Hundreds? There are tens of thousands of them.There must be hundreds of houses around the country in poor condition and vacant accordingly - does VHT have to be paid on them? It's very confusing.
Just be cautious on that approach. When LPT came in first some who declared their properties uninhabitable (there was even stories of some removing sections of roof) who later sought to bring them back into use as property prices rose found themselves snookered by the planning laws.There must be hundreds of houses around the country in poor condition and vacant accordingly - does VHT have to be paid on them? It's very confusing.
Thank you, I see your point. It's a quandary because the owner is ill and cannot afford to repair/replace the roof; meanwhile mice are getting in. She paid the LPT from the beginning but this VHT added to that is going to be very costly. The work done some years ago made the cottage very attractive and she stayed there for brief periods but now it is deteriorating and she really cannot keep up maintenance. Revenue should have exemptions for this sort of situation.Just be cautious on that approach. When LPT came in first some who declared their properties uninhabitable (there was even stories of some removing sections of roof) who later sought to bring them back into use as property prices rose found themselves snookered by the planning laws.
If the property is indeed uninhabitable, then they will require full planning permission to bring them back into use, and that will require modernising to current building regulations. A couple in Wicklow who ere unaware of this hit the headlines last year when they were forced to undo major renovation works on a property that had been derelict.
No, one of the very purposes of this is to disincentivise this sort of situation where property is let go to ruin where it could be providing accommodation for someone who needs a home.Revenue should have exemptions for this sort of situation.
Yes, LPT tax has been paid on the house since it came into being and I know that essentially leads into the house coming under VHT also. But the owner cannot afford to get a new roof and is seriously ill also. The structural works exemption doesn't apply and the illness doesn't apply as it is not her principal residence, but if it is unsuitable for occupation in its present condition without major work being done, would that not be considered an exemption in itself? There must be hundreds of houses around the country in poor condition and vacant accordingly - does VHT have to be paid on them? It's very confusing.
Sounds like she should just sell it?Thank you, I see your point. It's a quandary because the owner is ill and cannot afford to repair/replace the roof; meanwhile mice are getting in. She paid the LPT from the beginning but this VHT added to that is going to be very costly. The work done some years ago made the cottage very attractive and she stayed there for brief periods but now it is deteriorating and she really cannot keep up maintenance. Revenue should have exemptions for this sort of situation.
Does this also apply to property owned by the councils?No, one of the very purposes of this is to disincentivise this sort of situation where property is let go to ruin where it could be providing accommodation for someone who needs a home.
Yes.Does this also apply to property owned by the councils?
Would you have a link to the number of properties owned by the councils?
NoWould you have a link to the number of properties owned by the councils?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?