Presumably because even if the owners are uncontactable there are laws against summarily seizing property, even when public money has been used to make it safe.
I was thinking more of how 'Scotland's Railway' would be able to make a claim for compensation.
In addition to the land the hotel was on, any other assets the owner may have in the UK could theoretically be seized. If that doesn't cover it, it may still be worth to sue and demand payment if the person in question ever returns to the UK
This would be unlawful.
This is highly unlikely to bear any fruit, especially the more time that passes.
Wouldn’t matter if he was on the Moon, a Public Notice (published in the London Gazette) would be enough to intimate that the cumulative cost of maintenance, scaffolding, security (failed), demolition and disposal undertaken by the Council would have a billable amount that can be quantified, along with Council Tax due on the empty property until the date of demolition, and offset by the value of the ground. The owner can then stump up the balance to remain the landlord or continue to hide where his liberty could be severely restricted should he return to the UK.
Like the ongoing ignoring of costs to secure the property? This cuts both ways.
Parliament could do something about that should the Government so desire...
(Disclaimer: IANAL)
I don’t believe he has ever previously visited the UK and certainly not Scotland.
It would be in the Edinburgh Gazette, but I take your general point.
This would not be possible: the way such matters are recovered is upon disposition of the heritage at which point the expenses are recoverable from the proceeds.
The heritor hasn’t actually done anything, though. It certainly does not justify the seizure of private property.
Parliament has already.
This mechanism already exists, but is rarely (if ever) used.
There is no such general defence.
I’m not sure that new legislation would solve anything given that current legal avenues are not used as things stand.
Thanks for your valuable input on this, much appreciated. Would the British Railways Board, as a Statutory Authority, have had different powers to deal with this sort of situation?
I’ve been trying to find more on this - empty property relief is limited to 12 months in exceptional circumstances (it is usually 6). An owner cannot avoid paying it by saying he doesn’t use it, and you are surely aware that many factory owners removed the roofs of their property solely to avoid any payment of CT. The Station Hotel managed to retain its roof until last year.
No council tax will ever have been due for the hotel - it is a legal impossibility.
It would have had fewer powers available, save as a heritor for the conjoined or over sailing parts of the building.
Council Tax/Business Rates - it had a rateable value of £3,000, of which the current costing £1,494 for 2022-3 before any ‘relief’ is applied. So did they pay their share? I do recall the council (2021?) claimed to be in discussions with the owner, and wanted to sell to a third party, but only if no liability as to costs in the past or future would apply to the sale. Since the council was already out a sizeable sum for scaffolding and plastic wrap, no agreement was reached and one must assume, the potential sale negotiations concluded.
Council tax does not apply as it's not a residential property.
Council tax and business rates are completely separate and operate very differently.
Indeed.
Of course it doesn’t - as I clarified in post 224 - we all paid Rates until they changed it to Council Tax, the tax for business continued but continued to be called Rates, which I doubt many under 40 would be aware of. Nevertheless, businesses are not taxation-free and still must contribute.
It is their Rateable Value - all a matter of public record, but you knew that surely?
The current rateable value for the hotel is £77,000 (or would have been had it not burnt down, I suppose).
But you keep referring to council tax!
First of all, if you're referring to public record, please provide your source and quote the relevant parts.
www.gov.scot
www.saa.gov.uk
I think that may just be the station itself?
There are people in Birmingham now trying to prevent the demolition of Smallbrook Queensway, one of the worst brutalist carbuncles this city has to offer. The heritage lobby is completely out of control and listing needs to be massively curtailed.
| Eng Huat UNG |
| DSS GLOBAL LONDON LIMITED (13213668) |
| Company status |
| Active |
| Correspondence address |
| Flat 2 11-12, Tottenham Mews, London, United Kingdom, W1T 4AG |
| Role Active |
| Director |
| Appointed on |
| 19-Feb-21 |
| Nationality |
| Malaysian |
| Country of residence |
| United Kingdom |
| Occupation |
| Director |
Possibly - the postcode itself was provided by the ‘Buildings at Risk’ register, so used that for the lookup. Both entries refer to ‘Station’ but it’s quite possible different areas may be subdivided for liability purposes.
I used to work in that building and will volunteer to remove the first brick. Appalling building, and nowhere near dense enough for its proximity to the city centre. Flatten it.
I don't think it has any bricks, it's all concrete.
I suspect a lot of the reaction to Brutalist demolition proposals is not the building as such but the emotional memories connected with the building. Plenty of people who are now in their 50s and 60s will have had fun adolescent adventures in what was then a bright and new building.I don't think it has any bricks, it's all concrete.
This is actually one of the reasons it's proposed to be demolished, it's got concrete cancer and would take a fortune to fix. It would also still be a monstrosity, which is why I'm baffled that anyone sees anything worth saving in it. Some people seem to think anything old (where old in this case is barely over 50 years) is worth preserving.
I have a particular visceral response to people who want to preserve brutalist monstrosities because of their impact on the public realm.
www.south-ayrshire.gov.uk
