Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill

Earl of Lytton Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 4th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate this Bill, narrow though its objectives are. In doing so I declare my interests as a member of RICS and the IRRV and the RSA—the very bodies that the Minister referred to. I also declare a one-time interest as a former employee of the Inland Revenue Valuation Office; I stand before noble Lords guilty as charged. I am also a vice-president of the LGA and a recipient of a small business exemption on one small hereditament down in the West Country.

I thank the Minister for meeting me and a couple of other professionals a few weeks ago to discuss the wider issues of business rates. I was tempted to follow what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, but she has covered most of what I needed to say on that issue, so I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Patten, in not dwelling on it. There is a bigger issue that perhaps needs to be addressed, but this may not be the right place to do so.

The intentions behind the Bill are worthy and its logic, while in some aspects questionable, is clear. The only thing I would say is that getting the implementation correct may be a great deal less straightforward. To put it another way, there is more in this can than is apparent from what is written on the label.

What has become known rather rudely as the staircase tax, otherwise the case known as Woolway v Mazars, has been one of the recent diversions for someone brought up in the traditions of what amounted to the extent of the rateable hereditament. I had that drummed into me by a very eminent rating academic called Roger Emeny, alas now deceased. I was always clear about that and I was also pretty clear that the decision was an aberration that went against the practices that had been created before. It was one of those things that became a really quite unnecessary additional piece of grit in the oyster, because we were dealing with an awful lot of uncertainty and churn as well as a whole new system of handling things as they came on stream. It is right to put that right. The Mazars case was in September 2015 and it has taken us until now to deal with it, while in the meantime the new list came into force in 2017. The system we now have is not well attuned to the rate of churn, change and alteration that is taking place not only on our high streets and the balance between various different categories of business premises but also in our regulatory environment. I do not think that the system is sufficiently fleet of foot, and that is where we need to take a further look.

The right of the ratepayer to ask for the split assessment to be looked at again is welcome and I do not think that anyone would disagree with the principle. However, it does mean that there is the selective reopening of parts of the 2010 rating list which would otherwise effectively be closed. More to the point, as I understand it—the Minister will doubtless correct me if I am wrong—the Government have declined to fund any losses that would be borne by billing authorities as a result of appeals coming through on the old list. This seems a trifle unreasonable, especially in the light of the financial constraints imposed on the billing authorities. I detect a sense that the billing authorities have somehow garaged the winnings of the windfall that came out of Woolway v Mazars, and have them sitting in a shed at the end of the garden for the rainy day when the thing is reversed. Forgive me, but I do not think that local government finance operates in that way, and nor do I think that it is possible for shedloads of money to be stashed away for that purpose. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will be able to enlighten me because I am not close to finance at billing authority level. I hope that I will be corrected if I have got that wrong.

A criticism that I have heard on more than one occasion is that billing authority requests for alterations of assessments are often denied or not dealt with quickly enough, so that needs to be looked at. If there is a resource implication, that must be considered quite critically because billing authorities are probably the first port of call, other than the aggrieved ratepayer themselves, for getting assessments put right. If their requests are not being dealt with, there is a risk of unfairness and of loss to local authority coffers.

For ratepayers, the situation is scarcely better in that a successful application under the 2010 list, as proposed in the Bill, does not automatically get translated into the 2017 list, as I understand it. Although the Government say that they will prioritise those 2010 list applications, they clearly do not propose to do so for the 2017 list, for which a de novo registration and an application under the check, challenge and appeal system—I have raised this in the House before—will be necessary, along with all its complexity, systemic drag and uncertainties for billing authorities and ratepayers alike. We should not allow that to happen. Mercifully, even if the Minister is correct, the numbers involved are relatively few, but I am not sure that an audit has been done to identify what is involved in both the 2010 and 2017 lists. That is why the problems with the CCA system are mission critical and why they produce such tremendous negative comment from business sources.

