn't, well that would be fraud eh?


Cheers!

Adly812

Couldn’t agree with you more. You might get 3 months grace, then it’s charged at 100% .. the council do my head in.. raising council tax, yet not improving services! It’s a losing battle.

Mr.Generous

An interesting extension of the council tax situation when fixing up an uninhabitable run down house …

No kitchen and bathroom makes it un-mortgageable, and if you tried to let it out obviously you wouldn't be able to and would be braking a few laws.

However a house in this condition DOES count as habitable for council tax purposes, and if its been empty for 6 months plus (even if it was before you purchased it) expect a surcharge of +50% on your council tax bill until its renovated and someone moves in.

CIS

However a house in this condition DOES count as habitable for council tax purposes, and if its been empty for 6 months plus (even if it was before you purchased it) expect a surcharge of +50% on your council tax bill until its renovated and someone moves in.

The minimum period for which it can be unoccupied/unfurnished before a premium applies is 1 year (2 years in England).


Uninhabitability for council tax works under specified conditions only - outside of those conditions a property is habitable for the purposes of council tax. A property with no kitchen and bathroom could be lived in for council tax purposes - it wouldn't be ideal conditions but an owner (or someone else) could live in the property (the legality of the occupation is not relevant). The fact that you can let or mortgage a property makes no difference.

Uxb

AdrianC wrote: »

It's almost like your council are trying to encourage owners of properties to let them out or sell them rather than leave them empty.

Except that when the new owner moves in as well as getting possibly in less via the single person discount, now that someone is living there the council will have to provide various services to them - such as emptying bins and the rest. Indeed, if the new occupants are OAP's then the council will find its is providing rather lot of services.
All of which will be costing them - and it would actually be far better for the council if the property was empty.
Not that I expect the council will be capable of working this sort of thing out.

AdrianC

Uxb wrote: »

Except that when the new owner moves in as well as getting possibly in less via the single person discount, now that someone is living there the council will have to provide various services to them - such as emptying bins and the rest. Indeed, if the new occupants are OAP's then the council will find its is providing rather lot of services.
All of which will be costing them - and it would actually be far better for the council if the property was empty.
Not that I expect the council will be capable of working this sort of thing out.

So you think the council's ideal is to have lots of empty properties, and get all those inconvenient residents living elsewhere...?


I think you might be letting your cynicism overwhelm your reality gland, tbh.

Kynthia

Uxb wrote: »

Except that when the new owner moves in as well as getting possibly in less via the single person discount, now that someone is living there the council will have to provide various services to them - such as emptying bins and the rest. Indeed, if the new occupants are OAP's then the council will find its is providing rather lot of services.
All of which will be costing them - and it would actually be far better for the council if the property was empty.
Not that I expect the council will be capable of working this sort of thing out.

Do you really think the council want lots of empty properties? There's a shortage in most areas and every day people are visiting the council desperate to find somewhere to live. As councils are part funded by council tax they need the income and they are also funded by business rates so they need lots of people using local business so that they'll pay those rates

Even if a property is empty the roads will still need repairing, the same number of street lights will be on, the refuse trucks will still come down each street, etc. Empty properties can attract anti-social behaviour, affect the saleability of neighbouring properties, and reduce the community feel of an area.