Council tax on empty property

mjm3346

Had to deal with a probate one while ago - 6 months after probate they started to charge - fortunately after the "free" month only 75% as there was a single occupier - with them a weekend wouldn't do to restart an empty discount period - 

"If an empty discount period has been awarded, and then the property is occupied for less than 6 weeks; you can't re-claim a further empty discount period"

and the climb for empty properties is getting higher

Until 31 March 2019:

All councils in Dorset are charging a 50% premium on properties that have remained unoccupied and unfurnished for more than 2 years.

From 1 April 2019:

Dorset Council are charging a 100% premium (meaning the Council Tax is doubled) on properties that have remained unoccupied and unfurnished for more than 2 years.

From 1 April 2020:

An additional premium of 200% may apply to a property that has been unoccupied and unfurnished for a period between 5 and 10 years.

From 1 April 2021:

An additional premium of 300% may apply to a property that has been unoccupied and unfurnished for a period over 10 years.

etienneg

So, these premium rates are for a property that is "unoccupied and unfurnished". What is to stop you from "furnishing" the property cheaply (second hand furniture is very cheap), when that description would no longer apply?

Jeremy535897

See https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/357791/140923-CTIL_on_EHP.pdf

etienneg

Quote: "It will ultimately be a matter of fact whether the property is unoccupied and substantially unfurnished."

It's simply a matter of English: How can a property be both unoccupied AND substantially unfurnished if it has lots of furniture in it? If the legislation had simply meant to deal with unoccupied property, there would have been no need to introduce anything about furnishing, but this was included. Therefore it seems to me that being unoccupied on its own is NOT sufficient to establish liability for the premium. At any rate, it would make an interesting case in court!

Jeremy535897

etienneg said:

Quote: "It will ultimately be a matter of fact whether the property is unoccupied and substantially unfurnished."

It's simply a matter of English: How can a property be both unoccupied AND substantially unfurnished if it has lots of furniture in it? If the legislation had simply meant to deal with unoccupied property, there would have been no need to introduce anything about furnishing, but this was included. Therefore it seems to me that being unoccupied on its own is NOT sufficient to establish liability for the premium. At any rate, it would make an interesting case in court!

Read the previous post.

etienneg

Jeremy535897 said:

etienneg said:

Quote: "It will ultimately be a matter of fact whether the property is unoccupied and substantially unfurnished."

It's simply a matter of English: How can a property be both unoccupied AND substantially unfurnished if it has lots of furniture in it? If the legislation had simply meant to deal with unoccupied property, there would have been no need to introduce anything about furnishing, but this was included. Therefore it seems to me that being unoccupied on its own is NOT sufficient to establish liability for the premium. At any rate, it would make an interesting case in court!

Read the previous post.

Jeremy,

Which previous post? If you mean the link to the DCMG information letter, I did read it and I have read it again. This is what I quoted from. It fails to make a coherent case.

In its second paragraph it states that a second home is NOT subject to the premium. This is presumably why "substantially unfurnished" is included as a second requirement in ADDITION to "unoccupied" for the premium to apply. This is exactly my point: BOTH requirements must be met - "unoccupied AND substantially unfurnished" - for the premium to apply. A property that is unoccupied but reasonably furnished is a second home.

The DCMG letter talks about the level of furnishing, which I fully accept is relevant. I have never suggested that a trivial amount of furnishing would suffice, merely that second hand furniture is very cheap. As the letter states, the minimum is likely to be "furniture such as bed, chairs, table, wardrobe or sofa, and white goods such as fridge, freezer or cooker". I simply suggest that these items could likely be obtained second hand for less than even the 50% premium for a single year.

If you still think I am wrong, please explain exactly what would be the difference between such a property and a second home. As far as I can see, the DCMG letter fails to do this, so unless you can point out precisely where it does, you will need to make your own case. Vaguely referring to a document that fails to make a case is not enough.

For the sake of clarity, I am not for one moment suggesting that anyone should do anything illegal, such as supplying false information. I believe passionately in adherence to the law. But I am just as opposed to (in this situation) a council trying to overstate the law as I am to a person trying to understate it. The law clearly states that the premium only applies where a property is both "unoccupied" AND "substantially unfurnished". If you think I am wrong here, please explain with reference to the legislation.

Jeremy535897

The last paragraph says:
"As mentioned above, this is the Department’s informal view; interpretation of legislation is in the first instance, a matter for the local authority, with definitive interpretation the responsibility of the courts."

As you have read it several times, you know that, so you know I can't answer the questions you ask. I don't work for a council, I don't support hefty premia for empty properties, but I have experience of how councils behave in this sort of case.

The council accept that the legislation does not definitively set out precisely what furniture needs to be in the property for it to be "substantially unfurnished". However, they cannot afford to let people avoid thousands in council tax by spending hundreds on a load of cheap furniture, so they can be expected to argue the point vigorously. I suspect the Courts would be unsympathetic to what would clearly be an attempt at tax avoidance. It is a case of choosing the battles to fight. I suppose the purchase of furniture gives a defence to a claim by the council that the situation has been misrepresented, but it is a fight that will probably be lost if litigated, and that would be very expensive.