Glyn,

My question relates to the impacts of changing the Council Tax Discount rates for LTEs.

There are 50 or so English LAs that charged CT at 50% in 2004, but who charged 100% CT in 2009. One of these was Stoke-on-Trent, who moved from 50% charge in 2004 to 90% charge in 2005 and to 100% charge in 2009.

• What impacts did this increased charge have on LTE figures for Stoke?
• Did it prompt chnages in registration behaviour among owners of LTEs?
• Did it yield a demonstrable increase in CT income?
• In waht ways did the increased charge help or hinder Stoke's empty homes work?

If someone from Manchester reads this, how did your reduction in charge from 100% in 2004 to 50% by 2009 affect your LTE statistics and your empty homes work?

And other colleagues. Have changes in LTE-CT discounts affected your work?

Please do submit any Council Tax related questions to Glyn quickly to give him adequate time to prepare his answers.

Glyn, I know this might be a bit outside of your remit, but I wonder if you know how the proposed changes in the Local Government Finance Bill would affect the council tax accruing to the local authority in respect of empty homes.

My understanding at the moment is that the Revenue Support Grant is for a given year is calculated by looking at the CTB return for the previous September. If an authority charges 50% council tax on  long-term empty homes (LTEs)  the Revenue Support Grant will be calculated on that basis (more will be given to the Local Authority to make up for it).  But if the LTE is brought back into use the day after the CTB is submitted, then the local authority may receive full council tax and will get to keep the money as well as getting more RSG.  I believe the  reverse is true in that if a property become LTE immediately after the CTB returns then potentially the LA will get less RSG?

If an LA changes the rate of discount after the CTB return is sent then I understand it would also get to keep the extra money - I believe Bradford did this and it amounted to quite a lot!   On the other hand, local authorities, once they put up the amount charged on LTEs will be assumed to get the additional money and some are reluctant to do so because there is a higher rate of bad debts on LTEs that they will then have to carry and some have declined to increase the council tax charge on LTEs for that reason. 

My question is how the proposed changes in the LG Finance Bill would affect the above and what effects it might have on local authority approaches to setting council tax discounts on LTEs.

We've been promoting the idea that second homes should receive the same treatment as long term empties (possibly with some exceptions).  This would include having to pay the empty homes premium after a given period of time. This would prevent people avoiding council tax by introducing furniture into an otherwise long-term empty home.

Do you see any operational or other impediment to such a move?

Leaving aside the obviousl ploy of claiming a home is single -occupied when it is in fact empty, what in your experience is the commonest form of council tax evasion or avoidance?  And have you ever heard of anyone being prosecuted for giving false information about the status of their property in order to gain financial benefit?  Indeed does the law allow for prosecution if wrong information is given deliberately?

We expect Andrew Stunell to announce the implementation of the council tax changes that were consulted on last Autumn including the aboltion of exemption class "C", the introduction of an Empty Home Premium and the option to charge up to 100% council tax on second homes.  What are your thoughts on this?