I am sure that the Minister has seen the press reports following the statistics released last week on the numbers of appeals. The Government are extolling the virtues of a 90% reduction in the number of cases under check, challenge and appeal, while rating experts say that that is not surprising because the system is so labyrinthine, complex and liable to error that it is an impediment and effectively a denial of service—a denial of reasonable and fair rights to challenge an assessment. Something needs to be done.

One of the things we were promised is that the new check, challenge and appeal system would squeeze out cowboy rating firms. Last week I received some information and I will be writing to the Minister in response to his very kind letter to me following our meeting. I believe that, unfortunately, the cowboys are still alive and kicking, particularly in the north-west. Why do these people prosper? It is because many businesses cannot get their head round the CCA system. They look for advice and either go to one of the big specialist practices or someone comes along and says, “We can do this for you”. They submit their bill and expect to be paid long before the case gets to the appeal stage, so these people are still creating just as much of a problem as before and getting away with it. I am afraid that they have not been squeezed out of the system; it is a complex factor that ultimately boils down to the resources available to carry out management of the tax base and to deal with appeals.

On council tax, I have no complaint about the theory, especially if owners are gaming the system by maintaining vacancy or through sheer inertia. Housing should not be considered the same as a white-goods product that can be hoarded. The Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation and others encapsulated the issue in pointing out that the Bill is yet another attempt to fix a much deeper problem. The causes of long-term vacancy have not been looked into. There does not appear to me to be a robust evidence base behind this, but I am very happy to be told I am wrong if that is the case.

I have in mind cases where property is held for renovation or as part of a redevelopment, vested in trustees in bankruptcy or executors of a deceased’s estate, or the subject of a legal dispute. As the noble Lord, Lord Patten, was speaking, I made a mental calculation. I believe that there about 25 million residential properties in council tax assessment across England and Wales. Given the number of things that can cause churn, 250,000 represents about 1%. From what I generally know of property markets—I have dealt with them on and off all my life—that percentage does not seem very high at all. It is a bit like people who are between jobs: technically, they are jobless, but it is part of the churn and part of the process where things are vacant. We need to be careful about this. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, was trying to say that we need better information and we should be judged by the evidence base. I agree with that; perhaps the evidence base is lacking here.

Those very prosaic cases are probably much more common than people with a certain type of investment approach, who want to keep properties vacant just for the heck of it, out of sheer caprice and fancy. There is no obvious match between the empty homes and where homeless people or people on housing lists want, or need, to live, nor between the revenues raised by the provisions in the Bill and the necessary relief for those who need to benefit from this. There is a disconnect, both geographically and financially. I would like that to be explained.

I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who expressed the point about what “substantially furnished” means. I had a mental image of a vanload of stuff going up and down the country, doing a bit of temporary furnishing all the while. Years ago, I attended an event, held by a local authority, where the subject of additional charges for people with second homes came up. I asked a question, naive as I was at the time—I probably still am—as to why this differential was necessary. At that stage, people were getting a discount for having a second home. I was told that it was one of the few ways a local authority had of identifying whether it had second homes on its territory and how many there were. I wonder whether one of the perverse effects of this measure will be to cause a rapid evaporation of the number of empty homes as far as the statistical evidence is concerned. That said, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Patten, in saying that the Bill is welcome, in its broad terms. Yes, there are difficulties with the fine-tuning of implementation, but in general terms I hope that we can see it through to a successful conclusion.

Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill

Earl of Lytton Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 19th June 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Earl of Lytton]

1: Clause 1, page 2, line 30, at end insert—
“( ) Any change made in the 2010 Rating Lists to the existence or extent of a hereditament by virtue of this section applicable on 31 March 2017 must also be given effect by the Valuation Officer in the 2017 Rating Lists, unless physical circumstances affecting the constitution of the hereditament changed on 1 April 2017.”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I know that after Brexit, the question of business rates and council tax must be one of the high points of your Lordships’ week. With that in mind, I start by declaring my interests as the owner of business property and the occupier of business premises, my professional interests, and the fact that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Although business rates, the subject of this amendment, do not quite have the pull of Brexit, they are nevertheless of great significance to businesses. I suspect that, like Brexit, they will be a matter that we will still be debating long after the initial dust has settled. Moreover, the issue will be debated whatever the outcome of our relationship with Europe.

