Saturday 26 May 2012

FRAUD COST COUNCILS £135M, REPORT FINDS


First published by: The Guardian


Nearly 120,000 frauds against local authorities in England last year with more than half relating to housing or Council Tax



Tenancy fraud has the potential to do the most damage, the Audit Commision survey found. Councils in England lost £135m through nearly 120,000 incidents of frauds last year, a spending watchdog said today. Scams involving the 25% single occupancy Council Tax discount cost authorities £90m alone after a "sharp increase" in claims, the soon-to-be abolished Audit Commission said. 

It survey of councils also found more than 4,000 fraudulent uses of disabled blue badge parking permits. The commission – one of scores of public bodies being scrapped by the government defended its work and warned that significant council staff cuts could weaken local authority controls. Next year's "valuable" fraud survey would be the last, it said. 

Other scams reported were student council-tax discounts claimed using fake colleges and addresses, some of which turned out to be high street shops and restaurants. About 50,000 properties worth £2bn had been illegally sublet or occupied, while Birmingham city council uncovered £5.8m of benefit overpayments. The survey, called Protecting the Public Purse, revealed that false benefit claims were the most common fraud against local authorities. It reported 63,000 housing and Council Tax benefit cases, amounting to a loss of £99m. But it warned that tenancy fraud, where people live in council houses to which they are not entitled or illegally sublet them, could do the most damage.

The north-west had the highest proportion of fraud – 19.6% of the total. London was next, with 18.8%. The south-west and north-east had the lowest, with 6.5% each. The survey concluded: "With the recently announced abolition of the Audit Commission, our detected fraud survey for local government and the publication of the results will cease. "The survey provides valuable information about the performance of local government in tackling fraud. "It also helps to identify emerging fraud risks and provides an early warning system for counter-fraud staff."

The communities and local government secretary, Eric Pickles, announced in August that the commission was being disbanded, saying it had "lost its way".


Friday 25 May 2012

A ‘MANSION TAX’ WOULD HIT MIDDLE-CLASS LONDONERS

First published by This is London


An annual levy on these homeowners would take no account of those who are asset rich but cash poor


All the signs are that the Liberal Democrats are pressing the Government to include some form of wealth tax in the forthcoming Budget, based on a “mansion tax” on valuable properties. Such a levy would be arbitrary, unfair and unaffordable for many of those required to pay.

An overwhelming proportion of the affected properties, estimated to be 81 per cent of the national total, would be in London, with 40 per cent of those in Kensington and Chelsea. Yet many of these properties are by no means mansions. A three-bedroom flat in South Kensington or parts of Westminster will often cost over £1 million. 

Many £2 million houses in central London are fairly ordinary town houses. These are properties that in any other part of England would sell at a fraction of the price. Such a wealth tax would target not mansions but desirable locations. Likewise, the owners who would be hit hardest are by no means the super-rich. Many are middle-class professionals or business families, with comfortable but not wealthy middle-class incomes. Many have lived in their properties for years, having purchased their home prior to the explosion in house prices. According to figures from Savills, 31 per cent of the properties in London that are worth more than £2 million have been in the same ownership for more than 10 years, 15 per cent for more than 20 years.

An annual levy on these homeowners would take no account of those who are asset rich but cash poor, either because they are elderly and no longer earning a salary or because the increase in the market value of their homes bears no relation to any increase in their income. A property-based wealth tax would also be impractical. Were it introduced, it would be likely to lead to a sharp fall in the market value of such houses in a very short time. Would homeowners remain locked into the liability to pay the tax if the market value of their homes fell below the established threshold?

If a tax on wealth is to be considered equitable, it would have to be based on a person’s total wealth, not just their home. Why should homeowners be singled out as opposed to, say, shareholders, landholders, or those in possession of commercial property, works of art and other valuables? It would be indefensible to subject some to a wealth tax while excluding those with far greater wealth merely because of the different ways in which their money was invested. It would be particularly disgraceful if the asset singled out was the primary home that a family lives in, rather than optional luxury items such as yachts or jewellery — or other assets that might produce a regular income, such as buy-to-let second homes.

