Council Tax Improvements

BarelySentientAI

uptdale said:

lincroft1710 said:

As I have previously posted, what has happened is correct in law. If your home was incapable of being used as a dwelling then it should be deleted from the Valuation List.

Surely just because the OP moved out during the alterations does not mean that the house was incapable of being used as a dwelling.  If the house was still habitable during the alterations (as the neighbour's house obviously was during similar alterations), then why would it be correct to delete it from the valuation list?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/council-tax-domestic-properties-in-disrepair-or-derelict/council-tax-domestic-properties-which-are-in-disrepair-or-are-derelict

"Where the works are underway and are more substantial, including structural alterations, major renovation or other alterations during which it can’t be lived in, then the band may be deleted."  So the guidance basically says "if uninhabitable, we can delete the band".

Charnwood council (the OPs) say that the zero council tax only applies to properties that are unoccupied, unfurnished and uninhabitable - describing that as where the property is unoccupied and substantially unfurnished and requires or is undergoing major repair works to render it habitable.

By claiming the zero council tax exemption the OP has defined their property as uninhabitable - hence the guidance to delete the band can apply. 

The interesting point from that document is "If a property is occupied, it’s generally assumed to be habitable and the LO will not delete the band, even if significant repair or renovation works are underway."  So staying there (and not claiming the zero tax) overrides any physical condition.  That explains the neighbour's lack of deletion.  It would be correct to delete both, but by staying in occupation the neighbour has invoked this extra part of the guidance.

It also confirms lincroft's (as usual) accurate assessment - "Although no Council Tax will be payable if a band is deleted, when the property is next banded it will be treated as a new property.  This means that all improvements will be reflected in the new banding from the date when the work was completed."

S_Stevie

uptdale said:

lincroft1710 said:

As I have previously posted, what has happened is correct in law. If your home was incapable of being used as a dwelling then it should be deleted from the Valuation List.

Surely just because the OP moved out during the alterations does not mean that the house was incapable of being used as a dwelling.  If the house was still habitable during the alterations (as the neighbour's house obviously was during similar alterations), then why would it be correct to delete it from the valuation list?

Thanks for your reply.

My argument exactly, houses have not been rebanded since 1991 unless there was a sale, surely this is a contradiction on the fact that a sale never occurred.

Please everyone keep throwing ideas at me to help with my argument.

Thank You

uptdale

BarelySentientAI said:

uptdale said:

lincroft1710 said:

As I have previously posted, what has happened is correct in law. If your home was incapable of being used as a dwelling then it should be deleted from the Valuation List.

Surely just because the OP moved out during the alterations does not mean that the house was incapable of being used as a dwelling.  If the house was still habitable during the alterations (as the neighbour's house obviously was during similar alterations), then why would it be correct to delete it from the valuation list?

By claiming the zero council tax exemption the OP has defined their property as uninhabitable - hence the guidance to delete the band can apply.

It's not up to the council tax payer to determine whether the house is uninhabitable.  It's a matter to be determined by the law, which the OP clearly got wrong.  His original post says "My neighbour did not move out of his house during his extension, I temporarily did & stopped paying council tax for a few months as I was not occupying the house."  Not occupying the house is not a valid reason for a council tax exemption, even if you claim an exemption.

It's pretty obvious that if you actually live in a dwelling (as the neighbour did), than it is habitable.  The reverse is not true.  A property can be habitable even if no-one actually lives in it.

lincroft1710

S_Stevie said:

uptdale said:

lincroft1710 said:

As I have previously posted, what has happened is correct in law. If your home was incapable of being used as a dwelling then it should be deleted from the Valuation List.

Surely just because the OP moved out during the alterations does not mean that the house was incapable of being used as a dwelling.  If the house was still habitable during the alterations (as the neighbour's house obviously was during similar alterations), then why would it be correct to delete it from the valuation list?

Thanks for your reply.

My argument exactly, houses have not been rebanded since 1991 unless there was a sale, surely this is a contradiction on the fact that a sale never occurred.

Please everyone keep throwing ideas at me to help with my argument.

Thank You

You have no argument.

@BarelySentientAI has explained the situation admirably.

I will try and explain again as you appear not to understand.

Your home was deemed no longer capable of being used as a dwelling, therefore it was deleted from the Valuation List. As far as CT is concerned it ceased to exist. When it comes back into the VL for CT purposes it is a new dwelling. The band has NOT been increased as there was no band to increase, it is a new band and as such has to reflect the physical state of the property as at the date of banding

BarelySentientAI

uptdale said:

BarelySentientAI said:

uptdale said:

lincroft1710 said:

As I have previously posted, what has happened is correct in law. If your home was incapable of being used as a dwelling then it should be deleted from the Valuation List.

Surely just because the OP moved out during the alterations does not mean that the house was incapable of being used as a dwelling.  If the house was still habitable during the alterations (as the neighbour's house obviously was during similar alterations), then why would it be correct to delete it from the valuation list?

