The local council for my empty house in England want to scrap 50% discount and only give 10% discount AND class it as a second home even though its not, its my main residence when I'm not abroad. Haven't actually worked abroad due to ill health so chose to raise the new family instead living on savings until we decided whether or not to come back to England, this ruling now forces us to sell the house in England and face an uncertain future with the madness that is the UK housing market. or have I got the wrong end of the stick? Seems to me people trying to make a honest go of it are easy targets, Im tempted to come back to England anyway and claim benefits and have the damn council tax paid for me.
I never realised they have always been classing it as a second home. It was rented, it fell empty in November and apparently the market is saturated in the area, Ive gone back 1 month at a time in the past and happily paid 100% council tax, some people pay nothing and still live in their house. Im not using any resources, I would gladly opt out of Police and Fire support, the house is checked over and insured, these extra expenses are the straw to break the camels back, just trying to do the decent thing not make any bucks.
That's not necessarily the case, but it depends on what you tell them. It's just that the "second home" classification is a new one, and would previously have been indistinguishable from "no-one's main residence".
If it's genuinely unoccupied between tenants (i.e. you are actively trying to rent it out) then you may still get the 50% rate, or if also unfurnished, the 100% discount for a limited period.
If you come back for a month at a time, this fits the template of it being a second home, so you can't really complain.
Despite that, I must say that 90% is a bit steep. I'd have thought it would make more sense to set the rate at or just under the single occupant rate of 75%.
The market may be saturated if you're trying to charge at-or-above-market rent, but I'll bet if you offered a hefty discount it would be easier and quicker to find a tenant. Clearly, in your position, you could afford to give a 100% rent discount and still come out better off because you'd be losing the CT liability.
You can't, but even if you could opt out of fire and police cover, your insurance premiums would go up probably by more than you'd save, if you could even get insurance cover at all.
I did reduce it by 100 per month and offered it as furnished (or unfurnished if they wait for me to come and move it) I would happily stay with family when I come back for holidays if it means not having it classed as a second home, I thought 50% was steep, it certainly is a liability, I think the equity in a bank would be better and if housing prices still go crazy I'll commute by plane when I'm fit to work again.
In any case, it seems wrong to claim to take up residence for a month and then bugger off again. That is fairly self-evidently a matter of visiting, not of actually changing one's PPR. No wonder they consider it a second home. It's because it is.
I only own one house not two, in between tenants I usually come back and do some decoration, the garden etc, the longest I actually stayed was 2 weeks, I dont even have to stay there, family with spare rooms are only a couple of miles down the road. What's wrong with 'buggering off' again when your other half is pregnant abroad and is the only one earning money? she prefers to give birth in her own country and prefers to keep her job under the current circumstances, she cant do it alone, is all I ask is that my house is saved if we decided to eventually come to England. The government and or council are not letting me save my house by calling it my second home and charging me more to keep it empty than the guy next door pays to live in his. If I was taking the piss, like you seem to suggest, I would just return with family and claim all the benefits under the sun, either that or I could actually by a second home, then what? they call it my third home?
It's a question of how many homes you *have* (as opposed to *own*) and, if more than one, then of which one is your main home.
Whether you own or rent them is irrelevant. If you were, say, renting the English house (as tenant), you would still be paying Council Tax on it.
In your case, your first home clearly is abroad, even if you don't own it. Therefore your English home would have to be your second, but only if it is your home at all. If you are renting it out, it is obviously someone else's home, and if it's between tenants, then it's no-one's home.
I think the main reason why councils are choosing to reduce the discount on "second homes" (i.e. houses reserved by their owners/tenants for their own exclusive use for example during holidays) is because they want to discourage "ghost towns" of houses which are empty for most of the year, and also because it reduces availability of affordable housing.
I would have thought that if you could demonstrate that (although you will at some point wish to make the place your main home once more) you are actively seeking to find tenants, that they would not classify it as a second home. Evidence that there have in fact been (council tax paying) tenants there before should work in your favour, as should any evidence that you have actively been seeking tenants (e.g. by advertising or by listing it with a letting agency), but unfortunately the fact that you have "volunteered" to assume resident status for a month at a time would work against you. What you should argue is that this was a mistake on your part and that in fact you were resident in Spain (or wherever) the whole time.
It's not the buggering off as such that's the problem, it's the pretending you are changing your main residence when in fact all you're doing is visiting.
If the house is in Flintshire - and I believe anywhere in Wales - you pay
100% on second homes.
If you live overseas then it is your second home as you spend the majority of the year in your first home - it doesn't matter whether you own it, rent it or get it provided.
If your wife lives in the UK then she can claim it as her main house and claim 25% reduction as single occupancy, but then the council will claim you live there as well and are only temporarily overseas and charge 100%. They get you both ways, just be thankful you are in England not Wales.
The Australian Government actually gave me LAFHA (Living away from home allowance), and as far as they are concerned I would be returning 'home' after the 4 year visa is up, so there are 2 instances already that my house in England is still my home, and Australian tax authorities are pretty tough (but fair), they also do not look favorably on me trying to purchase a house in OZ, its not impossible but was told it wasn't worth looking into because of the tax allowance available and hassle involved.
fair enough, but I can prove I was returning after 4 years, hardly a long time in ghost town terms ;)
I've never actually registered or paid a month CT at full rate, it was just what I had allowed for and was happy to sign up for if there was a knock at the door and I answered in my Pyjamas. The agent also has more control over when my house is available than I do, another thing, how the hell can this property be classed as a tenants first home one day and then my second home the next day? this is not a tax on my house but a personal circumstances tax. I've always been of the opinion the Poll tax was fairer and this really concretes over it for me, you get taxed for trying to better yourself, and handouts if you do the reverse.
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.