As the Member of Parliament for Kensington, I have a special awareness of the effect such a policy would have, and am resolutely opposed to it being incorporated into our tax structure. It would be extraordinary if a Conservative-led Government were to do so. If we are to target the super-rich for taxation, the least we can do is ensure that carelessness doesn’t leave middle-income families caught in the crossfire. Failure to do so could force hard-working Londoners out of homes they have lived in for decades.


Are you paying too much Council Tax - check here?

Thursday 24 May 2012

RESIDENTS WILL RECEIVE £100,000 IN REBATES

First published by: News & Star


HOME-OWNERS on a Carlisle estate will receive £100,000 in tax rebates. WHY: because their houses were placed in the wrong Council Tax bands.


Rated at Council Tax band C, 180 homes on Kingfisher Park, off Warwick Road, have been rebanded as B after a lengthy appeal process. A spokesman for the Valuation Office Agency, which calculates bands, said: “Because we were unable to make a decision on the Council Tax level the case was taken to an independent valuation tribunal and they made the decision the band should be lower.” On the estate, 180 properties have now seen their band lowered from C to B meaning the annual bill for residents will drop from £1,148.30 to £1,004.77 – a saving of £143.53A band B house has a value of £40,001 to £52,000, while band C homes range from £52,001 to £68,000.

A Carlisle City Council spokeswoman said it was not possible to say exactly how much the authority will have to return to each household but said the overall cost is likely to be around £100,000. The exact payments will depend on the length of time occupiers have lived in their property and whether they were claiming the single person 25-per-cent discount.   


Homes on the estate also had their Council Tax waived while uninhabited in the wake of January’s flooding. Each home within the Carlisle area is allocated a Council Tax band by the local district valuer. Any property owner is able to appeal against the decision providing the appeal is made within six months of the banding decision. These appeals can take several years to resolve.  The council spokeswoman added: “When appeals are successful, we are authorised to re-calculate Council Tax liability and credit accounts or make refunds. 


“The appeal for a Kingfisher Park home was unusual because it was judged that approximately 200 similar properties would also qualify for a banding reduction. “We have now calculated each householder’s reduced Council Tax liability based on the revised Council Tax bands. “We are currently issuing refunds/credit notes to all liable householders who have lived in an affected property back to the date they were first occupied.” The first homes on the Barratt estate were built in 1998 but some were not occupied until 2002.


Wednesday 23 May 2012

VINCE CABLE: LIB DEMS ARE READY TO CUT A DEAL ON 50P TAX RATE

First published by: The Guardian


LIB-DEMs ARE willing to back Tories


Vince Cable said Lib Dems were also working on raising the lowest earners out of the tax system altogether. Vince Cable has confirmed that the Liberal Democrats are ready to scrap the 50p top rate of tax in exchange for a new tax on multimillion-pound properties. His party leader, Nick Clegg, has opposed calls for the abolition of the top rate of tax, but Cable indicated there was a deal to be done in the runup to the budget amid pressure on the chancellor, George Osborne, from the business lobby and fellow Conservatives to scrap the measure. 


The business secretary stepped up the pressure on Osborne as he became the first cabinet minister to confirm there was a "very broad understanding" in the coalition of a reciprocal deal that would see the tax shift from income to wealth. The Lib Dem minister also signalled that new higher rates of Council Tax bands could be the levy of choice. He said a possible tradeoff for ditching the top rate of tax was just one part of a "complex set of negotiations which my colleagues are conducting".

The Lib Dems have campaigned for a "mansion tax" on properties worth more than £2m, to pay for the poorest workers to be lifted out of the tax system. Cable told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "If the 50p rate were to go – and I and my colleagues are not ideologically wedded to the 50p tax rate – if that were to go, it should be replaced by taxation of wealth, because the wealthy people of the country have got to pay their share, particularly at a time of economic difficulty.