By claiming the zero council tax exemption the OP has defined their property as uninhabitable - hence the guidance to delete the band can apply.

It's pretty obvious that if you actually live in a dwelling (as the neighbour did), than it is habitable.  The reverse is not true.  A property can be habitable even if no-one actually lives in it.

What you are describing is the exemption used by the neighbour.  Irrelevant to the OP.

uptdale

lincroft1710 said:

S_Stevie said:

uptdale said:

lincroft1710 said:

As I have previously posted, what has happened is correct in law. If your home was incapable of being used as a dwelling then it should be deleted from the Valuation List.

Surely just because the OP moved out during the alterations does not mean that the house was incapable of being used as a dwelling.  If the house was still habitable during the alterations (as the neighbour's house obviously was during similar alterations), then why would it be correct to delete it from the valuation list?

Thanks for your reply.

My argument exactly, houses have not been rebanded since 1991 unless there was a sale, surely this is a contradiction on the fact that a sale never occurred.

Please everyone keep throwing ideas at me to help with my argument.

Thank You

You have no argument.

@BarelySentientAI has explained the situation admirably.

I will try and explain again as you appear not to understand.

Your home was deemed no longer capable of being used as a dwelling, therefore it was deleted from the Valuation List. As far as CT is concerned it ceased to exist. When it comes back into the VL for CT purposes it is a new dwelling. The band has NOT been increased as there was no band to increase, it is a new band and as such has to reflect the physical state of the property as at the date of banding

I think that is missing the key issue.  On what basis can a house be "deemed" no longer capable of being used as a dwelling if as a matter of fact it can be used as a dwelling? 

It surely cannot be the case that just because a CT payer moves out of a house and leaves it unoccupied, and then decides to stop paying CT, then the house is "deemed to be uninhabitable".  If that was the case, people could save a lot of CT on empty properties.  No need to make a hole in the roof or whatever else is done to make a property uninhabitable.

BarelySentientAI

uptdale said:

lincroft1710 said:

S_Stevie said:

uptdale said:

lincroft1710 said:

As I have previously posted, what has happened is correct in law. If your home was incapable of being used as a dwelling then it should be deleted from the Valuation List.

Surely just because the OP moved out during the alterations does not mean that the house was incapable of being used as a dwelling.  If the house was still habitable during the alterations (as the neighbour's house obviously was during similar alterations), then why would it be correct to delete it from the valuation list?

Thanks for your reply.

My argument exactly, houses have not been rebanded since 1991 unless there was a sale, surely this is a contradiction on the fact that a sale never occurred.

Please everyone keep throwing ideas at me to help with my argument.

Thank You

You have no argument.

@BarelySentientAI has explained the situation admirably.

I will try and explain again as you appear not to understand.

Your home was deemed no longer capable of being used as a dwelling, therefore it was deleted from the Valuation List. As far as CT is concerned it ceased to exist. When it comes back into the VL for CT purposes it is a new dwelling. The band has NOT been increased as there was no band to increase, it is a new band and as such has to reflect the physical state of the property as at the date of banding

I think that is missing the key issue.  On what basis can a house be "deemed" no longer capable of being used as a dwelling if as a matter of fact it can be used as a dwelling? 

It surely cannot be the case that just because a CT payer moves out of a house and leaves it unoccupied, and then decides to stop paying CT, then the house is "deemed to be uninhabitable".  If that was the case, people could save a lot of CT on empty properties.  No need to make a hole in the roof or whatever else is done to make a property uninhabitable.

They didn't just "decide to stop paying CT".  They were allowed to stop paying CT because the magnitude of the works was sufficient for the property to be deemed uninhabitable.

As described in the document I linked and the paragraph I quoted.

If you just "moved out and decided to stop paying CT", that would result in a large CT debt.

uptdale

BarelySentientAI said:

uptdale said:

lincroft1710 said:

S_Stevie said:

uptdale said:

lincroft1710 said:

As I have previously posted, what has happened is correct in law. If your home was incapable of being used as a dwelling then it should be deleted from the Valuation List.

Surely just because the OP moved out during the alterations does not mean that the house was incapable of being used as a dwelling.  If the house was still habitable during the alterations (as the neighbour's house obviously was during similar alterations), then why would it be correct to delete it from the valuation list?

Thanks for your reply.

My argument exactly, houses have not been rebanded since 1991 unless there was a sale, surely this is a contradiction on the fact that a sale never occurred.

Please everyone keep throwing ideas at me to help with my argument.

Thank You

You have no argument.

@BarelySentientAI has explained the situation admirably.

I will try and explain again as you appear not to understand.

