New council tax powers re second homes

Olinda99

I think the powers that be (and probably society in general) are moving towards a view that having a second home is unacceptable behaviour

MeteredOut

Olinda99 said:

I think the powers that be (and probably society in general) are moving towards a view that having a second home is unacceptable behaviour

I disagree. The view is that it is a fortunate position to be in and "those with the broadest shoulders should carry the greater weight" (© Every politician since 1980)

ReadySteadyPop

DullGreyGuy said:

StevieD54 said:

I believe these draconian measures have now reached second home owners in England?

However, this situation has existed for some time here in Wales. My parents neighbours, a married couple from Manchester, have a small 2 bed bungalow in N Wales as their ‘holiday home’. Last year they were charged 100% premium on their council tax, and this year, they are being asked for another 150% on top, a bill now reaching £6000! My parents bungalow, next door, is £2200 ish. This prompted me to have a think about this. 

Firstly, what is the actual definition of a second home? Furnished/unfurnished? Rented out/not rented out? Occupied/unoccupied?  Then I wondered if this couple could put their Manchester home in one spouse’s name and the N Wales property in the other's name? So they both could then say: ‘well I only own one home’. Does this mean the council should then only charge them both a ‘normal’ council tax rate? How on earth can the council possibly check how long or how often in a year they visit the holiday home?

Not draconian at all... councils are having significant funding issues. The basic principle of tax has always been that those that can afford it should be the ones that pay it. If you can afford to run multiple homes then you can afford to pay the additional tax. People having empty holiday properties drive up prices in towns and exacerbates the housing shortage problems. 

It's not a matter of ownership but one of being responsible for the council tax of multiple properties. So were they to rent the property out to a tenant so return the property to daily use for a local then the tenant would be liable for the council tax and there would be no escalation of the council tax other than if there are long vacant periods where liability returns to your parents. 

It would matter who is living at the property not who's name its in, so unless you are proposing your parents live in separate houses for the vast majority of the time you are suggesting they make fraudulent declarations, the council tax will look very cheap compared to the consequences when the respective councils find out. 

In many cases because they piled into commercial property just before it crashed, how ironic that they are now trying to milk the property of ordinary people to pay for their mistakes.

ReadySteadyPop

Bookworm225 said:

so you think councils do not cross check their data with each other?
such naivety 
the world woke up to anti fraud measures long ago.

Unlikely to be in any kind of effective way, many councils can`t balance their own budgets let alone co-ordinate with other councils.

Smalltownhypocrite

StevieD54 said:

TheSpectator said:

One word for this bonkers idea = fraud.

Are your parents happy to commit fraud or is this your silly musings?

How is owning one home fraud? And what has this idea got to do with my parents, this is about their neighbours.
And as for the neighbours ‘dobbing them in’, how would the neighbours know what council tax they pay? 

You are the son of the neighbor and apparently even you know lol.

ReadySteadyPop

MeteredOut said:

Olinda99 said:

I think the powers that be (and probably society in general) are moving towards a view that having a second home is unacceptable behaviour

I disagree. The view is that it is a fortunate position to be in and "those with the broadest shoulders should carry the greater weight" (© Every politician since 1980)

Many with second homes just took on a lot of mortgage debt though, they don`t have "broad shoulders" in the sense of truly wealthy people.

Grumpy_chap

StevieD54 said:

I still find it bizarre that second home owners are being asked to pay 3 times more than the locals when they only use council services about 10% of the time those locals do. e.g. bin collections 

Council Tax is a tax.
The Council have to provide certain services.
There is no direct correlation between the two.

Regardless, the 2nd home owner only present 10% of the year does not really save the Council money - the Council need to have the bin collection every week (or fortnight as per local arrangements) and are not able to ramp that collection resource up and down dependent upon when a 2nd home owner unilaterally decides to be in or out of residence.

Other services that the Council provides - for example swimming pools - may suffer by having 2nd home owners only in residence 10% of the year and the Council therefore need to provide greater subsidy to preserve the facility.  An occupied house might use the swimming pool, and pay entrance fee (i.e. generate Council revenue), once a month on average.  The 2nd home owner might only visit once or twice a year, hence the Council revenue is reduced.

MobileSaver

ReadySteadyPop said:

MeteredOut said:

Olinda99 said:

I think the powers that be (and probably society in general) are moving towards a view that having a second home is unacceptable behaviour

I disagree. The view is that it is a fortunate position to be in and "those with the broadest shoulders should carry the greater weight" (© Every politician since 1980)

Many with second homes just took on a lot of mortgage debt though, they don`t have "broad shoulders" in the sense of truly wealthy people.

Anyone that can afford a second home, whether mortgaged or not, has "broader shoulders" than the average person in the UK...

martindow

MobileSaver said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

MeteredOut said:

Olinda99 said:

I think the powers that be (and probably society in general) are moving towards a view that having a second home is unacceptable behaviour

I disagree. The view is that it is a fortunate position to be in and "those with the broadest shoulders should carry the greater weight" (© Every politician since 1980)

Many with second homes just took on a lot of mortgage debt though, they don`t have "broad shoulders" in the sense of truly wealthy people.

Anyone that can afford a second home, whether mortgaged or not, has "broader shoulders" than the average person in the UK...

And they have the option of selling the second home to free up the house for someone who needs it full time if they find the charges are too high for them (which is the reason for CT being raised in the first place).

ReadySteadyPop

MobileSaver said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

MeteredOut said:

Olinda99 said:

I think the powers that be (and probably society in general) are moving towards a view that having a second home is unacceptable behaviour

I disagree. The view is that it is a fortunate position to be in and "those with the broadest shoulders should carry the greater weight" (© Every politician since 1980)

Many with second homes just took on a lot of mortgage debt though, they don`t have "broad shoulders" in the sense of truly wealthy people.

Anyone that can afford a second home, whether mortgaged or not, has "broader shoulders" than the average person in the UK...

Anyone? I`m not sure that having two lots of mortgage debt means you automatically have spare cash to bail out councils, I would have thought with higher interest rates the more debt you have the less spare cash you have?