"How exactly that is configured is a detailed matter for negotiation, but that principle must be upheld, and the mansion tax is actually a very economically sensible way of doing it. But there are different ways of approaching it." Cable did not rule out new, higher Council Tax bands on multimillion-pound properties. "There are vast numbers of extraordinarily valuable properties now around the south of England netting very large gains for their owners – many of whom come from abroad, incidentally – and it's not taxed at all," he said. "Basically, you get people with multimillion-pound properties paying exactly the same Council Tax as somebody in a three-bedroom semi. So the system doesn't work."

Cable said the Lib Dems were also emphasising in negotiations the importance of lifting low earners out of tax altogether – one of the party's key themes. "We are making progress with that," he said. "That's certainly an important part of the mix as well." Jeremy Browne, the Lib Dem foreign spokesman, signalled over the weekend that the Lib Dems were not "ideologically wedded" to the 50p rate of income tax.

But Boris Johnson, the Conservative London mayor, who has repeatedly called for the 50p rate to be scrapped, balked at the idea of a mansion tax. He said he was under the impression that there was "no agreement in the coalition". Johnson said on Sunday: "Obviously, in a city like London … you're going to find many more people who might be hit by such a tax. I'd much rather that we stop focusing so much on bashing people and started thinking what we can do to help people into work."

A London Tory MP echoed Johnson's concerns, claiming that the tax would hit London the hardest and hurt middle-class families. Malcolm Rifkind, Conservative MP for Kensington and Chelsea, said 81% of properties affected would be in London, half of which are in his constituency backyard. He said the levy would be "arbitrary, disproportionate and unfair" and declared himself "resolutely opposed to such a tax".

Many homes costing more than £2m are "fairly ordinary townhouses", he wrote. "Such a wealth tax would target not mansions but desirable locations," he said, adding that it would affect people with "comfortable but not wealthy middle-class incomes", many of whom had bought their homes prior to the "explosion in house prices".

It would be "extraordinary" if a Conservative-led government incorporated such a levy into the tax structure, he said. "If we are to target the super rich for taxation, the least we can do is ensure that carelessness doesn't leave middle-class families in the crossfire. Failure to do so could force hard-working Londoners out of homes they have lived in for decades."


READ WHAT: ERIC PICKLES ‘SECRETARY OF STATE’ SAYS ABOUT OVER-CHARGED COUNCIL TAX.

Are you paying too much Council Tax - check here?

Tuesday 22 May 2012

BILLIONS NECESSARY TO FUND NICK CLEGG'S PROPOSAL


First published by: The Guardian


Lib Dems examine options to fast-track £10,000 tax threshold plans


Clegg has called on the government to go faster to lift allowances, claiming lower income groups were in a state of emergency due to a squeeze on living standards. The Liberal Democrats have started examining ways to raise billions in higher taxes on the rich to fund Nick Clegg's call for the government to go faster in lifting the personal income tax threshold to £10,000. 

Clegg's officials admitted that the rate at which the threshold could be increased would depend on what schemes can be developed before the budget to fund the proposal. Tax avoidance, aviation taxes and wealth taxes will all be examined by the Treasury. In a speech on Thursday Clegg called on the government to go faster in lifting allowances, saying lower income groups were in a state of emergency owing to a squeeze on living standards. Alex Henderson, tax partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers, suggested each £100 increase in the personal allowance cost the government at least £500m, and raising the threshold from £8,105 to £10,000 would cost £11bn. 

No 10 reacted calmly to Clegg's call, pointing out that the goal of a £10,000 personal allowance threshold is existing coalition policy. But Tory MPs were divided, with some warning the chancellor, George Osborne, not to let the Liberal Democrats grab credit for the policy and others warning the idea was expensive and unlikely to boost business confidence.

David Ruffley, a Conservative Treasury select committee member, warned: "There are no free lunches here and I think many of us believe the best way now to boost business confidence is not pushing it up to £10,000 to put some more money in the household pockets, but to actually go for payroll taxes." On the left, many analysts argue lifting the threshold is not as progressive as it seems since it is not aimed at household income.

