God is in the Details

Hummm, interesting. All I can add is .. be careful. If buying a run down property you don't want to argue too hard that it's totally derelict. Because if planners consider that use as a dwelling has been abandoned it could make it much harder to get planning permission to replace it. 

 

That said, it is quite hard for a building to loose its status as a dwelling but that happened to a farmhouse a few miles away from us.

I have purchased a bungalow that has no power due to dangerous wiring, water turned off due to holes in roof letting bird poo into water tank, no kitchen or bathroom facilities at all. The VOA were sent a pack of photos and my statement of fact as we're the CT office. Both replied saying that the property was capable of offering beneficial habitation and on that basis refused to remove the liability for council tax or VOA register. I tried, I do feel that there is a niche area that self builders occupy that all the red tape cannot deal with in a fair manner. So now left with full CT on the property until demolished. 

@EverHopefull the post is about SDLT, not council tax.  To get the property removed from the council tax register you may need to remove the roof as a minimum and perhaps demolish internal walls and remove and board over doors and windows.  They don't want people owning properties that can easily be made habitable and not paying council tax.

 

@Ferdinand the SDLT rates seem quite similar - so much so I am surprised there has been a court case.  It looks like the property would have to be in excess of £1M to bother.

Sure, it was also non eligible for reduced stamp duty even tho marketed and sold as a development plot. Always worth a punt these things. As they say if you don't ask you don't get. Will demolish once planning approval obtained and just take it in the "self build" stride! 

43 minutes ago, Mr Punter said:

@EverHopefull the post is about SDLT, not council tax.  To get the property removed from the council tax register you may need to remove the roof as a minimum and perhaps demolish internal walls and remove and board over doors and windows.  They don't want people owning properties that can easily be made habitable and not paying council tax.

 

@Ferdinand the SDLT rates seem quite similar - so much so I am surprised there has been a court case.  It looks like the property would have to be in excess of £1M to bother.

 

That is interesting. I wonder if other factors are at play?

 

Perhaps the thing they are avoiding is the 3% Supplementary SDLT for a second Property?

44 minutes ago, Mr Punter said:

@EverHopefull the post is about SDLT, not council tax.  To get the property removed from the council tax register you may need to remove the roof as a minimum and perhaps demolish internal walls and remove and board over doors and windows.  They don't want people owning properties that can easily be made habitable and not paying council tax.

 

@Ferdinand the SDLT rates seem quite similar - so much so I am surprised there has been a court case.  It looks like the property would have to be in excess of £1M to bother.

It's not the rates surely it's to do with HRAD on additional properties. I guess it's not applicable to non resi purchases?

Can we have a summary of why the property was classed as non resi @Ferdinand

58 minutes ago, Oz07 said:

Can we have a summary of why the property was classed as non resi @Ferdinand

 

it is actually quite spread out, but the test is ‘suitable for use as a dwelling’ on te day of purchase, for residential SDLT to be applied, and it was a 150k transaction including the 3%, I think. The HMRC came up with lots of tangents.

 

The applicant made this case, and the place had had an intrusive asbestos survey, and white asbestos was exposed:

 

Quote

35. In their appeal to HMRC the appellants grounds of appeal were that the property was not habitable and refurbishment was not viable because of the asbestos content.

36. In their notification to the Tribunal they repeated this and said that they had provided evidence that the property was not capable of being used as a dwelling. They pointed to the valuation report and the demolition survey report, and added that the property had no form of heating, old electrics, the kitchen and bathroom were dated and the building was in poor condition in general. Any renovation would have been extensive and would have disturbed the asbestos. It would not comply with the Decent Homes Standard and would be unmortgageable because of the prefabricated construction method with timber frame and asbestos cement infill panels.

 

It s a good read.

 

Expect ‘suitable for use’ to change to ‘capable of being used’, to try and catch more in the net.

Edited May 4, 2019 by Ferdinand

3 hours ago, Temp said:

Hummm, interesting. All I can add is .. be careful. If buying a run down property you don't want to argue too hard that it's totally derelict. Because if planners consider that use as a dwelling has been abandoned it could make it much harder to get planning permission to replace it. 

 

That said, it is quite hard for a building to loose its status as a dwelling but that happened to a farmhouse a few miles away from us.

 

I think the one in the case already had Planning.

 

And I think that conceptually the SDLT thing would come under ‘matters not relevant’, as do eg neighbour disputes about boundaries.

Writing in case our experience is useful to others and appropriate for this thread. We have bought an uninhabitable house in Scotland as deemed by sellers surveyor. Empty for 7 months, owner was in hospital before passing and had built the house himself in 1961. Single skin brick with timber frame, water damage and floor covered in mould and bowing. jackdaws in roof and covered in ferns, 2 storage heaters and single glazing. The poor chap would have been freezing. We have an existing home in London which we have turned into a buy to let due to 3 purchases pulling out due to the hope house prices would come down. We plan to sell when the market is stable so we have some hope of a sale going to completion but presently happy with tenants. So we should pay the extra Stamp duty surcharge on house purchase but because it has been deemed uninhabitable by the surveyor and council we have been able to purchase without surcharge. We were advised to keep the surcharge amount available in case HMRC question the decision and take lots of photos and documents to back up our case. We will be demolishing the house and aim to building a passive house same shape and size and footprint as existing house, basement with ground floor and 2 bedrooms in roof.
Our solicitor did not know about the uninhabitable exception and we only found out through own research and he later sort advice to confirm. I should also add planners are happy we are replacing house so this has not effected a proposed development.