The Isle of Wight Council has declared its intent to charge owners of second homes and empty properties more council tax — once it becomes law.
How much those property owners will be charged is undecided.
Up until Wednesday evening’s full council meeting, the authority was suggesting — put forward by the ruling Alliance Administration — a 100 per cent tax premium on second homes and empty properties. That suggestion was quashed when Councillor Joe Robertson, leader of the Conservatives at County Hall, proposed removing the figure altogether and determining the charge when they had the authority to do so.
He said he supported the principle but felt it was misleading the public, as there is no law in place yet to allow the council to charge anything. Councillor Robertson also thought the rationale behind the 100% figure had not been set out and needed to be backed by evidence, analysis and data.
Cabinet member for strategic finances Councillor Chris Jarman said the 100 per cent figure was included because, following guidance from the council’s finance officer, the authority should maximise its revenue at every opportunity, saying that it sends a strong signal to property owners of the council’s intent to bring the charges in at the earliest opportunity, so they do not risk missing out on a substantial amount of income.
Councillor Richard Quigley said when the time comes he would vote to charge the maximum allowed but that could potentially not be until April 2025.
He said it was more important the authority show the intent to charge a premium, but a lot more information was still required.
Councillor Julie Jones-Evans questioned why the authority should not make the most out of second homeowners, especially after the authority charged Islanders the most it could in a council tax increase this year.
Councillor Robertson’s amendment passed and was then voted through, with 19 councillors for, 12 against (all Alliance members) and 1 abstention.
The premiums are proposed as part of a government bill which is still going through the stages of officially becoming law, so cannot be enforced yet.
Council Tax is based on the banding of a property.
Not how many people live in it.
There should not be a 25% discount of Council Tax if single people choose to live in a property with more than two bedrooms.
Two properties purchased by people from the mainland – one has four bedrooms – one has three – bought only have single people living in them. Seven bedrooms between the two of them in one family.
Why should they have 25% discount?
Spare bedrooms that could be used for the homeless or refugees.
why don’t you step up to the plate YJC and start offering to live in your home with sponging refugees or homeless junkies.?
If I choose to buy a house with more than one bedroom, that I then use as an office that is my choice – I don’t want some sponging deadbeat in my home with me – it most certainly would not be safe for them to be in my home, that I can assure you.
Would there be enough 1 bedroom homes for every single person?
Refugees and junkies are very very different, refugees do not come here to sponge, they want to work but our government won’t allow them to pay their way and pay taxes etc. I have and do share my home with refugees on occasions and they are very grateful and trustworthy – also unlike junkies!. I do however agree we should be able to have as big a home we want,as we pay for it.
“I don’t want some sponging deadbeat in my home”
Maybe you should move out, then.
You spend so much time on here spreading your far-right propaganda that I doubt you get anything worthwhile done.
As for a fit young immigrant not being safe living with a decrepit old fart like you? Ha Ha Ha!!
I understand, but myself I am disabled and need certain exercise machines to keep me ‘ mobile’ … sadly I am in a small one bed flat ( one person one bed) BUT I need an extra room for my machines… but council say no… some say I should go to a gym… I would if I could get there.. but my mobility will not let me at present… sad world.. but do read my other post…
Of course single people should get discount,in fact should get 50%> Council Tax should be per adult and then everyone equal, totally wrong that can have 6/8 adults living in a town house and they are paying far less than one adult and yet use more Services especially producing waste and statistically more need for police etc. Poll tax or similar was fair to everyone.
Why should people who have worked hard ,instead of pissing their money up the wall and bought a nice little holiday home be penalised in this way.
The Torries must be desparate to bring in such a left wing policy.
Because owning a house is very unproductive use of money from the perspective of economy. Money just sits in the walls and land doing nothing. Meanwhile investing in stocks and bonds helps companies and government to fund economic growth
it is UTTERLY right-wing to tax unproductive means of spending your money (like a 2nd home) and incentivise productive uses, like ISAs, since the very old times of Adam Smith.
This __IS__ right-wing – certainly way more than NOT taxing unproductive means.
Hopefully this law when implemented will open up potentially some desperately needed housing that maybe used to allow first time or social housing purchases or rental tenants the chance of their own home. To have so many empty properties on this Island for years is disgusting and such a shame when many families are desperately trying to establish a future and security for themselves. I wager that over 95% are owned by Conservative voters?
The second homes and holiday homes are mostly out of a financial reach of 1st time buyers ect… so won’t help at all, it’s just penalising people that want to graft and better their lives, it’s a shame the work ethics not copied by the scroungers that want it all for nothing
You flawed thinking will add nothing to the local housing needs.if they sell them it will be at market value which means that the islanders in need cannot afford them,
What a load of rubbish,why should people who have worked hard and earnt money be further taxed just for having two homes. Like saying someone who has two cars ( classic and modern) having to give one away to someone who can’t afford or if you can afford several pairs of branded trainers you should be taxed more. We need to stop giving to those that make no effort or work and think entitled – most other countries don’t give out so much.
Doubling council tax is likely to end in NO council tax,like business rates – more than 1/2 shops in Newport and Sandown now closed because can’t afford rates on top of rent !.
Wow. Greed sure is ugly.
following guidance from the council’s finance officer, the authority should maximise its revenue at every opportunity,
How about – making some cuts to the bloated councillors fees and other waste as well.
‘following guidance from the council’s finance officer, the authority should maximise its revenue at every opportunity’…
Of course they would.
Whilst I have no issue with this proposal, and as it states, it is just that until Westminster pass the relevant legislation.
Our Council are past Masters as ‘maximising their revenue’ (at the expense of the WORKING Council Tax Payers), BUT, what they are not any good at is spending said monies in a sensible manner…
Far too many ‘vanity’ projects where money is wasted and frittered away!
