Double Council Tax!!

Bookworm105

Emmia said:

Bookworm105 said:

juliedee4663 said:

You say you own half of a small cottage.  Presumably your boyfriend owns the other half, along with the London property. In which case he owns two properties and should pay the extra council tax. Whose names are on the Deeds? It may not be just as simple as you going to live there if someone else still owns it.

I think OP has given up on this thread after it was derailed by the house price crash brigade.
That said, I took her comment to mean it was a cottage that was in reality a semi-detached property so she owned half of the building. I may be wrong of course.

I think the OP is entitled to own a second property (such things are legal), but can't then also moan about the (legally required) costs of doing so. 

Unfortunately the OP also came across as quite entitled, judging that because they didn't want to live there all the time (because it was too small) that nobody else would.

Their view unfortunately clashes with the moral position which is that second home owners deprive locals of housing, and is the same issue which causes councils in London (and elsewhere) to house people outside of the borough.

High demand = high rents/prices. Properties are bought up by people wanting to let them out as an investment, or people not selling when they move to another property,  for similar reasons - lots of people want to live in London as they work there, but there's a challenge fitting everyone in, so prices go up.

congratulations, all you have done is repeat what has already been said several times. Why you felt the need to quote my latest post to do so is a mystery

ReadySteadyPop

Flugelhorn said:

TroubledTarts said:

Surely this very small property is band A or Band B so the figures won't be the end of the world?

and if they are too much for the OP then they clearly aren't well off enough to afford a second home and either need to find the extra money somewhere else or sell it 

So that means that if a fireman or nurse working in the big city wants a small bolthole to re-charge in occasionally they could be priced out of this aspiration by councils desperate for money (due to their own mismanagement in some cases) gouging second home owners for cash? Are we saying only the really wealthy are allowed to have second homes?

ReadySteadyPop

Emmia said:

Bookworm105 said:

juliedee4663 said:

You say you own half of a small cottage.  Presumably your boyfriend owns the other half, along with the London property. In which case he owns two properties and should pay the extra council tax. Whose names are on the Deeds? It may not be just as simple as you going to live there if someone else still owns it.

I think OP has given up on this thread after it was derailed by the house price crash brigade.
That said, I took her comment to mean it was a cottage that was in reality a semi-detached property so she owned half of the building. I may be wrong of course.

I think the OP is entitled to own a second property (such things are legal), but can't then also moan about the (legally required) costs of doing so. 

Unfortunately the OP also came across as quite entitled, judging that because they didn't want to live there all the time (because it was too small) that nobody else would.

Their view unfortunately clashes with the moral position which is that second home owners deprive locals of housing, and is the same issue which causes councils in London (and elsewhere) to house people outside of the borough.

High demand = high rents/prices. Properties are bought up by people wanting to let them out as an investment, or people not selling when they move to another property,  for similar reasons - lots of people want to live in London as they work there, but there's a challenge fitting everyone in, so prices go up.

Isn`t it the case that most young people can`t get out of these "Holiday Towns" fast enough to flee to London or Manchester? Places that I love to visit in the LD, PD or NW for example, because they are away from the cities, would be a living hell for a 15 or 16 year old?
A Morrissey song comes to mind, can`t remember the name of it though....

Sapindus

Don't put the emotional spin on this. If someone wants to "recharge" occasionally, why on earth can't they just rent a holiday cottage which will at least potentially be occupied for more than just the occasional weekend, or stay in a hotel, or even just have a quiet weekend at home?  If they really want their own private space, they can buy a caravan.  When did it become the norm for a large proportion of the working population to expect to own two houses just for the sake of having a "bolthole"?

theartfullodger

It seems to me the council are pursuing matters correctly.  As usual (but not always)

Best regards to all

ReadySteadyPop

Sapindus said:

Don't put the emotional spin on this. If someone wants to "recharge" occasionally, why on earth can't they just rent a holiday cottage which will at least potentially be occupied for more than just the occasional weekend, or stay in a hotel, or even just have a quiet weekend at home?  If they really want their own private space, they can buy a caravan.  When did it become the norm for a large proportion of the working population to expect to own two houses just for the sake of having a "bolthole"?