Your home was deemed no longer capable of being used as a dwelling, therefore it was deleted from the Valuation List. As far as CT is concerned it ceased to exist. When it comes back into the VL for CT purposes it is a new dwelling. The band has NOT been increased as there was no band to increase, it is a new band and as such has to reflect the physical state of the property as at the date of banding

I think that is missing the key issue.  On what basis can a house be "deemed" no longer capable of being used as a dwelling if as a matter of fact it can be used as a dwelling? 

It surely cannot be the case that just because a CT payer moves out of a house and leaves it unoccupied, and then decides to stop paying CT, then the house is "deemed to be uninhabitable".  If that was the case, people could save a lot of CT on empty properties.  No need to make a hole in the roof or whatever else is done to make a property uninhabitable.

They were allowed to stop paying CT because the magnitude of the works was sufficient for the property to be deemed uninhabitable.

Did the OP say that, or are you guessing?

BarelySentientAI

uptdale said:

BarelySentientAI said:

uptdale said:

lincroft1710 said:

S_Stevie said:

uptdale said:

lincroft1710 said:

As I have previously posted, what has happened is correct in law. If your home was incapable of being used as a dwelling then it should be deleted from the Valuation List.

Surely just because the OP moved out during the alterations does not mean that the house was incapable of being used as a dwelling.  If the house was still habitable during the alterations (as the neighbour's house obviously was during similar alterations), then why would it be correct to delete it from the valuation list?

Thanks for your reply.

My argument exactly, houses have not been rebanded since 1991 unless there was a sale, surely this is a contradiction on the fact that a sale never occurred.

Please everyone keep throwing ideas at me to help with my argument.

Thank You

You have no argument.

@BarelySentientAI has explained the situation admirably.

I will try and explain again as you appear not to understand.

Your home was deemed no longer capable of being used as a dwelling, therefore it was deleted from the Valuation List. As far as CT is concerned it ceased to exist. When it comes back into the VL for CT purposes it is a new dwelling. The band has NOT been increased as there was no band to increase, it is a new band and as such has to reflect the physical state of the property as at the date of banding

I think that is missing the key issue.  On what basis can a house be "deemed" no longer capable of being used as a dwelling if as a matter of fact it can be used as a dwelling? 

It surely cannot be the case that just because a CT payer moves out of a house and leaves it unoccupied, and then decides to stop paying CT, then the house is "deemed to be uninhabitable".  If that was the case, people could save a lot of CT on empty properties.  No need to make a hole in the roof or whatever else is done to make a property uninhabitable.

They were allowed to stop paying CT because the magnitude of the works was sufficient for the property to be deemed uninhabitable.

Did the OP say that, or are you guessing?

When did you last ring up the council to say "don't fancy paying CT" and they just replied "OK!", without asking why or doing any checks?

So it was either actually uninhabitable, or it wasn't and the OP committed tax fraud.  Take your pick.

I'm going with the first one.

uptdale

BarelySentientAI said:

uptdale said:

BarelySentientAI said:

uptdale said:

lincroft1710 said:

S_Stevie said:

uptdale said:

lincroft1710 said:

As I have previously posted, what has happened is correct in law. If your home was incapable of being used as a dwelling then it should be deleted from the Valuation List.

Surely just because the OP moved out during the alterations does not mean that the house was incapable of being used as a dwelling.  If the house was still habitable during the alterations (as the neighbour's house obviously was during similar alterations), then why would it be correct to delete it from the valuation list?

Thanks for your reply.

My argument exactly, houses have not been rebanded since 1991 unless there was a sale, surely this is a contradiction on the fact that a sale never occurred.

Please everyone keep throwing ideas at me to help with my argument.

Thank You

You have no argument.

@BarelySentientAI has explained the situation admirably.

I will try and explain again as you appear not to understand.

Your home was deemed no longer capable of being used as a dwelling, therefore it was deleted from the Valuation List. As far as CT is concerned it ceased to exist. When it comes back into the VL for CT purposes it is a new dwelling. The band has NOT been increased as there was no band to increase, it is a new band and as such has to reflect the physical state of the property as at the date of banding

I think that is missing the key issue.  On what basis can a house be "deemed" no longer capable of being used as a dwelling if as a matter of fact it can be used as a dwelling? 

It surely cannot be the case that just because a CT payer moves out of a house and leaves it unoccupied, and then decides to stop paying CT, then the house is "deemed to be uninhabitable".  If that was the case, people could save a lot of CT on empty properties.  No need to make a hole in the roof or whatever else is done to make a property uninhabitable.

They were allowed to stop paying CT because the magnitude of the works was sufficient for the property to be deemed uninhabitable.

Did the OP say that, or are you guessing?

When did you last ring up the council to say "don't fancy paying CT" and they just replied "OK!", without asking why or doing any checks?

So it was either actually uninhabitable, or it wasn't and the OP committed tax fraud.  Take your pick.

I'm going with the first one.

Or the OP thought he did not need to pay CT because he had stopped occupying the property.  That's what he said.  So he got the law wrong.  Neither you nor I know more than that.  Best to stick with what we know.