Council Tax on purchased property 300%.

macman

ProDave said:

If you and your wife were to separate, and each live in one of your two houses, not only would you not pay the 300% you would qualify for the single occupancy discount in each as well.

Were it not for the fact that this is a property in Liverpool that's been empty for 8 years. The OP will consider it a bonus if the roof is still watertight and the plumbing and wiring hasn't all been ripped out to flog as copper waste. Throw in some dry rot and mould courtesy of no heating for all that time, and it's not really likely to be the sort of place you would want to be spending the night in, let alone declaring as your main residence.

DoctorStrange

Why does it have to be a main residence? 

How is this is different from owing a holiday home and paying full (i.e. 100%) council tax on both?

Is there a minimum number of nights one must stay in a property so that is not longer "empty" but "occupied"?

Slithery

DoctorStrange said:

Why does it have to be a main residence? 

Because that's the law.

DoctorStrange said:

Is there a minimum number of nights one must stay in a property so that is not longer "empty" but "occupied"?

No, it's not that simple. @CIS has already posted the relevant link...
https://lgfa92.co.uk/council-tax-occupancy-sole-main-residence/

AdrianC

DoctorStrange said:

How is this is different from owing a holiday home and paying full (i.e. 100%) council tax on both?

How far away from this property do they actually live?
What are the chances of somebody having an unfurnished, semi-derelict, urban Liverpool property as a "holiday home"?

Nebulous2

DoctorStrange said:

Why does it have to be a main residence? 

How is this is different from owing a holiday home and paying full (i.e. 100%) council tax on both?

Is there a minimum number of nights one must stay in a property so that is not longer "empty" but "occupied"?

Again - I'm far away and this may not be the same,  but I bought a probate property as a holiday home. 

Our local authority gave a discount on CT for holiday homes the first year I had it, and I had just applied for that when I received a bill saying it had gone up to 200% council tax as it had gone past the 24 month mark since the previous owner had claimed discount for it as an empty house. 

I had to complete a form saying, amongst other things, that it was fully furnished, and we would live in it for a minimum of, I think, 45 nights a year. We also had to agree to inspection if it was necessary to confirm the statement we had made was accurate. 

DoctorStrange

Slithery said:

DoctorStrange said:

Why does it have to be a main residence? 

Because that's the law.

DoctorStrange said:

Is there a minimum number of nights one must stay in a property so that is not longer "empty" but "occupied"?

No, it's not that simple. @CIS has already posted the relevant link...
https://lgfa92.co.uk/council-tax-occupancy-sole-main-residence/

From that link:


"A person is regarded as being resident in the property where their ‘sole or main residence’ is to be found but they may also be occupying a property if they are living in it and it is not their ‘sole or main residence"


So it's perfectly possible to occupy a property in addition to the main residence.

Also from the link:

"an “unoccupied dwelling” means a dwelling in which no one lives."

So the question becomes "does anyone live there?".

Also from that link:

"Similar comments were also made in respect of appeal 4725M179333/254C

The fact that the tenant’s sole or main residence had changed was not the determinative factor. Whilst a person’s sole or main residence can only be at one address on any one date, a person could potentially still occupy or furnish two dwellings at the same time."

And:

"Some Council Tax reductions or premiums only require occupancy (such as the ‘long-term empty’ premium) and therefore do not directly appear to require ‘residence’"


I'm not seeing anything that precludes the owners "living" a minimum number of nights at the 2nd home to reduce the 300% tax bill to 100%.

If I was the OP, I'd be asking the council some questions in writing as there's definitely an angle here. 

getmore4less

If habitable this is where a young student family member that does not mind living in a building site comes in handy.

saajan_12

Vixmag82 said:

_shel said:

 Yes its fair. Government cuts mean the council is having to cut jobs and services everywhere. 

 Empty homes are a blight on the city and cost the council revenue. Have you been to liverpool to see just how many are standing empty? 

I live in Liverpool so yes I see this. Shouldn’t new owners be given the benefit of the doubt that they are going to make a property fit to live in which is helping the problem. Then if left empty start charging them

No, because then you could transfer a property between companies / family every 2 years and avoid the surcharge forever, without any intention to renovate or have anyone live there. 

For genuine buyers, this is a forseeable cost at the point of purchase - the buyers could enquire about how long the property has been left empty and factor the higher council tax into the purchase price. 

macman

This is by no means something unique to Liverpool. Many LA's are now adopting the same policy of increasing the rate to 300% after 5 years of unoccupancy, that being the maximum multiplier they are allowed to use.

AdrianC

macman said:

This is by no means something unique to Liverpool. Many LA's are now adopting the same policy of increasing the rate to 300% after 5 years of unoccupancy, that being the maximum multiplier they are allowed to use.

Local authorities have targets for the number of new housing. Bringing redundant properties back into use counts towards that.
Local authorities are severely cash-strapped.
Empty properties are a blight on communities.

Different areas have places empty for different reasons... Holiday homes rip the heart out of communities and price locals out of their home area. Derelict properties are an eyesore and crime magnet.

It's no surprise they want to put financial incentives on owners of empty properties, really. More power to their elbow. Yes, it's a pain for people like the OP's parents... but it's a perfectly predictable and foreseeable cost of the project for anybody who's done the most basic research.