Beware past renovations for council tax liability.

Hagar

Hagar

Hagar

Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
14,660
Location
Tending to be right.
Last edited:
Its not new news its been around forever.

I have argued before for example that once complete extensions should trigger a revaluation.
It makes no sense at all that the person doing the extension doesn't get a rebanded council valuation.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Its not new news its been around forever.

I have argued before for example that once complete extensions should trigger a revaluation.
It makes no sense at all that the person doing the extension doesn't get a rebanded council valuation.
Click to expand...

I must admit that I have never been in a position to encounter this so I was probably not aware. You are right in that the person who should recieve a revaluation should be the homeowner who adds value.
It could blindside a few buyers though who buy a recently extended property only to receive notification of a rebanding from the council.

Still we all maybe getting one in November from Ms Reeves. ;)
 
200sols said:
Everyone needs a revaluation. 1991 is long gone..
Click to expand...
200sols said:
Its those in the largest and most valuable properties that are paying less on the current system.
Click to expand...

Exactly should be at minimum a revaluation. (Although this is quite costly exercise even at its most basic level)
Maybe they could use actual sale prices and known property details to set some boundaries and create a basic model for valuation.

Adding a couple of extra bands at the top might be a good start, actually ;
I would also split band G a bit more (make it G & H)
Take existing H and expand into IJK

Its not going to be a massive overall impact but it is quite favourable to those in big properties.
Also OFC areas that have become far more affluent still linked to 1991 pricing (I mean compared to the nation as an average)
 
200sols said:
Its those in the largest and most valuable properties that are paying less on the current system.
Click to expand...

Sounds like that might be the boomers and they are notorious for being gracious about contributing more or getting less.
 
fez said:
Sounds like that might be the boomers and they are notorious for being gracious about contributing more or getting less.
Click to expand...
Aah dear dear. Most boomers are not wealthy and don't live in big houses, most are retired. Many like me are downsized and living in band C to avoid paying to Rachels high tax economy.
 
Hagar said:
Aah dear dear. Most boomers are not wealthy and don't live in big houses, most are retired. Many like me are downsized and living in band C to avoid paying to Rachels high tax economy.
Click to expand...

I can't tell if you are serious here. A large chunk of the expensive family homes are owned by the boomer generation. A large proportion of them are retired as well. That doesn't mean that even a small percentage of them have downsized. Apparently less than 1 in 4 people plan to downsize in retirement and I know very few people of my parents generation that have moved house for anything but location reasons. The vast majority of the ones I know are still sitting in their large 4+ bedroom houses.

Oh and just to really hammer home how silly your comment is, you are suggesting that many like you have downsized and living in band C since (checks notes) July 24. I must have missed the mass exodus of retirees and all the homes that have been freed up as a result.
 
@fez

Your comment was also very partial based on your personal knowledge of your parents generation without evidence provided. In fact mo more reliable than mine.
A spurious comment based on ageist references unable to be taken seriously.
 
Hagar said:
Aah dear dear. Most boomers are not wealthy and don't live in big houses, most are retired. Many like me are downsized and living in band C to avoid paying to Rachels high tax economy.
Click to expand...
Which taxes that Rachel has introduced have you saved on by moving house?
 
Last edited:
200sols said:
Which taxes that Rachel has introduced have you saved on by moving house?
Click to expand...
Well i suppose what was taken away is now restored but it is an accepted fact I believe that the NI purge on business has done nothing to curb inflation in the economy with further taxes to come in November. Therefore having some liquidity can be no small safeguard or buffer.
 
Hagar said:
Well i suppose what was taken away is now restored but it is an accepted fact I believe that the NI purge on business has done nothing to curb inflation in the economy with further taxes to come in November. Therefore having some liquidity can be no small safeguard or buffer.
Click to expand...
Ok. So the answer was none.
 
Hagar said:
On the contrary we are paying more indirect tax through inflation and other costs of living attributable to the October budget last year.
Click to expand...
Nothing compared to what the cons did but you blame Labour for everything :cry:
 
Hagar said:
@fez

Your comment was also very partial based on your personal knowledge of your parents generation without evidence provided. In fact mo more reliable than mine.
A spurious comment based on ageist references unable to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Also based on numerous surveys / statistics that suggest a fraction of people intend to or have downsized once they hit retirement. Generally somewhere between 1/5th and 1/7th which considering that includes a large age range is quite telling. Perhaps you would like to give me some information on how many of your generation have rushed to downsize in the past 14 months since Labour came to power. Clearly its a lot...
 
fez said:
Also based on numerous surveys / statistics that suggest a fraction of people intend to or have downsized once they hit retirement. Generally somewhere between 1/5th and 1/7th which considering that includes a large age range is quite telling. Perhaps you would like to give me some information on how many of your generation have rushed to downsize in the past 14 months since Labour came to power. Clearly its a lot...
Click to expand...
To be fair things like stamp duty and the out of date council tax favouring those in large houses which have surged in value over the last 30 years actively dissuade people from downsizing.

If you want to encourage it the tax system needs to not punish it.
 
Downsizing tends be to be for two main reasons
1) Maintenance issues, property or land etc becoming too difficult to manage so move to a smaller (often) partially or fully managed property
or 2) because its financially required, ie they need to because they need to clear a mortgage or haven't provided enough to live off in retirement

It would basically never make sense financially to downsize for reducing tax. The costs of moving so significant would mean it would take too many years (if ever) to break even, when you consider the age of the people being talked about...
 
We downsized because we did not really much like the modern four bed detached with ensuites and cloaks nor the estate it sat upon which was growing like topsy with narrow twisty block roadways and three story houses with tiny gardens. There are now just two of us and we chose an established estate built in the 1960's unlikely to be developed beyond the odd bedroom above a garage (mainly due to lack of space). It has a 10m x 13m rear garden and a 5m x 13m front. Not massive but adequate. It's a three bed semi with one bath it's band C down from band E. But the move was never about money, we have more than enough savings that if the state pension collapsed tomorrow I could still fund my outgoings for a decade or two. Long enough.

So it was mainly about lifestyle and not cleaning bathrooms endlessly. :p

The point you make about breaking even applies less as one ages. You leave that to future generations to stress over.

But off topic.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom