Labour council doubles tax on short lets and second homes

To plug the gap for vital council services, they are penalising the landlords or investors. The council is sick and totally greedy. Ensure never to buy properties to rent in the Haringay borough. The LL's will be fast selling their properties. It may work for the council for about 2 to 3 years, but certainly it will be a reduced private rentals, so the council needs to start buying properties for the increasing social homes requirements. This scheme will backfire in about 5 to 6
years and become more costly. Do not interfere in private lettings. Find another way to plug the gap or reduce your spending. All avenues are exhausted, so now targeting the LL's. The council have foggy brains.

We forget an empty property uses SO much of a council’s resources. 🤬 Pure money grabbing and the politics of envy.

Should the council not look at themselves for funding shortfalls??? Let us look at this in a slightly different way.

1. Short term lets are exactly that

2. Any person on a short term let is either weekend away couple, business travel, contract workers, parents visiting students.

3. All of the above are doing a few things to the local economy for instance:
Spending money at the local shops, bars, restaurants. Recommending the area too (if its nice!).

4. If the accommodation is value for money then possibly returning and again doing point 3.

Not difficult this is it, people come and spend in the local economy yet we have a country full of councils who should be reclassified as the profit prevention officers.....

Should the council not look at themselves for funding shortfalls???

You mean live within their means? Not known ANY council of any political flavour to do that. They, like the government, are always happy to spend othr people's money.

All that will happen is that investment will reduce in the UK and money will go abroad where investors will be opened with open arms. Labour do need to build more social housing but should not rely on second homeowners and landlords to fund it. They plan on increasing capital gains tax which just will mean no tax at all as nobody will be investing in this country.

Across the UK, Councils faced a £15bn real terms reduction to core government funding between 2010 and 2020, from £41bn to £26bn, the Institute for Government found. However, in that time they did raise 25 per cent more in real terms through council tax as ministers encouraged rises as a way to generate cash.
Thoughts:
Though I disagree with Haringey's tactics, charging more for council tax and cutting council services is likely the only option to deal with drastic central funding cuts under this current government??
Many London boroughs are the worst hit from Tory funding cuts.
My council is London Borough of Havering, and their funding from Government has been slashed to just £1.5m today from £70m back in 2010, despite their burden of having one of the oldest resident populations needing the most care and support.
Haringey's core government funding is now an estimated £143m less a year in real terms than it was in 2010/11 (as of 13 Dec 2023), by Nov 2022 this had amounted to a 63% cut in their core central government funding since 2010/11.
Maybe the REAL issue is the government slashing council budgets and loss of housing stock.
Council houses were sold off under right to buy and Thatchers big lie that councils were to receive all the proceeds to invest into buying new social/council housing - when 80% of that sale price was absorbed into central government coffers and not reinvested, councils only got 20% of that reduced sale price and lots of restrictions put in place to even allow councils to use that 20% to build any new social/council housing. Councils have been rightly screwed over by drastic central core government funding cuts since 2010 and and have also lost a good proportion of their social housing stock assets over the past 40+ years without due compensation, so doubly poor.
This also somewhat explains some councils' motivations for expanding selective and additional licensing schemes to borough wide, where these is little evidence of any need for them, in order to make up the deficit from the funding cuts. Frankly regulatory proof that such rental properties are being well-managed and certifcations up-to-date could be submitted cheaply by landlords/agents online annually for each property at very low cost maybe in partnership with NRLA membership, and the appropriate records as a checklist proof shared just with the council concerned.
I would still keep the licensing and council inspections for the Mandatory HMO's, and the council can then focus their energy and resources doing inspections (and when necessary following up with procecutions) relating to properties being reported as problematic or being run by rogue landlords.
Social and Council housing should also be judged by same standards as expected of private rental accommodation, some council's are not doing the repairs they should be doing with some of their properties in a shocking state.

Council and government terrible. You should get a discount for an empty property as you are using less council resources.

So if all the empty homes were suddenly filled with people the council would have even more people needing social care and other frontline services they provide and they would need even more cash.

Try getting rid of layers and layers of management that just report to each other, maybe a less generous pension scheme that is billions and billions in red across the whole public sector.

I can't afford to live in London so I don't

Double Council tax on empty property and I am paying that its ridiculous.
The Most unfair tax where half the people don’t pay any.
Suppose there’s 2 people in the house it’s full C/tax but if there’s 4 which is double the occupancy and often 6 it’s the same Bill. So they expect 2 people to pay the same as 6 so unfair and now getting increase again. Its the occupancy stupid bricks don’t pay C/tax
Mr Khan which School of Economics did you go to, or do you think 2 people generates as much rubbish as 6.
Mayor is already getting £470.00 out of most peoples C/tax and we have no say whatsoever about it.

• Annoyed Landlord
• 22 January 2024 21:06 PM

Careful, Michael, that is an argument for the Community Charge. Actually a very fair charge but thanks to Labour and the Unions, tarred as a Poll Tax and killed off. Under the Community charge a single occupant received a 50% discount. Killed off and renamed Council Tax, a single occupant now gets 25% discount. Well done, Labour and the Unions for that "victory".

• Login to like comment
• 2
• Login to Report

 

Well I don’t pretend to understand any of it, one person get 25% discount and we pay double on vacant property.
I thought the poll tax was a good idea but went the wrong way about how to implement it. I thought if half was on the property and everyone pay something it would be much fairer. Of Course all the people that never pay nothing all went marching and got it scrapped.
I don’t know why Students are exempted either many are mature adults. So of the young people that don’t go to University but go to work have to pay taxes & c/tax while their former class mates have a free ride for many years in education and not paying tax or c/tax. Maybe the young person going to work paying income tax should be more entitled to free c/tax than the guy who is not contributing anything.

I also think the poll tax was the fairest way, all paying their bit

• Annoyed Landlord
• 23 January 2024 11:20 AM

That is why so many hated it.

I knew of a family with five working adults and they paid the same as the next door property with just two adults, until the community charge was introduced. Boy, ddid they complain.

• Login to like comment
• 2
• Login to Report

 

Typical labour!