To object to paying two lots of council tax

[googlenut]

We pay really high rates on our own property. We have a rental property - a small flat- which we have been unable to rent. We have just been faced with a £650 council tax bill. If we had students in it the flat would be exempt, if we had one person in it we would get 25% discount but instead we have to pay the full amount when it is empty. I just can't see the fairness of this - but willing to listen if someone can explain the justice of it.

googlenut
the main offshore driver is in London.
The most damage caused by BTL is in provincial cities.

Case in point : the house behind me. The owners bought it for £20 k - but they still ramped the rent by 5% every year even though their costs were unchanged

pure profiteering at the expense of the 70% of the country who can now not afford a home.

Speaking as a former student landlord, council tax should be ramped RIGHT up for ANY property where the tenants themselves are not contributing to the area

And others are as well and don't see how that helps those who are renting now. What you will get more of is landlords being unwilling to do any work at all to properties because they can't afford to. Lose lose situation it seems to me.

For capital appreciation googlenut, the same reason why we have had years of 120% and interest only mortgages.

I would say TheChandler that whilst it may be true that uni's get preferential treatment, the 'market reality' has been on the back of cheap credit and if there is a profit to be made expect a large competitor to enter the market and undercut you. Business 101 really.

Anything done to cool the housing market isn't a bad thing. House prices are to blame for a lot of economic hardship in this country. I'm sorry for individuals in negative equity but house prices are too high.

Justanotherlurker I would say TheChandler that whilst it may be true that uni's get preferential treatment, the 'market reality' has been on the back of cheap credit and if there is a profit to be made expect a large competitor to enter the market and undercut you. Business 101 really.

I would suggest its far more complex than that, and that the market is pretty much foreclosed and anti-competitive, which is one of the indirect causes of price inflation. Standard economic test to apply would be the SSNIP test, which it would fail immediately - the whole system is being changed so as to exclude effective competition, and local authorities are increasingly divesting their activities into acting as private undertakings, or have connections to private undertakings which arguably benefit them.

Hopefully it will bring an end to the amateur BTL industry. I certainly feel sorry for the tenants of these 'accidental' landlords - imagine if you were being treated by an accidental nurse or driven by an accidental driver. But apparently it's fine for housing to be managed and supplied by 'accident'.

googlenut but that is not the only aim of the policy, it's also to minimise time empty between lets/renovations/sales etc. by giving you another financial motive to move quickly doing it all. This is good for the community, it also ensures the income is regular and predictable for the council.

As it's in a student population area, then a local council or housing association will almost certainly will lease it from you and give you a guaranteed no hassle income without the CT or any other costs.

Also if the current BTL have to sell up at a loss, the same will happen as with other businesses that lose money, the assets will be released to others who can make a better go of it - they'll probably still be letting it out as that's not many other options to do with a house.

My local council had a survey when looking at how to treat empty properties with regards to council tax. I've never seen such support for a local council proposal, something like 97% people wanted to see an end to empty property discounts.

Tondelayo - that is the single most ignorant post on this thread.

The bit that landlords forget is that every empty property is NOT a saving to the council

because the council has to pay for B&B for a family,
has the costs of people who move regularly
unstable school placements
changing GP and dentist surgeries
healthcare / social services
and the rest

settled populations are cheaper to manage at local and national level

BTL is an impediment to that

I thought tondelayo made an interesting point actually.

Bad landlords can kill, maim, cause illness or make tenants' lives a misery in all manner of other weird and wonderful ways.

It absolutely shouldn't be something that anybody with a spare inheritance and a greedy streak can set themselves up to do without regulation.

googlenut
Sorry but tondelayo has a point - gas safety certs were brought in after lots of horrible deaths
HMO certs are getting more common after problems with sewers and vermin

good landlords work with their tenants to maintain the property
bad landlords allow rooves to deteriorate and drains to collapse

Being a good or bad landlord has nothing to do with being an 'accidental landlord'. The worst landlord I have ever met had loads of properties and had been doing it for years. His tenants were living in squalor but he asked no questions so they became tenants. He wasn't an accidental landlord - he was very calculated. I think it is deeply ignorant to say that accidental landlords are amateurs. Many do everything by the book and create nice properties. It's the multiple owners that scrimp on things

SaucyJack Bad landlords can kill, maim, cause illness or make tenants' lives a misery in all manner of other weird and wonderful ways

But someone setting themselves up as a "letting agent" doesn't miraculously acquire skills or a relevant qualification either...

TheChandler no, but they do have to become members of a redress scheme, so their mistakes can be more readily dealt with.

Your not an accidental landlord though googlenut, you admitted so up thread.

Chandler I'm wording my reply but have a sicky DS

Many do everything by the book and create nice properties.

Many don't

It's the multiple owners that scrimp on things

Again some do and some don't, presenting someone who only has a couple of properties as an exemplary landlord is a fallacy.

But so is claiming that accidental landlords are rubbish

OP
Either fill your property
or sell it for somebody else to occupy

unoccupied properties in a crowded county are an offence to the economy

Again, as your obviously ignoring me, but you have admitted your not an accidental landlord so why are you trying to muddy the waters?

No Googlenut - you're ignorant for saying you would listen to the reasons why you have to pay council tax on your empty second property. And then refusing to.

googlenut

my last landlord was an "accidental landlord" she was brilliant, my current landlord is someone who is building a portfolio they are also (at the moment quite good)

My experiences have ranged from seriously neglectful to fantastic (lots of lets supporting a whole community of workers) I couldn't give a toss if the landlord is accidental or not, I do care that they treat me and their property with respect and pay all of the related monies to the correct authorities as frankly I can do without the hassle that this has caused in the past.

If you want to let properties then do so but don't whine about the costs incurred by it.

And as an aside don't think for one moment that you are doing your tenants a favour.

Consider this - you're renting your home from a landlord. Who would you prefer?

Someone who is committed long term, a professional, experienced with an understanding of the market and the regulatory requirements.

Or someone who doesn't really want to be a landlord, has no experience of property management, uncertain cash flow and is looking for the first opportunity to offload their 'investment'.