Ok, fair point, they could also get a Travelodge for a few nights (very cheap of out of season in many parts of the UK) This all became the norm when ordinary people got their hands on very cheap debt, meaning folk in London with a so so terrace somewhere were millionaires (on paper anyway) and they either felt in a spending mood sitting on all that equity, or downsized with enough left over for a coastal bolthole. As the debt bubble unwinds and it gets harder to make a fortune off London property the second home craze will die out (it will go back to what it was  -  People with real wealth) I think part of the reason we have not already seen a bigger sell-off is that loads of people bought boltholes during the "race for space" mania or maybe during the stamp duty holiday con, either way they overpaid and probably don`t want to take the losses?

Tabieth

ReadySteadyPop 

So that means that if a fireman or nurse working in the big city wants a small bolthole to re-charge in occasionally they could be priced out of this aspiration by councils desperate for money (due to their own mismanagement in some cases) gouging second home owners for cash? Are we saying only the really wealthy are allowed to have second homes?

Anyone who can afford a “small bolthole” (aka second home) can afford to pay their fair share of council tax. 

Stubod

....I am surprised they only charge 200% Council tax on 2nd homes??.....I would make it a lot more....

Smalltownhypocrite

ReadySteadyPop said:

Emmia said:

Bookworm105 said:

juliedee4663 said:

You say you own half of a small cottage.  Presumably your boyfriend owns the other half, along with the London property. In which case he owns two properties and should pay the extra council tax. Whose names are on the Deeds? It may not be just as simple as you going to live there if someone else still owns it.

I think OP has given up on this thread after it was derailed by the house price crash brigade.
That said, I took her comment to mean it was a cottage that was in reality a semi-detached property so she owned half of the building. I may be wrong of course.

I think the OP is entitled to own a second property (such things are legal), but can't then also moan about the (legally required) costs of doing so. 

Unfortunately the OP also came across as quite entitled, judging that because they didn't want to live there all the time (because it was too small) that nobody else would.

Their view unfortunately clashes with the moral position which is that second home owners deprive locals of housing, and is the same issue which causes councils in London (and elsewhere) to house people outside of the borough.

High demand = high rents/prices. Properties are bought up by people wanting to let them out as an investment, or people not selling when they move to another property,  for similar reasons - lots of people want to live in London as they work there, but there's a challenge fitting everyone in, so prices go up.

Isn`t it the case that most young people can`t get out of these "Holiday Towns" fast enough to flee to London or Manchester? Places that I love to visit in the LD, PD or NW for example, because they are away from the cities, would be a living hell for a 15 or 16 year old?
A Morrissey song comes to mind, can`t remember the name of it though....

Where do people come up with this stuff? I lived in a seaside town and I MOVED their in my teens and most people I know did. 

My friends born and raised in that harbor town are all still living there, they are the most homebody people I ever met with zero wanderlust. 

I liked to move about more but never moved to the cities, their bloody awful. My teen has zero urge to move to a city/town too, we have been trying to encourage him to get out more and he thinks the concept sounds like hell lol.

Martico

ReadySteadyPop said:

Emmia said:

Bookworm105 said:

juliedee4663 said:

You say you own half of a small cottage.  Presumably your boyfriend owns the other half, along with the London property. In which case he owns two properties and should pay the extra council tax. Whose names are on the Deeds? It may not be just as simple as you going to live there if someone else still owns it.

I think OP has given up on this thread after it was derailed by the house price crash brigade.
That said, I took her comment to mean it was a cottage that was in reality a semi-detached property so she owned half of the building. I may be wrong of course.

I think the OP is entitled to own a second property (such things are legal), but can't then also moan about the (legally required) costs of doing so. 

Unfortunately the OP also came across as quite entitled, judging that because they didn't want to live there all the time (because it was too small) that nobody else would.

Their view unfortunately clashes with the moral position which is that second home owners deprive locals of housing, and is the same issue which causes councils in London (and elsewhere) to house people outside of the borough.

High demand = high rents/prices. Properties are bought up by people wanting to let them out as an investment, or people not selling when they move to another property,  for similar reasons - lots of people want to live in London as they work there, but there's a challenge fitting everyone in, so prices go up.

Isn`t it the case that most young people can`t get out of these "Holiday Towns" fast enough to flee to London or Manchester? Places that I love to visit in the LD, PD or NW for example, because they are away from the cities, would be a living hell for a 15 or 16 year old?
A Morrissey song comes to mind, can`t remember the name of it though....

Bigmouth Strikes Again?