Clegg will be delighted that he has highlighted what is a relatively simple tax policy, saying in his speech: "Cutting income tax is one of the most direct tools we have to ease the burden on low and middle earners." The income tax threshold was raised by £1,000 to £7,475 in the 2010 budget, and the government plans to increase it further to £8,105 this year.

In his speech Clegg continued to insist he was interested in a mansion tax, even if some of his officials doubt that such a radical policy can be pushed through the Treasury by the time of the spring budget.


Lord Oakeshott, the Liberal Democrat peer, urged Clegg to stick to his guns on the mansion tax, saying: "If we really want to tax the wealth of the super-rich, mansion tax is the game changer – the only tax the nondoms and City sharks cannot dodge."



Monday 21 May 2012

UNOCCUPIED, UNLOVED: LONDON MANSIONS LEFT TO CRUMBLE BY ELUSIVE OFFSHORE OWNERS

First published by: The Guardian


Council official despairs: 1 MILLION empty homes in London and across the UK


Empty property in Mayfair, London. There are 3,000 empty properties in Westminster, London, an increasing number of which are being squatted. "When I was a boy I used to come up to London and see houses like these and think 'Wow. Who lives there?'" says Paul Palmer, gazing up at a pair of seven-storey mansions in Park Lane across the road from Hyde Park. "Now I know – no one. These are owned by two different companies registered at the same address in the British Virgin Islands. 

They haven't been occupied for at least seven years, apart from when the squatters were there in January." There are an estimated 1m empty homes in the UK, and as empty properties officer for Westminster council, Palmer is responsible for about 3,000 of them. Every day, he visits some of the ritziest addresses in the capital and does his best to get them lived in again. What makes his job unique is the staggering value of the properties on his books: some of his Mayfair mansions are worth as much as £50m, even in their dilapidated state. What makes his job difficult is that many of the biggest and most expensive are owned not by dusty old dowagers down on their luck but by mystery investors hiding their identities behind offshore companies.

"I feel it is a tragedy," says Palmer. Many of these buildings have wonderful histories, and are part of our heritage. For them to be left vacant and unloved for a such a long time, pawns in a real-life game of Monopoly, is disgraceful." The properties usually aren't abandoned for reasons which might prompt sympathy. Palmer believes many elusive owners don't have the slightest intention of bringing them back to life. "So often offshore owners have little or no interest in the property as a building - it is merely an asset to be traded as they see fit," he says, adding that offshore firms are very tricky to track down.

Take the Park Lane townhouses, which Palmer estimates are worth £10m apiece. The key leaseholds on each are held by Konzeo Ltd and Weleta Ltd, two companies incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (BVI), a tax haven in the Caribbean. Both firms ignored multiple letters from Palmer asking them to explain why the buildings were unoccupied and threatening to issue a compulsory purchase order – until a gang of squatters, plus their dogs, moved in and were pictured on the front page of the Sun in January.

Builders appeared after the squatters were evicted, but Palmer says they were on site for only a few days and have never returned. "It's just the same situation as before," he says, peering through the letterbox nine months on, "only now they've left the lights on." Within a five-minute walk of Park Lane are 21 of the grandest properties on Palmer's list, worth between £6m and £50m each by his estimation. Of these, seven are registered to BVI companies, with others owned by firms incorporated in Jersey, Guernsey and Switzerland. 

Many are registered at the same address in Road Town in the BVI's capital of Tortola, just under different post office box numbers, says Palmer, who confesses he has often gazed at the satellite picture of Road Town on Google Maps and wondered what secrets lie beyond the satellite's range. John Samson, a property law expert at Taylor Wessing, says offshore-registered firms buy expensive London property as an investment, just like art or any other commodity. "One of the reasons that people buy property in London, and in particular Mayfair, is that there is almost always a demand for it," says Samson. "Investors believe the value will not only be maintained but will go up, regardless of whether it is lived in or not." Amanda Royce, a property solicitor, says Mayfair is a particularly attractive investment location for foreigners now because of the weak pound. 

