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

gt94sss2

PanTheMan said:

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

And you paid council tax on the cheap flat?

That would make your other property your second home..

Woodstok2000

PanTheMan said:

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.

To help answer this, can you confirm your local authority and a timeline of actions (e.g. when did you vacate the property, when did they apply the charge, when did you move back in, etc.). 

Are they charging you for a second home, or for an empty property?

What were the government guideline exemptions you mentioned above which you feel applied to your case?

WYSPECIAL

PanTheMan said:

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. 

It's a policy to discourage people from holding on to empty properties that they are not living in.

 If you don't want to sell and know that it is going to cost you double to leave it empty then surely that is a good incentive to reoccupy?

sheramber

Your house was empty for over 3 years. 

The government guidance states

You may not have to pay the premium for up to 12 months if:

• you recently received a grant of probate (or letters of administration) for the empty home
• the empty home is being marketed for sale or to rent
• the empty home is undergoing major repairs or structural alternations

If you are being charged double council tax for 2 years then you have been given the above 12 months grace for the empty property.

You still have to pay the standard  council tax for that 12 months. 

What part of that are you disputing? 

As you have not paid the council tax you cannot claim that paying it prevented you buying materials to finish your refurbishment. 

MiserlyMartin

I'm sorry to hear of your story. The council have been very stupid about this. Couldn't you argue that if the property was not fit for habitation (as it clearly wasn't because you couldn't live there) it was not an 'empty home'? 

That is what the double council tax is for - empty homes that people could live in and don't. Not unhabitable houses

marcia_

PanTheMan said:

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. 

 How was the property uninhabitable? Was it watertight? 

EnPointe

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?

m your  response is , frankly, arrogant and entitled . If you  behave in this manner with  Council staff   it;s not suprsing they are  playing  by a strictly by the book in terpretation of their policies 

EnPointe

PanTheMan said:

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. 

You would be well minded to  learn what Guidelines actually mean... 

EnPointe

PanTheMan said:

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. 

looks like someone wants  to have their cake and  eat it ... 

Grumpy_chap

Local Authorities can disregard a property that is uninhabitable for a period of time - usually only around 6 months.  Let's be honest - that is generous time where someone is truly focused on restoring a property to use as a house could be knocked down and rebuilt from scratch in that time.

The OP has been unable to complete the refurbishment and move into the property for 3 1/2 years.
Either the OP never had the resources to do this project meaning the house remains uninhabitable for all this time in which case the OP would be best to cut their losses and sell to a developer who can turn the property around in a timely fashion.
Or, the OP is setting a high level of "perfection" before they are willing to move back in but the average person would find the property perfectly suitable, in which case the property being vacant is a choice.

Which is it OP?

Either way, the Local Authority appear to be wholly correct in applying the second property / empty property surcharge.  Maybe that action will be the prompt to force the OP to make a decision on getting the job done or selling up.  A long-term vacant property is good for no-one.