I pay a brief tribute to my two external advisers who have been helping me with these amendments, and to staff in the Minister’s department for their willingness to discuss, both formally and informally, matters to do with business rates that have concerned me over many months. I have a sort of private pact that I have just agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, to keep things brief, and I will do my best in that regard.

I hope Amendment 1 will be seen for what it is: a means of preventing unfairness and an aid to streamlining. I should explain that the Bill provides for business rate payers to seek to amend principally the 2010 list and later assessments, to which the Bill applies, affected as they were by the Supreme Court case of Woolway v Mazars. However, while under the Bill the facility to amend appears on the 2010 valuation list, a successful application under that list does not automatically translate into the assessment in the 2017 list. To me, this seems an oversight. In the absence of a material change of circumstances, the 2017 list should use the same general basis, valuation levels apart, as that which applied to the 2010 list.

This matters to ratepayers, billing authorities and business rates administration more generally. Amendment 1 seeks to remedy the matter by allowing the automatic carryover of an adjustment made pursuant to the Bill on a 2010 list assessment or assessments into the 2017 list. Without this provision, the business rate payer will have to make a de novo application under the 2017 list using the government portal that operates the system known as “check, challenge, appeal”. Noble Lords will know that I have raised significant concerns about the “check, challenge, appeal” procedure, principally at the end of last summer in a debate I secured for the purpose. Although it has improved, and I acknowledge that improvements continue to be made, for appellants it remains a barrier to fair access in terms of both the need to register the timeframes and the complexity of sorting out the various stages, especially if the matter is not considered clear-cut or is contested by the Valuation Office Agency. I once had the privilege of working for its predecessor organisation, the Inland Revenue Valuation Office, for nearly seven years.

I do not believe it should be necessary to jump through these hoops under the 2017 “check, challenge, appeal” process where a simple administrative adjustment would suffice. That is the purpose of the amendment and I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very helpful reply. From what he has said, I appreciate that making these consequential amendments is a matter of the general duty of the Valuation Office Agency, as it deems necessary. I certainly did not intend to press my amendment at this stage. I will simply say this: resources that are destined to continue being cut year on year as part of a planned resource reallocation are of concern to practitioners who have to deal with the Valuation Office Agency. I hope these cuts will not mean that it is unable to make these sorts of consequential changes. On the basis of the Minister’s reassurance, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[The Earl of Lytton]

2: Clause 1, page 2, line 30, at end insert—
“( ) Any refunds payable by a billing authority by virtue of assessment alterations directly consequential upon this section must be reimbursed to that authority by the Exchequer.”

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 2, which is grouped with Amendment 4. In a sense, it is covered partly by subsection (2)(d) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I will let him speak to that at the appropriate moment.

I fully expect the Minister to say that under no circumstances will the sort of refunds that I am looking for be refunded to billing authorities. As I understood it—perhaps I used a somewhat extreme example at Second Reading and I will not use that one again—it is assumed that immediately after the Supreme Court case of Woolway v Mazars, billing authorities somehow swept into action like avenging angels to deal with all the various assessments that would have qualified under that, and therefore it is supposed that they might have made some sort of gain. I do not believe that has actually happened, or that billing authorities banked this dividend to any significant extent. That is a matter that perhaps warrants further investigation as to exactly what the situation is financially, but they might none the less find, as the effects of the Bill work their way through the system under the 2010 valuation, that they face some sort of deficit. I felt it was unreasonable that billing authorities should suffer a material loss in that respect, so that is what Amendment 2 would deal with.

