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

sheramber

Details here of what is required for a property to be removed from the council tax list.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/removing-a-property-from-the-council-tax-list

you need to equest this beforehand

lincroft1710

sheramber said:

Details here of what is required for a property to be removed from the council tax list.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/removing-a-property-from-the-council-tax-list

you need to equest this beforehand

I'm ex VOA


As the OP has now moved back into the property), there can be no deletion. The OP has "missed the boat", they needed to have applied when the property was vacant. But from experience, it is doubtful their application would have been successful

Jude57

I'll preface this by saying that I worked on public sector land and property matters, appearing in the Lands Tribunal, then was a Council Tax recovery officer for over a decade before returning to criminal law. However, nothing that follows is to be interpreted as legal advice and is based solely on my own experience.

For the OP's information, the Magistrates court can only decide whether you are liable for Council Tax or not liable. Non-payment of Council Tax is a strict liability offence in that you are either liable to pay and have failed to do so in accordance with legislation and regulation, OR you are not liable for Council Tax. Discounts, exemptions, reductions, banding, payment arrangements and other such matters are not decided by the Magistrates and are outside their powers. Those are the purview of either the Council or the VOA and any appeal against their decisions must follow the appropriate channels.

If you intend to sue the Council you would do well to be able to say what exactly you are suing them for. From what you have posted so far, it's that you disagree with the Council using their Statutory discretionary powers to charge multiples of Council Tax on unoccupied properties. It's vanishingly unlikely, in my opinion, that a Judge would rule against established legislation and, frankly, a Judge doing so would almost certainly be overturned on Appeal which the Council would, in my opinion, seek to do. Be aware also that Legal Aid will not be available to you for such a case. You might be able to find a 'No-win, No-fee' firm to represent you (though I wouldn't be confident of that) and in such circumstances, be very sure that you understand the terms of the contract because they usually include your having to pay costs in full if you decide at some point to withdraw from the case. I'd go further and say that very few solicitors understand  Council Tax legislation so you might struggle to find anyone with the necessary expertise.

You clearly feel aggrieved at the situation and I do have some sympathy with your position but you must understand that the Council has a statutory, fiduciary duty to maximise income from any legitimate source. The money raised doesn't go into Councillors' pockets and certainly not into the pockets of the front line staff. It goes either to providing local services or direct to Central Government. You could lodge a formal complaint with the Council, the procedure should be available on their website. There's a strict timescale for them to respond and if you remain aggrieved, you COULD then refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman though again, they won't order a Council NOT to use their legally sanctioned discretionary powers. Recovery of the debt will not usually be suspended while such a complaint is investigated but you could certainly ask for that to be done.

So as irritated as you are by the Council's decision to charge multiples of Council Tax in your case, it seems to  me to have been entirely reasonable and proportionate. I don't see any reason why the Council would reverse its decision and I simply don't think, on the basis of what you've posted, that you have a case that a Judge would find in your favour.

MiserlyMartin

Council Tax is one of the most expensive things about living in the UK and judging by quite a lot of comments here many of you feel that it is completely justified to charge such a tax, even on a house that is not in a habitable condition. It's amazing how, even though every year the tax goes up and services go down, people get on their high horse about the OP who was just trying to do the best for himself and his house, not helped at all by the attitude of his local government.

sheramber

lincroft1710 said:

sheramber said:

Details here of what is required for a property to be removed from the council tax list.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/removing-a-property-from-the-council-tax-list

you need to equest this beforehand

I'm ex VOA


As the OP has now moved back into the property), there can be no deletion. The OP has "missed the boat", they needed to have applied when the property was vacant. But from experience, it is doubtful their application would have been successful

Which my last sentence covered

eskbanker

MiserlyMartin said:

Council Tax is one of the most expensive things about living in the UK and judging by quite a lot of comments here many of you feel that it is completely justified to charge such a tax, even on a house that is not in a habitable condition. It's amazing how, even though every year the tax goes up and services go down, people get on their high horse about the OP who was just trying to do the best for himself and his house, not helped at all by the attitude of his local government.

You're falling into the same trap as OP - as mentioned earlier, subjective opinions about whether it's justifiable/sensible/ethical/moral or whatever are of no particular relevance to the situation, when the matter at hand is whether or not the council is complying with its legal obligations, as this would be OP's only realistic angle to challenge them, once any appeal process has been exhausted.

marcia_

MiserlyMartin said:

Council Tax is one of the most expensive things about living in the UK and judging by quite a lot of comments here many of you feel that it is completely justified to charge such a tax, even on a house that is not in a habitable condition. It's amazing how, even though every year the tax goes up and services go down, people get on their high horse about the OP who was just trying to do the best for himself and his house, not helped at all by the attitude of his local government.

 The op hasn't stated why they believe it was not habitable. The council have a strict criteria on what makes a home uninhabitable. Not having the amenities you prefer or not being decorated or furnished to a standard isn't covered. 

Grumpy_chap

MiserlyMartin said:

Council Tax is one of the most expensive things about living in the UK and judging by quite a lot of comments here many of you feel that it is completely justified to charge such a tax, even on a house that is not in a habitable condition. It's amazing how, even though every year the tax goes up and services go down, people get on their high horse about the OP who was just trying to do the best for himself and his house, not helped at all by the attitude of his local government.

I don't see anyone that has commented on whether it is, or is not, justified to charge Council Tax.  These forums are all about helping people understand the actual rules as they exist, not whether the rules are reasonable / justified / fair.  To comment on anything beyond the application of the actual rules as they exist would be veering into a discussion of policy and political matters.  The simple fact is the OP appears to have been correctly charged the empty / second property premium.

saajan_12

MiserlyMartin said:

Council Tax is one of the most expensive things about living in the UK and judging by quite a lot of comments here many of you feel that it is completely justified to charge such a tax, even on a house that is not in a habitable condition. It's amazing how, even though every year the tax goes up and services go down, people get on their high horse about the OP who was just trying to do the best for himself and his house, not helped at all by the attitude of his local government.

This isn't a debate about the principle of council tax, what residents and owners get as a return, how efficiently councils are run, etc. That's a much broader debate and OP has said they have no problem paying CT. However on the premise that councils will need to be funded by the residents and owners a certain amount in total, should that be concentrated on empty home owners or should everyone else's payment go up a little to compensate? 

Yes I think its fully justified to charge a property that could be made habitable by now. Whether due to inefficiency, lack of funds or choice, the reality is we can't always have the luxury of holding onto a house that could be used indefinitely. Its not on the local govt to help a non resident who is holding on to a property which could be used. 

silverwhistle

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.

Family? Are you saying you moved back to one room in your parent's house with a family? 

There are too many questions here from posters which you are leaving unanswered. Why couldn't you live in the house, what was the actual state of repair? Was there any evidence to show the council that the property was being worked on?

As I have said previously, it is a policy that does the very opposite of encouraging me to reoccupy the property.

It's a known policy, the fact that you didn't plan for it is not their concern. They want someone to occupy the property, it doesn't have to be you. We all get caught out by unexpected costs, I'm having work done myself at the moment, and glad I allowed a generous contingency. As someone else has pointed out, other bodies aren't going to reduce their charges because of your financial embarassment or unwillingness to borrow to get the project finished within a reasonable timescale.