Second Home owners doing sad faces in the press about council tax increase

[CornishTickler]

Just read an article online about the second home council tax increase and there are couples with sad faces saying it was without warning and is against their human rights! It wasn't, its been in the press and talked about by councils for over a year. It wasn't a surprise, areas with high levels of second homes knew it was coming.

I for one am glad about the tax. Our village has been destroyed by second home owners for years. A lot are badly maintained and empty for 80% of the year.

The argument that they bring extra income is also misleading. Most true second home owners who only visit a couple of times a year don't contribute much to the economy but are very vocal in interfering in local issues to the detriment of actual residents. One example (I'm not joking on this) was to oppose the planning of a local business that would benefit the community with jobs and tax revenue because of the endangered newts! luckily common sense prevailed but honestly they got very vocal and aggressive about it. It was mainly because they didn't want it to impact their second home.

Holiday makers bring revenue. Absentee second home owners do not.

Hopefully the second home tax increase will increase council tax revenue and help to support our community and vulnerable people.

why could the government not step in & have more social housing for renters?

Someone upthread mentioned other countries. Isn't Spain looking at up to 100% tax for non EU residents?

Sarcasm obviously

100% with you @CornishTickler Cry me a fecking river! 😢

IMO, NO-ONE, should own/occupy more than one home. So if you own a property, that should be your only home. If you rent, you should not own a home as well. Everyone/every family/every couple should have just ONE home.

It boils my piss when I see these property programmes on TV, and you get these people coming along saying they want to add another property (or two) to their 'portfolio!' No, just get in the bin. How DARE people own multiple properties that they rent out for often exhorbitant rents, and then do fuck all maintenance to them (as many landlords do!) How dare they, when some people have no home to call their own, and/or cannot afford the sky high rents?!

Every additional home that people have got should have a compulsory purchase order on them. The council should buy the properties off the 'landlords' for the price they paid for them, and add them to their housing stock.

Drop to what level?

Say a cottage is 500k now in a small village. Someone on NMW, a couple both earning that, what can they afford, around 200k? You think there will be drops of that magnitude? Over 50% drop? You're dreaming

This is a bit of chicken and egg debate though, isn’t it? What @Davros is saying is that the properties were going empty and were snapped up at already cheap prices originally because the MW/0hours/seasonal employment culture had already priced those buyers out of the market. The answer was for local councils to have bought some of them up to add to social housing stock and then rent them? Housing stock is low in many areas because of right to buy accesses of past years, with workers buying when wages were higher, many ex-council properties now being owned as second homes and only available for rent in the private or holiday sector.

I think the issue is actually a dire lack of social housing combined with poorly paid employment opportunities. Whilst I think it’s fine to pay a bit more on CT for 2nd homes, and would have no issue with it myself, I also don’t think it will do a thing to fix the situation. A week’s rent from a property as an Air BnB will likely cover that charge (a 3/4 bed cottage can be rented at £3-4k+ in the school holidays) and second home owners may simply put up holiday rents to absorb that cost. I think this may mean local rents may actually increase, rather than decrease. Time will tell.

councils should compulsorily buy properties? Is this communist China? How the hell is that going to work - even if, in your fantasy world, the councils have the funds available to buy any properties at all?

There’s a housing shortage. The houses could then be sold - hopefully to people that actually want to work and live there, contributing to the economy and local community. It isn’t the politics of envy. It’s the politics of not being able to afford a home in the place where your family have lived for generations, or having to live 30 miles from where you work because there are no homes for sale in the nearest town. Very often these houses aren’t rented out. They just lie empty apart from the 6 weekends a year and the week in July the owner manages to visit. It impacts on the viability of schools, services, and businesses that would genuinely benefit the people who live there. High concentrations of home owners in holiday places create little more than affluent ghettos.

I would have some areas where they are banned, a bit if sympathy if it is short term, say a year or two then the house becomes sole home, not otherwise.

It should be illegal to own more than one property, never mind having to pay more tax.

I’d love a second home by the coast but would never buy a proper home because you can see what damage this does to communities. I would buy a holiday lodge at one of the parks though as that’s not depriving someone of a permanent home.

Maybe this is what should/could be encouraged?

You cannot get a mortgage without a regular income (or large assets for security).

House prices in villages in quite a number of parts of the country dropped to less than the price of a modest car - they still didn't sell because there was no local work. Employment is a much bigger issue than the tiny number of wealthy second home owners.

Even if it were possible to legislate against second home ownership (and good luck trying) you will still have empty houses where there is no good employment.

A lot of these places dont have decent transport to anywhere either, how on earth would people get to and from work if they're not drivers, and half the time these holiday cottages have no parking.