I support the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Shipley, on Amendment 4, which is grouped with my amendment, because one of the points made to me by the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation was that there has been very little assessment of the precise impact of much of this. That is a mistake and a lacuna. Local government finance—from what I can gather, not being directly involved with it myself—is in many cases in a critical situation. Budgets are on a knife edge and even seemingly small amounts—we do not really know what the magnitude is of all this—need to be dealt with. I therefore support that amendment, and in doing so I must declare that I am an honorary member of the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation, having been, for much of my working lifetime, an ordinary subscribing member. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, from what I can gather—admittedly, it is anecdotal, from speaking to local government and getting a feel for this—this position is relatively evenly spread across the country, although focused more in the urban areas, as your Lordships would expect. Again, I cannot give a precise number but I do not think it is a massive one. If I can give a more precise indication, perhaps I will do that in a letter to noble Lords ahead of Report. I do not think it is a massive number, from what I can gather.

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and the Minister for his response. In defence of any appearance of lack of numeracy on my part, I say in connection with whether or not billing authorities have gained some windfall that the point outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is correct; namely, the budgetary process does not arise evenly or as an even offset or indeed even in a comparable year. But I do not proclaim to be an expert on local government budgeting and finance—thank goodness. I am only a humble valuer and therefore doomed to perdition for having only managed to get an O-level in ordinary maths. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 2.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Moved by

[The Earl of Lytton]

3: Clause 1, page 2, line 30, at end insert—
“( ) The Valuation Office Agency must forthwith upon the coming into force of this section publish on its website such advice and guidance as to the provisions of this section, and such means of identification of the hereditament, as to enable a ratepayer by accessing the online Rating Lists readily to check the status of their assessment and whether the provisions of this section apply to it.”

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, this is another tidying-up amendment, which is really to ensure that there is adequate publicity for people wishing to avail themselves of the facility under the Bill, bearing in mind that there are a number of very complex matters involved in business rates. The amendment is intended to ensure that the Valuation Office Agency places on its website adequate,

“advice and guidance as to the provisions of this section”,

and the means whereby a business rate payer can make the necessary identification so that they can ascertain whether—and, if so, how—the provisions apply to this.

The wording is deliberate in setting out the publication process,

“forthwith upon the coming into force of this section”.

The reason why I say so is that at the end of last summer, when we discussed matters to do with business rates, I was given to understand that there would be guidance—for instance, on the question of how fines would be applied for misdeclarations of fact in going through the “check, challenge, appeal” process. I have not seen that information yet and I do not know whether it is available. I am not voicing this as a criticism; I am just saying that because of the particularly time-limited nature of the way in which the provisions will apply—particularly looking back into the 2010 list—it will be important that this information is published in a timely and reasonably prominent manner and, I hope, written in plain English. That is the purpose behind Amendment 3. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I fully support the noble Earl in his Amendment 3. I think we all deal online very much more now in our work and in terms of official and unofficial things, so this is a very sensible amendment.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, with the indulgence of the House, I would like to pick up a point from the last group. I failed to address a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on the pilot business rate retention issue. We are speaking to the Local Government Association and others about that. It is not straightforward but we are not convinced that there is any loss. Still, I shall seek to address that in more detail in the letter. I apologise to him for not picking that up earlier.

I thank the noble Earl for moving this amendment, which would require the Valuation Office Agency to publish on its website guidance and advice on the effect of Clause 1. I understand and appreciate the motivation behind the amendment, backed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Business rates can be a complex area and confusing to ratepayers, and of course we support ideas that would give ratepayers more information to help them to plan for their business rates liability.

On Clause 1, I agree that it is especially important that the VOA provide clear guidance to ratepayers on when they may be affected. Clause 1 concerns contiguous properties that are assessed for rating in more than one part, but there are many reasons why a ratepayer may have seen their property split into two or more rating assessments. That will include properties whose rating assessments have split because of the Supreme Court decision in Mazars, but will not be limited to that. Clause 1 will change the law to mirror the practice of the VOA prior to the Supreme Court decision. Those ratepayers may therefore fall within Clause 1. However, there will be many other reasons why a rating assessment may have been split into several parts. A property may have seen physical change requiring it to have more than one rating assessment, for example, or part of the property may have been sublet. These splits are unlikely to be related to the Supreme Court decision, and those ratepayers will not be affected by Clause 1.

It is therefore important that we explain this to ratepayers. The VOA already has clear guidance on its website explaining in simple terms how the law currently applies under the Supreme Court decision, including some clear examples. I assure the Committee that once the Bill receives Royal Assent, the guidance will be quickly changed so that it explains the operation of the new law under Clause 1. I further assure the noble Earl that the VOA will share that guidance in draft with the professional bodies, including the Rating Surveyors’ Association. The noble Earl will therefore have the opportunity to consider this guidance from his expert perspective before it is published. I appreciate that we are very fortunate in having him look at this legislation in some detail because of his professional understanding of it. This, together with the information that ratepayers can already access about their own property on the VOA website, will provide ratepayers with the information that they need to decide whether they fall within Clause 1.

I hope that with these assurances the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his amendment.

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his support. The Minister probably credits me with a great deal more expertise than I feel I actually possess, but that is probably because, the more one knows about something, the more one realises one does not know. That seems to be one of the facts of life that one has to face. But I am reassured by what he said in terms of making sure that the information is readily available on the Valuation Office Agency’s website. Obviously, I am aware of some of the advice generally on that website, which for the most part seems to me to be clear. I thank the Minister for the assurances that he has given and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, I have some mixed feelings about the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. In my own mind, I cannot quite get my head round whether this is to be a charge to discourage long-term empty properties as defined in the Bill or, in effect, an escalating fine. It seems to me that the two are slightly different.

At Second Reading, I highlighted the fact that there is a general lack of information about the reasons for long-term vacancy, and the high probability is that it varies quite a lot from one area to another. For instance, in some former industrial cities, whole streets of Victorian housing may have lain empty for some time because no one wants to occupy them.

On the definition of “empty dwelling”, it is a moot point, as far as I can see, as to the ease or difficulty of chasing the sums of money involved, as is the likelihood or otherwise of the “empty dwelling” label simply evaporating. I think that I may have used the example of an itinerant with a van load of cheap second-hand furniture going around populating odd properties that might otherwise be subject to this. The point is made not entirely in jest, because there is no plumbing the ingenuity of people who wish to avoid some impost or other.

Another point is that there is a reputational risk if one is not careful here. I seem to remember that, not very long ago, one local authority was said to be investigating the contents of people’s refuse bins, and I would hate to think of local government being again painted into that sort of scenario. One needs to be careful to ensure that there is a justifiable reason for an escalator.

If we are talking about what is in effect a fine, there would need to be a clear and justified framework as to how that would apply, possibly with provision for making an appeal against the charge. Now, I am not clear what happens about appeals against things like this. I am clear what happens with an appeal against one’s business rate assessment, and I am clear what happens with an appeal against a council tax banding. What I am not clear about is, where something like this comes in by dint of this type of legislation, if someone thinks that it has been unfairly applied, where do they go? I hope that a noble Lord, or a noble Baroness, with better knowledge than I have will tell me what the situation is.

I rather took to Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. As we heard at Second Reading, there can be a number of different reasons why vacancy and long-term empty property status can apply. I think of the minimum energy standards regulations which came into force only a couple of months ago, making it impossible to let a property with an EPC of less than E. I think of the many hard-to-insulate properties—those Victorian properties with nine inch solid walls or suspended floors, where it is difficult to get insulation to the required standard.

