We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Paying council tax on a empty second property on the market
Comments
-
Yes. My rather basic maths confirms that it would be cheaper.
My equally basic knowledge of the criminal law suggests that as well as prosecution and a fine, you could have your property taken away under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
I don't think POCA is quite as draconian as that. The house itself would not be a proceed of crime, just the 25% Counciltax saving.No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
I don't think POCA is quite as draconian as that. The house itself would not be a proceed of crime, just the 25% Counciltax saving.
https://www.medway.gov.uk/info/200131/council_tax/42/council_tax_fraud0 -
As Mandy Rice-Davies said ...No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
That is, of course, completely exaggerated. I suggest reading S.7 of the Act, which deals with the amount recoverable. Here is an extract.
'The recoverable amount for the purposes of section 6 is an amount equal to the defendant’s benefit from the conduct concerned.'No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
I, and Medway, stand corrected.That is, of course, completely exaggerated. I suggest reading S.7 of the Act, which deals with the amount recoverable. Here is an extract.
'The recoverable amount for the purposes of section 6 is an amount equal to the defendant’s benefit from the conduct concerned.'
You know me, I tend to have and quote sources for my advice and assumed Medway knew what they were about.... :T0 -
I'm not sure that what Medway are saying is directly contradictory to s7.
Their exact wording is "Punishments could include..." - and that's not actually incorrect.
Let's say you've fraudulently claimed for a 100% discount for a Band H property that should actually have a 50% surcharge for being empty - that would be the thick end of five grand a year. And you've been doing that for a few years. Fail to pay, and you can see the debt process rolling in fees and interest quite easily. It's not hard to see a bankruptcy following, with the property going as part of that.
Is it a bit melodramatic, designed to put the fear of God up people? Yes.
Is it actively wrong? Not as such...0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards