Council tax charge set to double....

[Kintyre Forum News]

Interesting change from Argyll & Bute Council. Any thoughts?

Council tax charge aims to bring empty homes back into use

AS part of its efforts to increase access to affordable housing, from April next year Argyll and Bute Council will be charging double council tax on houses which have been empty for more than two years.

Bringing empty homes back into use is a key element of the local authority’s Local Housing Strategy and Argyll and Bute Council has taken a number of steps to help achieve this. The council can provide refurbishment grants and loan funding to property owners in certain circumstances, with £3m set aside for this. In addition, it has appointed an Empty Homes Officer to work with property owners and ensure they know how to access these grants and loans.

The decision to charge double council tax on houses which have been empty for over two years is an added incentive to bring more homes back into use. The double charge will also apply to properties which have been empty for one year if they are not being actively marketed for sale or rent at appropriate terms.

The double charge will be applied from 1 April 2014. Argyll and Bute Council is announcing the policy now to give owners time to do something with empty properties before the new charges take effect.

All owners who may be affected will be contacted. It is important for owners to respond within 21 days and provide accurate information – failure to do so could result in a penalty of £500 on top of the council tax bill.

Owners with second homes which are used for at least 25 days a year will not be affected.

Argyll and Bute Council’s Lead Councillor for Housing, Councillor George Freeman, said: “Empty homes can have a very negative effect on local communities. They can adversely affect the quality of life for neighbours, make it harder for people to find affordable homes locally and reduces the numbers of active households benefitting the local economy.

“We would prefer to find ways of helping owners bring empty houses back into use rather than make additional charges. That is why we are letting people know in plenty of time so that they can take steps to deal with this now which may help them to avoid the extra charges”.

“Where the new double council tax charge is applied, the council will set aside this income to benefit local areas.”

Additional information:

At 5 June 2013, there were 1,470 properties in Argyll and Bute which were classed as ‘unoccupied’ and where the new charge could potentially apply – unless they are occupied before April 2014.

In addition, there are almost 1,000 more properties where the council has written to owners to check on their occupancy status, because council tax bills are sent to a different address.

[MacMel]

Simply theft. Taking money from those who are thought able to afford it under the guise of helping the homeless.
If the council wants to home people it should build council houses or compulsory purchase back those it sold when it had no right to do so at stupid prices.
Won't actually result in much change, those who have empty property generally have it for some reason or other and a change in tax, that is probably avoidable anyway, will make little difference.

[Ship called Dignity]

Simply theft. Taking money from those who are thought able to afford it under the guise of helping the homeless.
If the council wants to home people it should build council houses or compulsory purchase back those it sold when it had no right to do so at stupid prices.
Won't actually result in much change, those who have empty property generally have it for some reason or other and a change in tax, that is probably avoidable anyway, will make little difference.

Simply for debating purposes only MacMel - not getting at your post, just to get a yarn going

I thought the same initially when I heard about the double charge being introduced but after reading the article I'm starting to think it's maybe not a bad move. I purchase my house, take care of it etc, yet the house next to me is a "holiday home" that the owners only use once a year. They don't bother too much about the house and let it become run down and as a result our properties don't look as good as they should. Worse, still they decide not to bother coming on holiday for a few years and let it fall into a state of disrepair. Meanwhile the value of my well kept house (or any in the area) goes down through no fault of my own. Is that fair? (again, just to get debate going )

[Beachcomber]

Presumably the council have consulted lawyers about this punitive action as I can see a lot of people taking it to court.

Does a holiday home that's only occupied for a few weeks of the year count as unoccupied, for the council's purposes?

[andywebb]

Presumably the council have consulted lawyers about this punitive action as I can see a lot of people taking it to court.

Does a holiday home that's only occupied for a few weeks of the year count as unoccupied, for the council's purposes?

Surely the statement in the first post clarifies your question:

Owners with second homes which are used for at least 25 days a year will not be affected.

Or am I missing something? To define a holiday home must be difficult. I mean you could live in Glasgow but spend your weekends in Machrihanish, as an escape from city life. Would that be your second home or holiday home? If you only went once a month then technically you fall short of the requirement and would have to pay.

[Hume]

There will be a lot of £500 penalties being issued if 1,470 letters requiring a three week response are going to unoccupied properties!

I can see this costing more to operate then the revenue it might generate. How is it really going to be possible to police the 25 day rule?

Should we not be taxing the people who use public services rather than their properties anyway?

[WC1]

This looks like a good idea in theory. But where are all the people coming from to fill these unoccupied houses and flats? It strikes me that if there were actually a significant demand for tenancies in Argyll and Bute they would already be occupied. After all, it can't be in the interests of the owners to have their properties sitting empty. Imposing this massive extra charge may create an incentive to the property owner to make tenancies available, but are there enough people out there to take them up? Filling around 1400 empty properties - and maybe another 1000 over and above that - is going to be a tall order against a background of population decline across most parts of Argyll and Bute.

[MacMel]

Ship called Dignity,
Quite agree that's unacceptable by the absentee owner but it isn't the councils job to police property upkeep by stealth.
The devaluation of properties by others ( eg HS2 and untidy neighbours ) isn't much to do with council tax.

Council tax should be used for what it is purported to be for not for attempted manipulation of the population.
It seems to have bypassed the decision makers in this instance that the owners of unoccupied properties don't actually use much of the provided services so if all properties were occupied then the use of those services and the costs would rise - without extra income. That sort of makes the case for a poll tax which puts costs directly proportionate to usage - discuss

[Rockape]

It's a lovely thought that, as a result of these charges, the owners of said properties will upgrade them, develop, improve, and make them attractive and available for decent, working, respectable, professional people and families........Why do I suspect instead that we will simply see even more 'slum' properties for rent, attracting more of the undesirables to live in Campbeltown, with the intention of 'leaving their old life behind them' but instead merely bringing their problems to our wee community.

Or, am I just a raging pessimist?!

[argylltourist]

Since when did Argyll&Bute become Campbeltown?

Across this vast council area there are numerous properties abandoned, so this is a good initiative to try to rectify the lack of housing in some places.

I say..bring it on!!

[MacMel]

Just received one of the letters from A&B council - as our council tax is billed to our primary address.
They are asking for retrospective dates when we were in residence. As it happens this is easy enough and well covers the 25 days but it is rather intrusive. Lots of people will not have records and may be close to the "limit" anyway. The letter does also tell us that we may be entitled to a backdated reduction in our council tax as it may be a second home. We will be claiming that backdated reduction as suggested so this effort to extort money will end up costing the council instead. We had taken the view that it was a contribution to the area that we could afford so didn't claim the reduction - not any longer

Also, the declaration on the form indicates that any changes (25 day occupancy etc.) that occur within any ROLLING 12 month period must be notified - how is that fair? Clearly at a some times each year it is likely that the ROLLING total may well dip below. This is grossly unfair and intended to trap the unwary especially as it carries a threat of £500 for ignoring it.