£500 fine for closing door on council tax inspector
Discussion
£500 fine for closing door on council tax inspector
By Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor
(Filed: 11/12/2005)
Householders who close the door on or refuse to cooperate with bureaucrats sent to check their property for features that will increase their council tax bills could be fined £500 and receive a criminal record.
The fines will be imposed on anybody who "intentionally obstructs" Valuation Office Agency inspectors in their effort to record details of millions of homes. The move is likely to create more council tax rebels who refuse to pay fines, clog the courts and bring further chaos to the system.
Conservatives demanded last night that the inspectors' powers be abolished and described the fines as "outrageous".
Last month the Sunday Telegraph revealed how ministers planned to levy extra charges on homes that have a nice view, a swimming pool, a tennis court or a balcony, as well as those in conservation areas, next to a golf course or with more bedrooms or a bigger garden than average.
These "value significant features" could push a house into a higher council tax band in a nationwide revaluation, which is due to be completed by 2007. This could cost householders hundreds of pounds extra in council tax each year.
Valuation inspectors, using a new £45 million computer system, are undertaking this massive exercise in England. They have also been equipped with 2,126 digital cameras at a cost of £438,749 to the taxpayer.
Parliamentary answers given by Hazel Blears, the Home Office minister, show that anybody who refuses to let inspectors in could face a criminal charge.
She said: "A person who intentionally obstructs a valuation officer commits an offence and may be liable to a fine not exceeding level two [£500] on the standard scale."
Other parliamentary answers by the Government show that the valuation will also be used to assess liability for inheritance or capital gains tax.
Caroline Spelman, the shadow local government secretary, said: "Day by day it is becoming clearer that while Labour may claim to have postponed revaluation, it is actually well under way by stealth. The computer database is being rolled out across the country with the details of every home logged.
"Although Conservatives cannot condone people breaking the law, fining them £500 and giving them a criminal record if they don't co-operate is outrageous. The Valuation Office Agency's powers to enter people's homes should be abolished."
The revaluation had been postponed by ministers who feared a backlash over higher bills from voters in the South of England.
However, the parliamentary replies show that the exercise is now under way. The revaluation carried out in Wales suggests that, in England, owners of a Band D property will face an extra £267 on their council tax bill if they go up two bands.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/11/ntax11.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_11122005
By Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor
(Filed: 11/12/2005)
Householders who close the door on or refuse to cooperate with bureaucrats sent to check their property for features that will increase their council tax bills could be fined £500 and receive a criminal record.
The fines will be imposed on anybody who "intentionally obstructs" Valuation Office Agency inspectors in their effort to record details of millions of homes. The move is likely to create more council tax rebels who refuse to pay fines, clog the courts and bring further chaos to the system.
Conservatives demanded last night that the inspectors' powers be abolished and described the fines as "outrageous".
Last month the Sunday Telegraph revealed how ministers planned to levy extra charges on homes that have a nice view, a swimming pool, a tennis court or a balcony, as well as those in conservation areas, next to a golf course or with more bedrooms or a bigger garden than average.
These "value significant features" could push a house into a higher council tax band in a nationwide revaluation, which is due to be completed by 2007. This could cost householders hundreds of pounds extra in council tax each year.
Valuation inspectors, using a new £45 million computer system, are undertaking this massive exercise in England. They have also been equipped with 2,126 digital cameras at a cost of £438,749 to the taxpayer.
Parliamentary answers given by Hazel Blears, the Home Office minister, show that anybody who refuses to let inspectors in could face a criminal charge.
She said: "A person who intentionally obstructs a valuation officer commits an offence and may be liable to a fine not exceeding level two [£500] on the standard scale."
Other parliamentary answers by the Government show that the valuation will also be used to assess liability for inheritance or capital gains tax.
Caroline Spelman, the shadow local government secretary, said: "Day by day it is becoming clearer that while Labour may claim to have postponed revaluation, it is actually well under way by stealth. The computer database is being rolled out across the country with the details of every home logged.
"Although Conservatives cannot condone people breaking the law, fining them £500 and giving them a criminal record if they don't co-operate is outrageous. The Valuation Office Agency's powers to enter people's homes should be abolished."
The revaluation had been postponed by ministers who feared a backlash over higher bills from voters in the South of England.
However, the parliamentary replies show that the exercise is now under way. The revaluation carried out in Wales suggests that, in England, owners of a Band D property will face an extra £267 on their council tax bill if they go up two bands.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/11/ntax11.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_11122005
This has all been done before, anyone remember studying Morton's Fork at school?
The expression originates from a policy of tax collection devised by John Morton, Lord Chancellor 1487, under the rule of Henry VII. His approach was that if the subject lived in luxury and had clearly spent a lot of money on himself, he obviously had sufficient income to spare for the king. Alternatively, if the subject lived frugally, and showed no sign of being wealthy, he must have had substantial savings and could therefore afford to give it to the king. These arguments were the two prongs of the fork and regardless of whether the subject was rich or poor, he didn't have a favourable choice.
The expression originates from a policy of tax collection devised by John Morton, Lord Chancellor 1487, under the rule of Henry VII. His approach was that if the subject lived in luxury and had clearly spent a lot of money on himself, he obviously had sufficient income to spare for the king. Alternatively, if the subject lived frugally, and showed no sign of being wealthy, he must have had substantial savings and could therefore afford to give it to the king. These arguments were the two prongs of the fork and regardless of whether the subject was rich or poor, he didn't have a favourable choice.
Ribol said:
This has all been done before, anyone remember studying Morton's Fork at school?
The expression originates from a policy of tax collection devised by John Morton, Lord Chancellor 1487, under the rule of Henry VII. His approach was that if the subject lived in luxury and had clearly spent a lot of money on himself, he obviously had sufficient income to spare for the king. Alternatively, if the subject lived frugally, and showed no sign of being wealthy, he must have had substantial savings and could therefore afford to give it to the king. These arguments were the two prongs of the fork and regardless of whether the subject was rich or poor, he didn't have a favourable choice.
Loosely translated: these inspectors can fork off.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff