Council tax -single person discount when unoccupied for sale?

greatcrested

Herbalus said:

I guess I was thinking that one person has 75% cost and 2 or more people would pay more. On that logic, as I’d be the only person with the keys to this cambridge flat, it’d make sense to pay for a single persons council tax. Seems odd that it costs more to have nobody living there whilst up for sale than one person. It seems the forum doesn’t believe that logic is what happens in reality - fair enough. Can check with council of course but forum on here is usually right.

You totally misunderstand the logic behind CT. (and by the way, it's not 'the forum' not believing in logic - the 'forum' is simply trying to answer your question and explain what CT you will be liable for. We don't make the rules!)

OK - Each house has a designated CT charge. Makes no difference if a couple live there, or they have their elderly parents living there too, or also have 5 children. The CT is the same for that house.

However, out of kindness (!), where only one person lives alone, there is a discount (only one income... blah blah).

Empty houses, however, are to be discouraged. There is a housing shortage as I'm sure you know. So full CT is charged (after all, the owner is not only depriving someone of the chance to live there, but is also, presumaly, living elsewhere so must be fairly well off to afford a 2nd property...). Indeed, in some cases, empty houses are charged double, to further discourage leaving properties empty.

Finally, just to add, the charge made for CT takes no account of what services are provided by the council for that property or its owner. Just as when I pay Income Tax, no acount is taken of the fact that I don't have children/use the education system, nor the fact that I disapprove of the armed forces and their use overseas. It's a flat tax based on my income, just as CT is a flat tax based on the property.

oldbikebloke

Herbalus said:

I live with partner in nearby city so full council tax paid here.

I guess I was thinking that one person has 75% cost and 2 or more people would pay more. On that logic, as I’d be the only person with the keys to this cambridge flat, it’d make sense to pay for a single persons council tax. Seems odd that it costs more to have nobody living there whilst up for sale than one person. It seems the forum doesn’t believe that logic is what happens in reality - fair enough. Can check with council of course but forum on here is usually right.

it is not a question of your warped view of "logic" 

it is simply a question of knowing the law.
To claim SPD the property has to be your main residence....IT ISN'T, your main residence is elsewhere.
You own 2 properties, only one of them can be your main residence. In such circumstances yes it is "unfair" that a single person owner ends up paying just the same as a married couple with a holiday home. But then "logic" says council tax is not a "payment for services" like you seem to think, it is simply an "unfair" regressive tax not based on how much you can afford to be, but simply based on the assumption that if you own 2 properties which you do not .let out, then you are "wealthy" enough to pay tax on both as a penalty for keeping one of then off the housing market when there is a great shortage of supply

and yes, I know you are selling up, tough, that is how the world works, so ranting won't impact it. You have 100% CT in Cambridge and 100% CT elsewhere since you own 2 properties and have a partner at your main residence. Imagine how you'd feel with no partner, so paying 100% and 75%, then you would be crying about "logic" .  

Herbalus

AdrianC said:

Herbalus said:

Seems odd that it costs more to have nobody living there whilst up for sale than one person.

It's almost as if local authorities would rather properties be occupied than unoccupied...

It seems the forum doesn’t believe that logic is what happens in reality - fair enough.

You appear to be shooting the messenger. We're explaining the reality, even if it is inconvenient.

I get that councils prefer property to be occupied, but that is my intention as quickly as possible by putting up for sale. I guess this is turning into a minor rant then, as it has to be empty to be sold (prevailing wisdom on here is that you shouldn’t start marketing/selling a property until it is vacant from tenants, and for good reason), so doing the right thing seems to be more costly. 

not intending to shoot the messenger, was just musing that my logic doesn’t appear to be correct/agreed with by others/irrelevant to the actual reality.

It seems my efforts should go into selling the property as quickly as feasible. After all, the council prefers occupied property

AdrianC

Herbalus said:

AdrianC said:

Herbalus said:

Seems odd that it costs more to have nobody living there whilst up for sale than one person.

It's almost as if local authorities would rather properties be occupied than unoccupied...

It seems the forum doesn’t believe that logic is what happens in reality - fair enough.

You appear to be shooting the messenger. We're explaining the reality, even if it is inconvenient.

I get that councils prefer property to be occupied, but that is my intention as quickly as possible by putting up for sale. I guess this is turning into a minor rant then, as it has to be empty to be sold (prevailing wisdom on here is that you shouldn’t start marketing/selling a property until it is vacant from tenants, and for good reason), so doing the right thing seems to be more costly. 

not intending to shoot the messenger, was just musing that my logic doesn’t appear to be correct/agreed with by others/irrelevant to the actual reality.

It seems my efforts should go into selling the property as quickly as feasible. After all, the council prefers occupied property

The cost of that CT can be set against your profits for the year from your residential lettings business.

If you lived there, then the CT you pay on your home is not a business expense.

oldbikebloke

AdrianC said:

The cost of that CT can be set against your profits for the year from your residential lettings business.

If you lived there, then the CT you pay on your home is not a business expense.

not when he is selling up
he can only claim the portion of CT that relates to the period to the date when the letting business ceased. In this case, that is when the tenancy ended as he then marketed the property for sale, not for rent, so the letting business has de facto ended. Tax law well established on such scenario

dinkylink

The main reason Councils charge full costs for unoccupied properties is because they're skint and need to get money anyway they can.

I bought a property in 2009 to rent out and didn't get charged a penny for the 3 months it was unoccupied beforehand.  Lovely.

Sold it last year and got charged the full amount for the 3 months it was unoccupied before it sold. Annoying? Yes. Unfair? Possibly - though I can see the argument that if you own 2 properties you can afford 2 x council tax. 

Incidentally, I live by myself so enjoy a 25% discount on my residential property. What I find really unfair is why this is only 25% and not 50%! But such is life.....

saajan_12

Herbalus said:

I guess I was thinking that one person has 75% cost and 2 or more people would pay more. On that logic, as I’d be the only person with the keys to this cambridge flat, it’d make sense to pay for a single persons council tax. Seems odd that it costs more to have nobody living there whilst up for sale than one person. It seems the forum doesn’t believe that logic is what happens in reality - fair enough. Can check with council of course but forum on here is usually right.

The point is that its not a payment for usage of services - it doesn't increase if you have 3 or 4 or more people. Besides, there wouldn't really be much difference in cost of services based on the number of occupants - eg bin collection frequency doesn't change, more people could mean more people the police need to police, but also an empty house might have more chance of break in.. some goes to social care, which may not directly affect anyone in your household.. 

This is all simplified to a fixed charge based on your house size / value, even if unoccupied.  Some councils have a surcharge on empty homes to discourage this. The single person discount is effectively a gift to to ease the burden where there is a single earner, not because they are using less. 

Herbalus said:

AdrianC said:

Herbalus said:

Seems odd that it costs more to have nobody living there whilst up for sale than one person.

It's almost as if local authorities would rather properties be occupied than unoccupied...

It seems the forum doesn’t believe that logic is what happens in reality - fair enough.

You appear to be shooting the messenger. We're explaining the reality, even if it is inconvenient.

I get that councils prefer property to be occupied, but that is my intention as quickly as possible by putting up for sale.

Well you're not really being penalised for having an empty property, you're just paying the normal cost of business. If it takes very long, then there might be penal higher rates (eg double tax). The idea is, you could price it to sell quickly and theoretically trim your CT, or target a higher price and pay the CT for longer. 

sweetsand

dinkylink said:

The main reason Councils charge full costs for unoccupied properties is because they're skint and need to get money anyway they can.

I bought a property in 2009 to rent out and didn't get charged a penny for the 3 months it was unoccupied beforehand.  Lovely.

Sold it last year and got charged the full amount for the 3 months it was unoccupied before it sold. Annoying? Yes. Unfair? Possibly - though I can see the argument that if you own 2 properties you can afford 2 x council tax. 

Incidentally, I live by myself so enjoy a 25% discount on my residential property. What I find really unfair is why this is only 25% and not 50%! But such is life.....

A very fair and honest post.
Three people live in our detached home.
A house a few doors away, about the same size of ours ie a detached 5 bedroom house theirs may be six as some people have sub dived rooms pay the same coucil tax.
IMO, single people should pay 50% and more than 5 should pay more.
About rentals, paying coucil tax and empty property - we too were pleasantly surprised when one of our properties a house was unoccupied for a few months as we redcoraredted it and though about if to keep/sell etc we were not charged a penny in coucil tax for possibly more than three months now that has all changed as you stated

ATB

Slinky

sweetsand said:

IMO, single people should pay 50% and more than 5 should pay more.

And who is going to police the '5 and more'? Are we relying on the curtain twitchers dobbing in the neighbours? We're back into Poll Tax territory and that didn't end well.

Would cost more to administer than it would raise.

Scottishgal87

Quite strange for a highly respected philanthropist to suggest a rule that would cause financial difficulties for people.