Anyone challenged a council for double Council tax charge on ones only property?

PanTheMan

After running out of funds completely refurbishing/modernising my only property, I was unable to finish it and move back in for three and a half years. Thus, after a given period my local council informed me they would be charging me double council tax on the property. On enquiring with them why they would do such a thing I was informed it was to encourage owners of second homes or empty properties to use said home, due to a housing shortage in my area. I questioned them as to how charging double tax could possibly, ever, 'encourage' someone who cannot yet afford to finish their only property and move back in, to get back into my home. I informed them that charging double tax in this case very clearly and demonstrably actually, rather, helps to prevent me from moving back into my home and is therefore a completely flawed and ill thought out idea. They were not interested in backing down.

Having searched the Government website regarding such extra charges it clearly states that local councils have it within their powers to decide whether or not to put such charges into place, but it also gives guidance regarding using exceptions for certain cases. I informed them of the of the latter but still, no interest whatsoever, merely referring me to the minutes of council meetings where such charges were agreed on by councillors.

Has anyone heard of such charges being legally challenged in a case such as mine? There is no clear and reasonable reason for charging me double tax, which amounts to an extra £3000+/year! There is no benefit whatsoever, apart from to the council, who is attempting to extract free money from me and fill their coffers. How can it possibly be right and just for councillors to just decide to put into place methods for demanding thousands of pounds of extra payments for no good reason whatsoever?

I have finally, recently, been able to move back into my property, but the extra charges are still in place. I have not been able to pay my council tax for the last couple of years because they refuse to give me the correct bill and won't allow me to pay the normal amount only. Despite showing little interest in my case and on more than one occasion refusing to engage with me at all until months later I eventually force a reply from them, they now want to take me to court to extract the money. It is a classic case of 'computer says no'. 

Does anyone have experience of challenging such demands from a council? This is not a second property. It is my one and only home!

WYSPECIAL

Where did you live when you couldn't live in the empty property?

They will probably counter argue that if you couldn't finish the renovation then you should have sold it on as it was so someone else could rather than leaving it empty.

eskbanker

PanTheMan said:

I have not been able to pay my council tax for the last couple of years because they refuse to give me the correct bill and won't allow me to pay the normal amount only. Despite showing little interest in my case and on more than one occasion refusing to engage with me at all until months later I eventually force a reply from them, they now want to take me to court to extract the money. It is a classic case of 'computer says no'.

The fact that they're not prepared to use discretionary powers to reduce the bill doesn't make the current billing incorrect as such?

PanTheMan

WYSPECIAL said:

Where did you live when you couldn't live in the empty property?

They will probably counter argue that if you couldn't finish the renovation then you should have sold it on as it was so someone else could rather than leaving it empty.

And would you agree with them that that is a reasonable argument? Just because huge price hikes in building materials combine with a cost of living crisis means I should sell my beloved home? Just because I need to take longer to finish the property due to the aforementioned, does not mean I have to lose my home does it? It was not a choice I was making. It was circumstance.

I firstly rented a cheap flat and after two years used a room at my elderly parents house.

molerat

It is not necessarily to encourage "you" to move back into the property but to get anyone living in the property and 3.5 years could definitely be seen as an unreasonable amount of time for not getting it back into use by either completing the work or selling on to someone who could complete it and get the house back into use.  Discretion would likely cover a few extra months due to technical problems or weather conditions etc.

PanTheMan

eskbanker said:

PanTheMan said:

I have not been able to pay my council tax for the last couple of years because they refuse to give me the correct bill and won't allow me to pay the normal amount only. Despite showing little interest in my case and on more than one occasion refusing to engage with me at all until months later I eventually force a reply from them, they now want to take me to court to extract the money. It is a classic case of 'computer says no'.

The fact that they're not prepared to use discretionary powers to reduce the bill doesn't make the current billing incorrect as such?

What does 'correct' or 'incorrect' actually mean here? Is it 'correct' to extract large sums of money from citizens for 'demonstrably' no good reason whatsoever, just because some councillors haven't thought intelligently about the outcomes of their decisions?

eskbanker

PanTheMan said:

eskbanker said:

PanTheMan said:

I have not been able to pay my council tax for the last couple of years because they refuse to give me the correct bill and won't allow me to pay the normal amount only. Despite showing little interest in my case and on more than one occasion refusing to engage with me at all until months later I eventually force a reply from them, they now want to take me to court to extract the money. It is a classic case of 'computer says no'.