In essence, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is right: there is often a local need to take a differential approach. I would appreciate the Minister saying how differential he thinks that that needs to be, or can be: whether it is endless or will be circumscribed in some way. I think of areas I know well in national parks, where you occasionally come across properties that are long-term empty, but also in former industrial cities, to which I referred. One needs to be careful about that. I do not have a solution, but I simply flag up those issues for further consideration.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I am most grateful to those noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who tabled the amendments on the level of the empty homes premium, as they allow us to discuss the factors we have to consider in deciding the maximum charge on empty homes in setting the framework for local authorities. I reiterate that, once we have set the framework, this is a discretionary measure for local authorities: something we are giving local authorities discretion to administer, according to their local needs and personalised or very localised factors affecting particular properties.

I think we all agree that there is a clear case for increasing the cap on the premium that applies to long-term empty properties. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, gave distinguished service in the coalition Government—I think in my current role—and rightly referred to the importance of the issue. We have borne down on it. My noble friend Lord Patten, who is not in his place, referred at Second Reading to how the number has reduced—we have squeezed it very effectively—but there is still more to do.

The debate is about the level to which we should take this charge and the circumstances in which it should apply. These are the difficult judgments we face. We propose through the Bill that owners of long-term empty homes should see their council tax bills double. This is a major step in allowing local authorities to incentivise such owners to bring their homes back into productive use.

One amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would mean that owners of empty homes would be paying triple the level of council tax payable on occupied homes within two years, or within one year if his other amendment were to be enacted. In fairness, that is from the Labour Party manifesto. Perhaps it is all the more surprising that nothing happened in the other place on the Bill: no amendment was proposed, still less debated. That said, it is something we should discuss.

Under the amendments supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, properties empty for between five and 10 years could face premiums of up to 200%, and those empty for more than 10 years could be subject to 300% premiums. I of course understand the rationale behind the amendments, and as homes are remaining empty for longer and longer, the logic of that is obvious: the figure goes up after five years and after 10 years. In addition, empty properties can be a nuisance to local residents, and potentially sites of crime or squatting. I share the concern about the need for robust measures to tackle what may become, and often are, blots on the landscape, to the benefit of those seeking a place to live as well as of local communities as a whole. I think we all understand that.

Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill

Earl of Lytton Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 4th July 2018 Lords Chamber

Hence, the version in front of your Lordships today is different. The amendment would insert “normally”. It says that normally the percentage increase shall be 75%. That gives local authorities a clear steer about the intention, and what their duty is, but it does not compel them. I believe that this revised amendment entirely meets the only credible reason that the Government gave in Committee to oppose the original amendment. I look forward to the Minister taking a more open approach than last time to this amended version and turning it from a “noble concept” into a practical reality.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his clarification on the first part of the Bill and the non-domestic rating. Nobody has been beating a path to my door since the last time we discussed the Bill, and I take it from that that this is as good as it gets. I thank him very much for clarifying that.

I would like to make a couple of comments on the amendments that we are discussing, starting with Amendments 1 and 3. It seems that we do not fully know the reasons for long-term vacancies. What concerns me is that the amendments have the potential to make a blunt instrument. I always think that legislation is about as blunt as it gets, but this risks making it blunter still. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about overseas owners; there is such a problem in certain areas, just as there is with certain other reasons for people deliberately holding property vacant.

We have to be clear whether this is some sort of fine or sanction for a socially reprehensible practice of deliberately keeping property empty, or whether it performs a legitimate housing stock amenity consideration. Is it something aimed at preventing the deterioration of neighbourhoods through some sort of social objective? In that case, I suspect that there are other measures. We need to be clear about how this is to be used if it is not to fall rapidly into some sort of disrepute. If it is used as a means just to bolster revenues for a billing authority, we would probably collectively feel that it was not quite the right way in which to do things. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA; no doubt I will get a dart or a brickbat from that quarter if it thinks that I am speaking out of turn.