In my view I think owners of the property should pay the council tax… no matter if rented out or a second home, it should be the owners responsibility. is quite a rip off when a house in Grade B rate, is divided up into four flats, each then becoming Grade A… so council then get four payments for a Grade A, instead of a one payment for Grade B… and gets even worse with larger properties.. Whomever’s name is on the deed, should be responsible for that property and all fees associated with it.
Landlords have it so easy, yet they think not and charge far above what property worth for renting., then add the extra £1,000 plus for deposit, and a months rent in advance. What chance do people have, too many never get deposit returned
I also think the council need to sort out the huge rent costs for renting a property. The deposits are far too high, plus the monthly rent is far too high. I am stuck in a one bed small flat, and landlord charge just over £500 month… no outside space, no extras, and only electric…no gas. I have seen houses with gardens at this price… !! If I could afford a deposit, I would move yesterday…
You would never rent a house with a garden for £500 a month, life choices!
I wonder how many Households claim single occupancy even though they have persons living with them!
Most all if the ‘so called’ single occupant is a single ‘muver’ as most never sleep alone, hence the many children they have, not immaculate conception that is for sure.
The mother provides, via the state, eg our taxes a roof and free council tax, and thousands a year in child tax credits, and child allowance, the the undeclared live in lover provides a wage, or social security, and often dope growing or drug dealing and often a combi of all, so live very very well from the swindle.
Tax the rich! If they can afford 2 houses, they can afford to pay more tax. Benefits don’t grow on trees you know!
Tell that to the spongers living off the state.
cut the benefits – make the spongers work – then we will all be richer
A sponge. By it’s nature, will absorb to fill the empty spaces it has inside. Once full there is no more ‘need’ to absorb any more.
Full sponges with no empty spaces to fill can get left in the sink and begin to become engorged and bloated from the overflow. Even though they are full, now they seek larger and larger sinks, ponds, rivers, seas. Their need has now sadly turned to greed. So scared to have a single empty space in their own sponge, or to pour some of their overflow to those in meed, they watch the other empty sponges dry out and burn to a crisp in the hot sun. Now the only sponges left are the full ones.
What a vile idea this is .why should hard working people be punished for being successfull. Its blatant discrimination. Its not their fault that the fat and idle have made poor life choices and think its ok to sponge of everyone else and then whine about it .
Is this kind of thinking what success looks like to you? So because you have two houses you’re successful? How successful are you in compassion?
Fully agree beefy, pip sounds like an unsuccessful wet wipe that is more than likely on the dole.
About time let’s get rid of second home owners and use the properties for those islanders
who are struggling to be housed
Why? Why should they give houses to people that can’t be arsed to make some tough choices in life like, get educated, learn a trade, get them selfs a decent job, save for a deposit and then buy there first house. That’s one of the problems with this country, if you graft and are a success your looked upon like a snob
If the government pass the law is it even legal to charge some people double for a service provided? It’ll be dragged through the courts. If it was a local tax maybe. The whole system needs reform
Whilst I agree second home ownership should contribute for the privilege of using our island as a bolt hole from their hectic lifestyle we must also consider that quite a large number of dwellings that were in disrepair or required a substantial amount of money spent on them to bring them back to a habitable state would never have happened without their money and would still be rotting away causing an eyesore waiting for some young island couple saving their pennies for a dream that will never get any closer.
I wonder why nobody every talks about the positive impact of these second home owners on the Islands economy. They buy homes for usually higher prices from sometimes local residents, they spend money on upgrading and maintaining their new homes with local craftsmen, they entertain, shop, eat and drink in many of the local places and the money they bring to the island comes from the outside. In the end the IOW is a place that lives partially from holiday makers and I would consider second home owners somewhat of being part of that group. Maybe only a few would not accept a 100% increase in council tax because they love the IOW and can pay the extra money but is it right to just say “let’s take the money from them”?
Yes. If some can afford it and are using their money for rest and entertainment, where others are literally suffering in fear of actual survival then it makes sense to filter that money. There is a huge difference between need and greed. There are those who are born wealthy or those born into wealthy families or those born with more charisma and looks or those born with skills and a brain more suited to societies norms which enables them to work, enables them to enjoy their work and find it easy. And then there are people with none of this fortune but they are still human beings who are trying their best with the skills they have to survive. These people have need. A need that can be met, if only there was more compassion.
Spiritual teachers tell us that compassion will dwindle more and more and the main catalyst is the slaughtering of cows.
This law has been in place in other areas – Wales for example, for several years now. We had to pay double council tax on our tiny HOME whilst waiting for it to sell, as we moved to care for family who required it. It took 9 years to sell altogether. Also, Wales, had their council tax revalued in around 2002, I believe, which meant that all properties went up a band. This did not happen in England as the government were too concerned that people would not accept it. Furthermore, England enjoyed several years of “frozen” council tax. Again, this did not happen in Wales where increases piled up year on year. Just some examples of the disparity. I believe that if you own a second home, you should pay double. No-one needs a second home
Easy legal loopholes to bypass this, total non-story, council just pedalling empty rhetoric to create further ‘them and us’ division.
What a load of garbage. Why punish people for working hard so they can own a holiday home, just to give more money to the council to squander. Solution is easy. Declare the second home as main residence for spouse/partner. Single occupancy can then be claimed by both parties (assuming no other residents). Actually works at as a good saving.
No surprises there, the words Council and Tax were too magnetic for them to stop and think.
Ros Atkins program stated tonight that wages in UK over last decade and half have declined in real terms , declined the most in europe, and at the same time the rich in the UK have managed to be the richest in europe. Go figure ,who is sponging then., and others hard work is used to get some more and more property