No it isn’t. It’s affordable housing which second home owners hoover up. Young professionals with regular income can’t buy where I live.

Hope they keep upping the council tax on second homes.

We sold my mum's house after she died. It took over a year. After that first year was up we had to pay council tax on it.

Nothing at all funny about this, your attitude stinks.The uk is now one of the most nature depleted countries in the world.

Clutching at straws and ridiculous. I wouldn’t rent a holiday cottage with zero parking or bus routes. Properties with parking and bus routes are exactly the type being hoovered up.

They are v.rich so an extra 2-3-4k per year is nothing to them. Price of a handbag. Also they might not own the homes but rather own a company that owns them. In wealth world things change.
People just bought holiday homes because they came into money eg inheritance,stock market, bonuses and it was a good investment. Even better if you could make your money back renting. Locals sold up as prices rose. Prices aren't going back down but people who own a 250k cottage and a house elsewhere can afford extra council tax. They just see it as wrong whereas many of us just see it as you can afford it. Bit like complaining your £200k car is only worth £90k after 3 years and depreciation.

I had this debate with a friend who bought a holiday lodge in the same area as we bought our second home. She said I was “selfish”. But, I paid second home stamp duty, she didn’t pay any. I pay council tax and now double council tax. She doesn’t pay any.
I have a cleaner/gardener etc, and spend 3-4 nights a week there, using local shops and amenities. She doesn’t, she goes maybe once every 2 months for a weekend and takes food from home with her, never eats out. Financially we are contributing far more to the local economy.

Not in the areas I know. Second homes registered to outsiders are typically larger. The smaller former tied cottages/factory cottages are in the hands of local owners but used for holiday lets/asset growth.

As I said - the problem is much more complex and variable by area than "evil Londoners buying all the houses". If you have never come across property prices plummeting to less than the price of a car then I suggest you visit some of the former mining/industrial villages in stunningly beautiful areas of the country, popular with tourists but with no work.

What would happen if this house was in a county that charges two or three times standard council tax for second homes? Would it be classed as a second home?

Ok, lets take St Ives as an example of taking the ‘no one should own a second home’ to its ultimate conclusion..

Chat GPT tells me that 25% of residential properties in St Ives are owned by second home owners. I would think that this is one of the highest levels in the country. Also that tourism provides £85m a year in St Ives alone, of the £180m in Cornwall overall.

Replace all of the holidaymakers with full time residents and the spend on tourism in St Ives is likely to reduce by 70%, keeping only hotels and guesthouses. How many local businesses would survive the equivalent drop in turnover? Then what exactly are all those people living in the properties that were previously second homes going to be doing to earn a living and pay their mortgages? Because most locals are currently doing something that is connected to tourism…their kids will almost definitely need to move away to find any work at all…and wherever they go they will probably want/need to rent somewhere, but hang on - there are no rentals available because no one is allowed to own any rental property!

Good god! Are you suggesting people live in caravans? One doesn't earn a large salary and educate ones children privately to live in a lodge (unless it's a chic mountain lodge in the Rocky Mtns or French Alps)

Just seen this on the ONS website:

“On Census Day, 21 March 2021, there were 1.5 million unoccupied dwellings in England and 120,450 in Wales. This is 6.1% of all dwellings in England and 8.2% in Wales.”

It also states that only 10% of those are second homes or had ‘no usual occupants’ (@ 160k, I think?). We don’t have a housing shortage, really, do we? We have houses that are not where people want or need to live and work? What we need is some of those empty houses to be purchased by the govt (local or national) and put into the social housing stock and to invest in re-stimulating the economies in those areas. Pre Brexit we had EU monies that were dedicated to projects which tried to do this (many in Wales and Cornwall, if I remember rightly. It’s a bit hazy now). I am assuming many of these houses are in areas where industry has waned or gone completely (mining towns, towns where factories have closed) and nothing has been done at all at national or local level to fill the void left. Decades of government failure.

The issue seems far, far more complicated than 160,000 second home owners buying up and redeveloping properties - and the £400m raised on a national level (assuming an average of £2500 CT increase per property) will do bugger all to fix things on a local level either.

I’m not an economist, so am doubtless wrong, though as someone will be along in a minute to tell me.

OK I see that. But the lodge isn’t taking a home away from someone local, is it? The holiday lodges may go up in price because of increased demand but it helps put a brake on the price of local properties.
Plus your scenario and your friend’s are very specific.

If I were to buy a lodge, I’d be there weekly and contributing to the local economy as well - it’s not the local area that benefits from the stamp duty,’is it? If a regular local bought the house they’d be paying the council tax anyway.