Either way, at the levels of escalation that we might be talking about, the question is whether we leave things to the sole discretion of billing authorities with a challenge, as I understand it, only by means of judicial review. Other noble Lords will correct me if I have got that wrong. If that is the case, I would regard it as a very significant impediment, because of the cost and time involved in embarking on that course of action—to challenge the views of a local authority by saying that no reasonable authority could have reached that decision, which I understand is the test. As an alternative, I suggest that we need to introduce a properly, but doubtless locally, codified method of application, exemptions and, possibly, appeals. In that case, a lot more needs to be sitting somewhere in the Bill—perhaps the Government will produce regulations or something like that—which is not in it at the moment. I leave your Lordships with those thoughts.

I absolutely get the purpose that sits behind Amendment 2, moved so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. I would hope that the rationale behind saying, “We’re improving the energy efficiency of the Bill”, is not going to be capable of being spun out as some sort of pretext to prevent the core principle behind this, which I accept—namely, that there should be some sort of escalator—from kicking in at all. I think that would be a mistake.

I have a concern about the word “normally”. I seem to remember that it has rather unfortunate antecedents. I am probably going back about 30 years here, but I recall that there were a series of measures whereby it was suggested that “normally”, or something that sounded rather like it, was insufficiently clear or distinct in how it would be applied. The question was whose norm and who would be the judge of that. So, while I support the noble Lord, I am not absolutely sure that “normally” will be sufficiently targeted to achieve what he wants. With that, I will listen with great care to what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for being late. I was watching the screen avidly and then, all of a sudden, it turned to this item of today’s business. I remind noble Lords of my interests as a councillor and as another vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I thank my noble friend Lord Shipley for moving Amendment 1 in his name, my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and giving ample expression to our proposal for adding the premium to be paid on council tax, to be dependent on the length of time for which the property is left empty. In doing so, I shall speak to Amendment 3, a technical amendment in the names of the same noble Lords that supports the principle of Amendment 1.

In Committee, when we first moved an amendment relating to an escalator in the premium on council tax, the Minister was kind enough to give us some warm words of encouragement in response. Subsequently, a couple of weeks ago, we had a meeting where we discussed that. I thank him for saying the Government would be willing to support the principle of the idea but that there may be some necessary refinements when it came back at Third Reading. I am very pleased that that has happened, because it shows how this House can work in making amendments to Bills and trying to improve them before they become full legislation.

The basis of our amendment is, of course, a premium of 200% after five years and 300% after 10 years for those properties that are empty for 10 years or more. Any financial incentive to get more properties into use by families and individuals who desperately need a hand is one that we can all support. At the same time, it stops empty homes from being a blot on their communities—and we all know examples of that. The third reason is that it means that, if we can bring empty properties into use, we do not have to release so much greenbelt land to developers.

Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill

Earl of Lytton Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 18th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I was having a conversation the other day in which a matter arose that we did not consider when we were dealing with the provision at earlier stages. Today we are setting out the council tax premiums payable on empty property. The Explanatory Notes state that:

“Since 2013, local authorities in England have had the power to charge a council tax premium of up to 50% on ‘long-term empty dwellings’—that is, homes that have been unoccupied and substantially unfurnished for two years or more. This premium is in addition to the usual council tax charge that applies to that property”.


It is a power, not a requirement—but that is not strictly true. The assumption that we have all been making is that within the first two years the council tax remains the same as payable at the moment—but that is not strictly true. If you have a single person discount, which is 25%, then the council tax you will pay once your property is empty is not based on the single person discount at all; it is based on dual occupancy.

I will give an example of that, which I have taken from Windsor & Maidenhead. For band G properties the full council tax is £1,767.67 per annum. With the 25% discount it is £1,325.75 per annum. In the current year the total council tax on a band G property is £1,855. After two years, that council tax will double to £3,712, as against £1,325 at the moment. That is nearly a tripling of the council tax payable on that property, because the single person concession is not carried forward. To take the current year, someone in a band G property in Maidenhead will currently pay £1,325, but if they empty it their council tax will immediately increase by a third, to £1,855. That is a 33% increase, because they have emptied the property and, again, because they lose the single person discount.

