Money Moral Dilemma: Should we report neighbours who are in the 'wrong' council tax band?

littlemillridge

I need to qualify my post above - of course people sometimes have their CT bands put up or down, but that is not based on the house value NOW, it is based on what the house was worth in 1993.

Johnjdc

This question doesn't make any sense.

Firstly because the process of appealing against council tax band to the VOA (as others have said, nothing to do with the council) necessarily involves providing the details of comparator properties which have caused you to believe that your band is too high.

Secondly because the VOA database is easily accessible to the public, never mind the VOA, so they can confirm which properties near you are paying a lower band and if you've already said it's your street, that's not exactly hard to narrow down.

The only thing they need to check is whether that's because those properties were smaller in 1991 (and if so whether the people who extended them are still the owners) or if it's an error.

Answer: provide relevant details if it's an appeal, leave well enough alone if it's just an incompetent bureaucrat (and I speak as a bureaucrat myself).

Johnjdc

Gosportmum said:

They might be house rich, but cash poor.

If the British were less politically allergic to the concept of people paying a larger share of their taxes after they are dead, there would be a simple solution to this problem, or course.

vgq

Johnjdc said:

Gosportmum said:

They might be house rich, but cash poor.

If the British were less politically allergic to the concept of people paying a larger share of their taxes after they are dead, there would be a simple solution to this problem, or course.

Multigenerational households used to be the way in most societies, and we are returning to this sensible arrangement in England now. But death taxes plus property price increases mean that without estate planning, people are kicked out of the house each time the oldest generation dies and cannot afford a new place to live, which is mad. And then careful estate planning means these taxes can be avoided anyway (e.g. appropriate trusts, gifting then being charged commercial rent), which means rather than everyone paying any notion of fair share, it just depends on taking the right legal advice at the right time.

Most civilised nations from relatively centrist Spain to free-market America have come to the conclusion that nobody should be paying death taxes when the level of their estate is merely *a place to live* rather than a mansion and millions in the bank. England is in classical Thatcherite form going the opposite way, protecting the very wealthy from competition from the average "aspirational" (their word) homeowner by kicking them down every generation.

lincroft1710

Johnjdc said:

Answer: provide relevant details if it's an appeal, leave well enough alone if it's just an incompetent bureaucrat (and I speak as a bureaucrat myself).

Not incompetence, laziness (unless of course there are 400 houses in the street!)

Johnjdc

vgq said:

Johnjdc said:

Gosportmum said:

They might be house rich, but cash poor.

If the British were less politically allergic to the concept of people paying a larger share of their taxes after they are dead, there would be a simple solution to this problem, or course.

Multigenerational households used to be the way in most societies, and we are returning to this sensible arrangement in England now. But death taxes plus property price increases mean that without estate planning, people are kicked out of the house each time the oldest generation dies and cannot afford a new place to live, which is mad. And then careful estate planning means these taxes can be avoided anyway (e.g. appropriate trusts, gifting then being charged commercial rent), which means rather than everyone paying any notion of fair share, it just depends on taking the right legal advice at the right time.

Most civilised nations from relatively centrist Spain to free-market America have come to the conclusion that nobody should be paying death taxes when the level of their estate is merely *a place to live* rather than a mansion and millions in the bank. England is in classical Thatcherite form going the opposite way, protecting the very wealthy from competition from the average "aspirational" (their word) homeowner by kicking them down every generation.

We can wait and see what the 2021 Census results say, but in the 2011 Census 1.8% of households were truly multigenerational. 

I'm not sure why it's "mad" to very very slightly reduce the extent to which someone's ability to afford a place to live depends on the luck of their ancestors.

vgq

Have you found some sort of no-true-Scotsman multigenerational? About a third of households have multiple generations of adults living in them. See e.g. Aviva "1 in 3 homes are multi-generational" , or the Resolution Foundation quoting 20% of 25-34 year olds, or Pew Research showing that in the US the share of multigenerational households has doubled over the past 50 years to about 60 million people, or 1 in 4.

Not forcing people out onto the streets because the oldest relative dies is not "very slightly reducing the extent to which someone's ability to afford a place to live depends on the luck of their ancestors". It ensures multiple generations can afford a place to live, and provides an opportunity for younger people to have a place to live that doesn't literally depend on their parents not dying, rather than having to race out and find their own place before the government takes it away.

Before Thatcher's infamous Housing Act, not only were inheritance taxes were sufficiently limited for estates of owner-occupiers that a family who owned a home always had a home, but tenants (i.e. including in the private rental sector) had a right to continue living in homes where their late parents or grandparents were named on the lease.

I come from a multicultural family where multigenerational households are extremely common and some people in my extended family held modest plots of land literally since their ancestors were freed from slavery (lucky ancestors, right? ugh). This works, except when fiscal and social policy under the guise of equal opportunity just ensure that every new generation is saddled with a huge amount of debt to the very banks that egalitarians claim to oppose.

ethel610

We bought a house in 1999, few months later we had a letter to say we were being assesses.  We were in band A.  Came out did assessment only because there was an extention on the back that previous owners had done.  All checked and got a letter to say we were staying in band A.  I am a row of 4 terraced houses, the 2 centre one are exactly the same, the 2 end ones are the same as each other but are band B, all are 3 bedrooms.