The fact that they're not prepared to use discretionary powers to reduce the bill doesn't make the current billing incorrect as such?

What does 'correct' or 'incorrect' actually mean here? Is it 'correct' to extract large sums of money from citizens for 'demonstrably' no good reason whatsoever, just because some councillors haven't thought intelligently about the outcomes of their decisions?

In this (debt collection) scenario, it's not about your opinion of what's moral or ethical, it's about what's legal and compliant with the council's policies, so you're perfectly entitled to take the view that the charges are beyond what you'd consider reasonable, but that won't cut any ice with a court.

flaneurs_lobster

PanTheMan said:

Despite showing little interest in my case and on more than one occasion refusing to engage with me at all until months later I eventually force a reply from them, they now want to take me to court to extract the money. It is a classic case of 'computer says no'. 

Don't think it's the computer saying 'No', more like your Local Authority saying "you owe us arrears of Council Tax".

There will be a well structured enforcement procedure in place to collect arrears, sounds like you are well into this process if you are at the Magistrates'/Sheriffs Court stage.

PanTheMan

eskbanker said:

PanTheMan said:

eskbanker said:

PanTheMan said:

I have not been able to pay my council tax for the last couple of years because they refuse to give me the correct bill and won't allow me to pay the normal amount only. Despite showing little interest in my case and on more than one occasion refusing to engage with me at all until months later I eventually force a reply from them, they now want to take me to court to extract the money. It is a classic case of 'computer says no'.

The fact that they're not prepared to use discretionary powers to reduce the bill doesn't make the current billing incorrect as such?

What does 'correct' or 'incorrect' actually mean here? Is it 'correct' to extract large sums of money from citizens for 'demonstrably' no good reason whatsoever, just because some councillors haven't thought intelligently about the outcomes of their decisions?

In this (debt collection) scenario, it's not about your opinion of what's moral or ethical, it's about what's legal and compliant with the council's policies, so you're perfectly entitled to take the view that the charges are beyond what you'd consider reasonable, but that won't cut any ice with a court.

So, you are suggesting that if the council chose to charge 10x extra per year for an empty property or 50x it wouldn't matter how ethical that was? They get to choose what they want to do and ignore government guidelines with impunity?

eskbanker

PanTheMan said:

eskbanker said:

PanTheMan said:

eskbanker said:

PanTheMan said:

I have not been able to pay my council tax for the last couple of years because they refuse to give me the correct bill and won't allow me to pay the normal amount only. Despite showing little interest in my case and on more than one occasion refusing to engage with me at all until months later I eventually force a reply from them, they now want to take me to court to extract the money. It is a classic case of 'computer says no'.

The fact that they're not prepared to use discretionary powers to reduce the bill doesn't make the current billing incorrect as such?

What does 'correct' or 'incorrect' actually mean here? Is it 'correct' to extract large sums of money from citizens for 'demonstrably' no good reason whatsoever, just because some councillors haven't thought intelligently about the outcomes of their decisions?

In this (debt collection) scenario, it's not about your opinion of what's moral or ethical, it's about what's legal and compliant with the council's policies, so you're perfectly entitled to take the view that the charges are beyond what you'd consider reasonable, but that won't cut any ice with a court.

So, you are suggesting that if the council chose to charge 10x extra per year for an empty property or 50x it wouldn't matter how ethical that was? They get to choose what they want to do and ignore government guidelines with impunity?

Sounds like a strawman to me, but in any case your 100% premium is within the published guidance?

Where a council makes a determination to charge a premium on long-term empty dwellings, it may specify different percentages for dwellings based on the length of time for which they have been empty. This enables councils to take a stepped approach, with increases over time. These include:

• up to 100% for homes empty between 1 and 5 years
• up to 200% for homes empty between 5 and 10 years
• up to 300% for homes empty for over 10 years

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-empty-homes-and-second-homes-council-tax-premiums-and-exceptions/guidance-on-the-implementation-of-the-council-tax-premiums-on-long-term-empty-homes-and-second-homes

TheMilkmansDad

I think you are letting emotions overrule facts. It's a bad situation to be in I agree. But it is what it is. I agree with that others have said.

And if Councils did start charging 10x (or 50x) there would be uproar. But this hasn't happened so is irrelevant. The double Council tax has been around for quiet a while now and is well known for empty or 2nd homes and you should have been aware of this from the start and factored in to any budgets you may have had.

Good Luck.