I raise this because in the Minister’s presentation to the House he mentioned that guidelines would be issued. Can we deal with this issue in guidelines? Can local authorities be advised that when they send out those council tax demands for an empty property subject to a single person discount, the new rate will be based on the council tax payable with the discount, not on the rate payable in the event that the property has been occupied by two persons or more?

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, although I have different reasons for wanting to know what might be included in the guidance. As we are at this stage of the Bill I reiterate my declarations of interest: I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a professional who deals with rating, as well as an owner-occupier of residential property.

My concern goes back to a point I made at Second Reading: namely, that we do not always know the full range of circumstances which lead to long-term vacancy. It is probably generally true to say that owners of residential property do not deliberately leave it vacant long term; it simply deteriorates. But there are reasons why it occurs, notwithstanding what one would reasonably suppose is owners’ innate desire to make best use of the asset. I am thinking of areas subject to some sort of wholesale blight; those might be areas which are destined for redevelopment and which are held in that form. If they are held by a developer, good luck to them, but if you happen to be a private owner of property that is in part of an area which is destined for long-term redevelopment, you are stuck with it, possibly with none of the end benefits.

Could the Minister therefore give us some clarification and reassurance that where there is an impact of some planning or public policy—perhaps including a local authority’s policy for an area—that results in genuine reasons for vacancy, this sort of thing will be covered by the guidance? If it is not, it does not matter how genuinely you are in the market and with what rent or other terms you might wish to let or sell the property; if it is in an area that is subject to serious blight, first, nobody will get a mortgage for it, and secondly, maybe nobody will want to live there. Crime, deprivation and so on are part and parcel of that algorithm. We therefore need to be careful that where there are genuine reasons, not all of which can be imagined at this juncture, provision in the guidance will cover that sort of thing. Can the Minister also say whether the guidance will be subject to wider public consultation than perhaps between just the professions—the sort that I belong to—and local authorities?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind noble Lords of my relevant interests, which are in the register, as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I thank the Minister for accepting the principle of the amendment that I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues tabled both in Committee and on Report. That amendment has now been transformed into a fully fledged amendment, and I thank the Minister for tabling it on behalf of the Government.

We fully support the amendment before us today. Its purpose is clear: to significantly reduce the number of homes that lie empty and unused, which some reports say is as high as 200,000. This is at a time when all agree that there is an urgent need to increase the supply of housing. This amendment is one way of making the most of the housing stock that we have. There are, rightly, exemptions to this policy, and the Minister has outlined what they are. Implementation of the legislation is at the discretion of local authorities, and I hope and expect they will take into account areas that are destined to be redeveloped, and where the sale of a house would be very difficult.

I also welcome the Minister’s comment that there will be a review of the guidance attached to the Bill. Like the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, I raised concerns about that guidance in the Bill’s early stages, namely that it probably lacked the clarity to ensure that the legislation was properly and fairly implemented.

As I said before in discussion on the Bill, there are some owners who, to my personal knowledge, leave properties empty for no other reason than that they do not want to sell them. One property that I mentioned before has been empty for 29 years. I asked the local authority concerned what action it has taken. It said that it has discussed the matter with the owner, who simply does not want to sell the property. So it is left there like a historic relic of 30 years ago. There are instances of that happening. My hope is that with an escalation of the premium on council tax, it will be a financial disincentive to leave homes empty for so long.

That is why I am totally supportive of this amendment, based on the principle that I and others laid before the House in Committee and on Report. I thank the Minister for the discussions we had and for his positive reaction to the principle that I set out. I am also grateful for the help I received from the Liberal Democrat Whips’ office in formulating this idea as an amendment. We fully support the amendment.