Council Tax concessions on second homes

[LornMowa]

AIBU to think that discounts on Council Tax should have been one of the first things to go. Surely, when many people can't afford even one home, then those people who are demonstrating that they have surplus income (by owning a holiday home) should pay full wack for their council tax on that second home.

Seewww.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lib-dems-plotting-council-tax-hike-for-second-homes-2145638.htmlthis

Second home ownership contributes negatively to housing stock in rural areas becoming available to young families.

As I said, the houses near me used to be farm labourers' cottages. They are now renovated-to-the-tits middle-class commuter homes, or virtually unused second homes.

Isn't the lack of affordability of local housing not due to outsiders buying a second home but rather the greedy people who sold their house at a premium?

Not got a second home and unlikely ever to have, however I think it is blinkered to blame the buyer rather than the seller.

Glad to see that most agree with my original post. The points that Doris makes about services being lost when they are not used is a good point. (how are the South Hams by the way, - I remember having a wonderful camping holiday on the farm of a distant relative when I was a child.)

Following on from what scaryteacher says, I would also like to propose that the 25% discount for lone adults is removed after say, 5 years for those living in properties that are too big for them. So a single person living in a three bedroomed house would be encouraged to downsize and give those with young families the chance to live in the house.

great way to punish widows and divorcees

the lack of affordable housing is due to the sheer impossibility in building in the countryside.

the default answer for any planning application is no (very difficult even on a 'brown field' site)-

those already living in an area generally oppose new building. thus they guarantee the decline of population in their area (as fewer people occupy each existing hosue), the increase in the value of the existing housing, and the resultant closure of local services.

How is taxing second homes more a way to punish divorcees and widows? Are they groups that are more likely to own second homes than others?

"great way to punish widows and divorcees"

Yes, that's why I propose allowing a concession for a period of 5 years, to give people time to get their life together before they make room for the next generation or take the hit of the full council tax on their property.

ISNT, PrematureEjoculation was responding to my additional proposal about the removal of the 25% discount for lone occupants.

my gran lived alone for twenty years - she was blind and moving would put her in a house she'd never seen. the discount is there for a reason - fewer people = less use of services.

My experience is that locals support housebuilding (where there's a suitable allocation of affordable housing in the plans). It's the second homeowners and incoming retirees who oppose it.

biscuits I don't think the blame lies with the seller, they take what they can get for a property hence my support for a fairer (more regulated admittedly) system.

Punishing divorcees and widows is an emotive view, If one person is kicking around a huge 4 bed house whilst families are stuggling for space why should they have a council tax reduction. Why not downsized? (My parents are at the moment).

As for the lack of housing being due to lack of building i disagree. Salcombe near hear in 2006 the guadian reported that 48% of it's housing stock was 2nd homes,that impacts significantly on the affordility of the remaining homes for locals, the reduce numbers pushing up the prices for the rest.

There are also plans for a new town near me (sherford) in the original plans the developers (in order to get the plans passed included a significant percentage of housing stock as affordable homes, as time has passed that number has been reduced and reducded so although new houses are being built it is in the devlopers interests to build, bigger flashier homes with a much greater mark up for the developers.

I agree, council tax on second homes should be at 100% imo.

bear in mind that people with the full discount have to show that the house is unusable by taking out all movable furniture!

I suspect that a HUGE chunk of the people claiming the discount are doing it for a short time like us: we had to move for work but have not yet sold our old home. We are paying council tax AND rent where we had to move to and are still liable for 90% of the council tax in a town we are not using until we clear the furniture out to get a bigger discount (but at the mo as we've nowhere to move it too, and a storage unit would cost nearly as much as the council tax, its still in there)

The discount for a furnished property is TINY when you consider that people paying it are not using the town much AND are paying full rates elsewhere!

the double council tax is our biggest money worry it tips us over from being okay to being on the edge of our seat (financially)

And as someone who used to live in Dartmouth I agree about the devastating effect a high level of second home ownership has on an area. I'm no sure what the answer is though.

jenaimars there is a local group rallied to oppose the building of 14 family homes in my locale...no second homers there!

