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

PanTheMan

flaneurs_lobster said:

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.

Of course there is a well structured enforcement procedure in place. Can you imagine a council not having such? That is not the point here. 

And no, the point is not my council just being owed arrears. I have always paid my council tax without issue. In this case it is about the council not allowing me to pay my council tax without the additional 100% applied and the fact that they have no interest in following government guidelines. 

PanTheMan

molerat said:

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.

But not a cost of living crisis and post pandemic increases in building materials? That means I just have to lose my beloved long term home does it? That's reasonable?

Woodstok2000

PanTheMan said:

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.

If the house was truly uninhabitable, you could have applied for council tax to be suspended, but it's a high bar. Why couldn't you live in the house? Did you try for a council tax suspension?

WYSPECIAL

PanTheMan said:

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.

Whether I agree or disagree with it being reasonable is of no significance.
It is a policy in place to discourage people from leaving homes empty regardless of the reason why they have been left empty.
If the extra you owe them is in excess of £3000 per year as you stated then after 3.5 years you presumably owe about £10k? Given that most councils are strapped for cash that would be a lot for them to write off on a discretionary basis.

born_again

PanTheMan said:

molerat said:

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.

But not a cost of living crisis and post pandemic increases in building materials? That means I just have to lose my beloved long term home does it? That's reasonable?

Think about it another way. Many people are homeless & while it is your building. Someone else could have bought it & turned it into a home for a family. You could then, when funds were in a better position bought another house.
This is the reason why councils are imposing the excess for empty houses.

So is it reasonable. Many people think so, as it is taking a empty property & putting it back to it's proper use. 

sheramber

What anybody here thinks about the policy won’t change the fact that if you continue not to pay you could have possessions seized and sold to cover the debt, have a deduction from  on your  earnings or benefits, have a charge placed on your house. 

Bankruptcy is also possible 

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-01-13/23550

PanTheMan

WYSPECIAL said:

PanTheMan said:

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.

Whether I agree or disagree with it being reasonable is of no significance.
It is a policy in place to discourage people from leaving homes empty regardless of the reason why they have been left empty.
If the extra you owe them is in excess of £3000 per year as you stated then after 3.5 years you presumably owe about £10k? Given that most councils are strapped for cash that would be a lot for them to write off on a discretionary basis.

As I have said previously, it is a policy that does the very opposite of encouraging me to reoccupy the property. I have shown this very clearly in my argument above, so I'm not sure what you are missing. It in fact takes money away from me that would otherwise be used to get the property back in use. It is as simple as that. 

saajan_12

PanTheMan said:

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.

They may have shared the broader rationale for applying taxation focused on certain people (in this case people owning empty properties) but then that rationale is reduced to a set of rules which everyone must abide by, even if it doesn't encourage every one of those people to move back in / sell / let. 

PanTheMan said:

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.

Ultimately, yes. What if circumstances worsened further eg no options to live elsewhere, no money for bills, you'd have had to move in or sell your property anyway. Or should the council stop charging CT entirely? Should the mortgage co forgive the loan? Should the insurers cover it for free?

You don't say what the renovations were but in light of the impending double taxation, you may have chosen live with parents sooner and diverted rent money to the renovation, or do up enough to make it habitable and then work on the rest while living there, or take out a loan, or do up to a basic but livable standard, let it while you save up and then improve to your taste, etc etc.

This tax is just an extra bill that breaks the camels back perhaps but in principle its the same thing. There's no infinite right to keep a property if you really can't afford it. 

PanTheMan

born_again said:

PanTheMan said:

molerat said:

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.

But not a cost of living crisis and post pandemic increases in building materials? That means I just have to lose my beloved long term home does it? That's reasonable?

Think about it another way. Many people are homeless & while it is your building. Someone else could have bought it & turned it into a home for a family. You could then, when funds were in a better position bought another house.
This is the reason why councils are imposing the excess for empty houses.

So is it reasonable. Many people think so, as it is taking a empty property & putting it back to it's proper use. 

Or, by not taking huge amounts of extra money from me, I could spend that money on finishing the property, allowing myself and my family to move back into their home. Are you suggesting there are homeless people who would be buying my home if it was put on the market?!

PanTheMan

sheramber said:

What anybody here thinks about the policy won’t change the fact that if you continue not to pay you could have possessions seized and sold to cover the debt, have a deduction from  on your  earnings or benefits, have a charge placed on your house. 

Bankruptcy is also possible 

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-01-13/23550

Thankyou, but I'm fully aware of that. My initial question was to find out if anyone had been successful in challenging such a case in or out of court.