"The owners leave them empty sometimes because they lose track of their properties. Often they have a place in New York, a place in Monte Carlo, one in the south of France and so on."In some cases where property is owned by offshore companies, UK capital gains tax will not be payable, says Samson. "If an investor with a British-registered firm bought a property for £1m one year and sold it the next for £2m, he would be liable for 18% capital gains tax on the £1m profit."

Upper Grosvenor Street in Mayfair ought to be one of the most desirable addresses in London. The heavily fortified American embassy occupies a square halfway down. Le Gavroche, with its two Michelin stars and Michel Roux Jr in the kitchen, is just around the corner and Hyde Park is at the end of the road. Yet four grand properties on the street have remained empty for up to eight years, abandoned and left to ruin by their offshore owners.

No 21, registered to Boss Holdings in Jersey and worth around £15m, has been vacant for at least eight years. So has No 18, which is believed to be owned by an Abu Dhabi prince who bought the property in June 2006 via a company registered in the British Virgin Islands. He has never lived there, but others have: the 30-plus rooms of the grade II-listed residence were squatted last November by a raggle-taggle of artists calling themselves the Da! Collective.

No 18 is registered to a firm called Deltaland Resources, which, according to property developer Mo Ghadami, is owned by Sheikh Sultan Bin Khalifa al Nahyan. When the Guardian contacted Deltaland's lawyer, Costa Keliris, at Maxwell Winward in London, asking whether the sheikh was the true owner, he did not respond. Whoever owns No 18 looks to have been shamed into actually developing the property. Last week, builders were on site, tut-tutting at the graffiti left by the squatters and sprucing up the building's crumbling exterior.

Down the street, the handsome twin townhouses at Nos 41 and 42 have both been empty for around five years. The leaseholds on both belong to BVI firms. One, Merix International, paid £25.85m for No 41 in 2007. Around the corner in Park Street are three more empty mansions, which Palmer says have not been occupied for up to eight years but are worth a total of £40m, even in their current sorry state. "Look at this one – it's massive!" he says, pointing to a monolithic red brick mansion opposite the Grosvenor House hotel. It has Sellotape across the top of the front door. "Aha," says Palmer. "The squatters have been scoping this one out. They do it to see if anyone is coming in or out."


Are you paying too much Council Tax - check here?

Sunday 20 May 2012

DROP THE 50P TAX RATE AND TARGET PROPERTY – THE GUTSY WELSH WAY TO GO


First published by: The Guardian


Will George Osborne be braver?


Billed as London's most expensive house, this Kensington property sold for £80m in 2008. There are many empty ‘offshore' mansions in the capital. George Osborne has the right instinct on tax. Get some sanity into child and housing benefit, relieve taxes at the bottom and, at the top, tax wealth rather than income. If so, there is no time like the present. 

The chancellor should drop the unloved 50% band of income tax and go for property. Housing is the most inefficient, mal-distributed, under-taxed and therefore overpriced asset in the land. Tax it properly, with something in return. Britons live more lavishly than any other big nation in Europe. More live in houses not flats, more have private gardens and more are home owners not renters. They also pay the lowest local taxes. What they do pay is a cockeyed, regressive, un-buoyant Council Tax, based on property valuations that bear little relation to actual or differential price. The top H band of Council Tax in the richer parts of the south-east embraces almost half of home owners. It is, in effect, a poll tax. 

Year after year the last Labour government funked revaluing England's Council Tax bands, meekly fearing that losers might howl louder than winners. The Welsh were bolder, revaluing in 2005 and now getting the benefit. Council Tax on an I-band house in Gwynedd is higher than on a sheikh's palace in Kensington (£2,870 against £2,158). The Liberal Democrat answer is Vince Cable's £2m mansion tax, an impost with built-in political impossibility. It is swingeing, posited at £20,000 a year per mansion. It has a blatant cliff-edge effect, excusing houses just below the threshold yet savaging those above it. It evokes the "granny tax" protest, lacks regional variation and is merely a top-down fiscal wheeze to avoid the odium of rate revaluation.