in Midhurst (rural sussex near chichester) the local MP actually states specifially he opposes developments of any kind (so, obviously a popular thing with the existing resident). a quick read of recent planning applications (including one which theoretically should have been ok according to existing guidance) in the area - every single new build turned down!

if you watched that Grand Designs where woodsman Ben Law builds a wood and straw-bale house, you'd hear him say he took ten years to get permission!

existing residents hate devlopment - it i normal. people don't like change. but it happens anyway, as they see the postoffice, pub, and school shut from lack of usage ..(and oddly, at the same time still maintain new housing should not be built)

reading planning law for a place like Fulking #(south downs above brighton) you realise how bloody impossible it is to get anything built (when the pub applied for an extension - it too got a no! with the smoking ban, i don't know if that pub hs survived...)

people are getting so set in trying to preserve the places they live, theyare allowing them to stagnate.

Whoops!

I am less exercised about the single occupant discount - it applies to a whole raft of people including those starting out - a helping hand for young singles buying their first home, that's OK in my book.

Stick the second home tax up to 125% and leave the singles alone I reckon.

but ISNT, the second homes discount isn't just for people who OWN two homes, its also for people who own just one and rent another. A situation lots of people find themselves in now that it takes so long to sell and you have to go where the work is! Without it people will just be stuck unemployed where they are!

I agree that second homes should pay the full amount, but that isn't going to stop the erosion of rural communities; that is a completely different question to do with ageing populations, erosion of sustainable agricultural practices and the dominance of the supermarkets etc.

Where my parents live in the West Country, there aren't enough high paying jobs to support the cost of buying a family home; the transport infrastructure is pitiful - increasing council tax to 100% isn't going to solve that problem.

'bear in mind that people with the full discount have to show that the house is unusable by taking out all movable furniture!'

Nope, that's a 100% exemption for unoccupied and unfurnished.

I disagree about removing the 25% single occupant discount...why should someone have to live a smaller property than they may wish to?

If I had a hiatus between tenants that lasted for over 6 months, then I'd be claiming the discount too...we rent out our family home in Cornwall whilst posted abroad. We pay as much in a contribution for CTAX on our married quarter as we would for our home in (formerly) Caradon. Paying it twice would hurt.

Personally I think it should be more than 100%.This would cover how little owners contribute to the local community and also how they push up house prices in a bracket(£250 000) that are generally the only family homes people can afford. Very few people can afford to go over that price but 2nd homes are very often around that bracket.

2nd homes close schools,destroy local communities and produce a steady stream of transient tourists. All of this whilst lining the owner's pockets.It needs to be discouraged,2nd home ownership benefits only the owners and makes life difficult for a lot more. The only way to curb it is to make it expensive.By charging owners more the owners give more back to the community they leech off and locals would get more a chance of buying local property.2nd home owners cause housing problems, they should pay for it.

Owners are all too willing to use local services when needed and they're in town.

As most Tories are 2nd home owners I'll be very surprised if they do anything what so ever. They're far too busy taking away CB off of families forced to pay over £1000 a month in mortgage for a basic house thanks to 2nd home ownership.

Rant over (I live in Devon say no more)

scaryteacher, the 100% is only for the first 6 months to help people in situations like mine, or others that ordinary people find themselves stuck in for a few months. it is not indefinite. Furnished it's only 10% which is nothing really when you are paying 100% somewhere else too, its a lot

oneortwo it is usual for the tenants to pay the council tax. Some lets are all bills paid but they are a break from the norm.

yes its usual for tennants to pay bill
the all inclusive lets tend to be bedsittey rooms in shared houses. Renting a (very small) family home you'll almost always be liable for the council tax

"As most Tories are 2nd home owners I'll be very surprised if they do anything what so ever2

this is the most outrageously unsubstantiated piece of crap I've ever read on MN (ok, well almost)

do 36% of voters own a second home?

Oh I think I misread your post.

TBH if people can afford to pay one mortgage and one set of rent then an extra dob of council tax is a drop in the ocean. Seriously this is common? I don't know anyone who has done this.