Meanwhile Council Tax remains the fiscal Cinderella, a miserable drudge of a thing, abused, beaten and kept in the localist broom cupboard. It was conjured into being by John Major's government in 1992 to purge the Tories of the stain of poll tax, while somehow pretending it was not a reversion to the rates. Council Tax is unfair. Whereas under rates, the ratio of lowest to highest house valuation was roughly 1:100, the spread of the eight Council Tax bands is merely 1:3. The highest H band was £320,000 at 1991 prices (up to an average of £950,000 today). The bands have never been adjusted, while a growing sense of unfairness leads all governments to curry electoral favour by "freezing" Council Tax in favour of stealth taxes. The whole saga epitomises Britain's political cowardice. 

Osborne should follow gutsy Wales and introduce new upper bands that reflect the rise in house prices since the 1990s. He could do it now. Only the existing H band would need revaluing, and could be graduated in three stages to whatever value he chooses. The actual Council Tax paid per band would still be determined by local councils. The allocation of properties to the new bands by currently under-employed estate agents would be no big deal. 

It must anyway be undertaken one day. Property is the easiest of all assets to tax because it the most visible, most recordable and most unavoidable. The private housing lobby is already hollering about losers, crying that any new top bands will "unfairly target the income-poor and equity-rich". This is like worrying about people who own Rolls-Royces they cannot afford to drive. 

The genteel poor may use inherited property inefficiently, but there is no reason for not taxing them for doing so. I cannot plead to be excused taxes because I get little benefit from them. The government is now proposing to "tax" housing benefit to reflect the number of rooms recipients leave unoccupied, and to discourage them from living in expensive properties. Taxing the living space of the rich is hardly unfair. 

Another group of much-bewailed losers is foreigners, many of whom pay neither taxes nor stamp duty. They can lump it. On one estimate, some 100,000 UK properties are now parked in offshore tax havens, which must comprise the bulk of the 155,000 houses in England and Wales thought to be worth more than £1m. Why the Government left in place this massive tax loophole, costing some £1bn a year, is a mystery. This is why is so important for you check if you are in the right Council Tax band, if you are not then contact Council Tax Rebates. 

Nor are Britain's property taxes particularly high. New York's are fixed at between 1% and 2% of value. Westchester County's median property tax is $8,474, roughly three times the top rate in London's Kensington. Many New Yorkers pay $20,000 to $30,000. These can be partly offset against other taxes, but taxes they remain. There is another reason for raising taxes on property across the board. The biggest unexploited – and "greenest" – housing resource in Britain is empty and under-occupied property. 

There are empty rooms over shops, frozen by planning control. There are empty "offshore" mansions in central London. There are low plot ratios under urban renewal and more vacant commercial sites than ever. Britain is wasteful of residential land. An estimated million vacant homes are said to lie hidden within the urban and suburban landscape of Britain. Osborne is right to regard planning as one inhibitor of bringing them into use. Tax relief on residential lets would also help.

The key here is to use the tax system as an aid to urban growth, properly so called. City sprawl is now a Europe-wide problem, with car-intensive building in the countryside increasing by 20% since 1980 to meet a population rise of just 6%. It may be impossible for a free market to "monetise" the value of open country for leisure and recreation, but it obviously makes sense to direct taxes at ensuring developed land is used more efficiently. 

We should tax its extravagant use and relieve taxes for public benefit. There is no denying the political price in progressive property taxes. The rich will pay more. But that price could be balanced by abandoning the 50p income tax band, which history suggests will raise little extra money. The net increase in revenue from Council Tax could then be diverted to the Liberal Democrat goal of a higher basic tax threshold. Each of these fiscal changes should yield pleasure somewhere on the political spectrum, while also delivering the chancellor a possible rise in overall revenue.

Those who champion fiscal reform get precious few moments on stage. They no sooner start their song than they are deafened by cries of political expediency. This time the politics could just be in their favour. Might someone listen?