Big Ben

[Walker570]

The cost may seem a lot of money but is a small part of what we put in the pockets of the scum in Brussels every month.

[Scully]

One of the 'gripes' I have is that we have many many fine buildings in the country - the vast majority looked after by the (private individual) owners. Since these are listed, we (yes, I am an owner of a listed building) are very restricted in what we can do - and wheat materials we can use and what practical changes we can make. We get no help at all with the extra cost of this.

 

For example - recent work I have had done was the rebuilding of some badly rotten sash windows. For reasons I won't detail in full, the 'premium' for having the work done to fully meet the listed buildings requirements about double the cost. Now it would be very nice if the private individual could get a little help with this - such as a VAT waiver.

Government can find £29M easily enough for their listed building - I'm not asking for any subsidy ........ just not to have to pay the VAT on top of the materials and labour costs - since government rules have doubled the cost of the work needed. Note that my house was not listed when acquired - that was just dropped on it later - by means of registered letter.

 

Isn't the palace of westminster a listed building?

[krugerandsmith]

£29,000,000 on a clock and an old tower, they need to get their priorities right ! NHS,POLICE, BORDER CONTROL THE LIST IS ENDLESS.

 

 

Yes lets see OUR wealth spread around the rest of the uk not always London.

[JohnfromUK]

 

Isn't the palace of westminster a listed building?

I'm sure it is - I would guess Grade 1, but paying isn't a problem for them. My concern is that looking after listed buildings to a standard to suit the rules planning rules is a lot more expensive than an unlisted building. Since we are (in my case anyway, through no direct choice of mine since it was listed long after it came into my possession) looking after these 'important' buildings to a standard dictated by the local authority, some (minor) assistance should be provided, This used to be the case with VAT concessions, but these have been removed.

 

I am delighted to be 'looking after' a piece of our heritage and do it to the best of my ability, but it is very costly - and having to pay more tax (VAT is obviously based on the cost) because it costs more because it is listed is a little harsh in my humble opinion.

 

If the authorities decide to list my property (thus pushing up my running costs), I do believe they should not be gaining extra revenue - but be giving a bit back in return for me bearing the major cost.

[oldypigeonpopper]

£29,000,000 on a clock and an old tower, they need to get their priorities right ! NHS,POLICE, BORDER CONTROL THE LIST IS ENDLESS.

hello, thats nothing compared to the 37 million spent on the new london project, Thames Garden Bridge OH ITS BEEN SCRAPPED

[Lord Geordie]

It's being done on H&S grounds to protect the hearing of the work force during the refurb and repair works.

 

So place PA system on the roof of the parliament buildings instead of near the tower?

It's being done on H&S grounds to protect the hearing of the work force during the refurb and repair works.

 

So place PA system on the roof of the parliament buildings instead of near the tower?

[Mice!]

 

 

Yes lets see OUR wealth spread around the rest of the uk not always London.

You have to remember, the tourist industry in London is massive and as said above people flock to see the likes of big ben, look how many folk are there wandering around taking pics.

 

It certainly is a large amount of cash to spend, but pretty sure its brought in more than that over the years.

[Scully]

I'm sure it is - I would guess Grade 1, but paying isn't a problem for them. My concern is that looking after listed buildings to a standard to suit the rules planning rules is a lot more expensive than an unlisted building. Since we are (in my case anyway, through no direct choice of mine since it was listed long after it came into my possession) looking after these 'important' buildings to a standard dictated by the local authority, some (minor) assistance should be provided, This used to be the case with VAT concessions, but these have been removed.

 

I am delighted to be 'looking after' a piece of our heritage and do it to the best of my ability, but it is very costly - and having to pay more tax (VAT is obviously based on the cost) because it costs more because it is listed is a little harsh in my humble opinion.

 

If the authorities decide to list my property (thus pushing up my running costs), I do believe they should not be gaining extra revenue - but be giving a bit back in return for me bearing the major cost.

I don't know the technicalities, but aren't the maintenance costs you incur ( like every other property owner ) for the benefit of yourself?

Perhaps your frustrations need to be directed at a more relevant audience rather than those in a shooting forum?

[wymberley]

I don't know the technicalities, but aren't the maintenance costs you incur ( like every other property owner ) for the benefit of yourself?

Perhaps your frustrations need to be directed at a more relevant audience rather than those in a shooting forum?

Going to have to disagree on this one (it'll be a first), but from what John has said the technicalities are such that the work costs more for the reasons given than what you might be able to pay without the more stringent conditions applied bearing in mind it was not so classed when purchased. I'm of the opinion that he has a valid point.

[harkom]

What a shame that Fred Dinah is no longer available.......

[mossy835]

get dell boy to do it.with super glue

[JohnfromUK]

I don't know the technicalities, but aren't the maintenance costs you incur ( like every other property owner ) for the benefit of yourself?

Perhaps your frustrations need to be directed at a more relevant audience rather than those in a shooting forum?

Partly for my benefit of course, but the listing was wished on me 'unasked' and is allegedly to protect 'our national' heritage.

 

I raised it here because it seemed similar to the Big Ben costs issue - in that the private purse is also pressured by the sometimes high cost of preserving heritage just as the public purse is to be by the Big Ben and wider Parliamentary estate costs.

Edited August 16, 2017 by JohnfromUK

[Scully]

Partly for my benefit of course, but the listing was wished on me 'unasked' and is allegedly to protect 'our national' heritage.

 

I raised it here because it seemed similar to the Big Ben costs issue - in that the private purse is also pressured by the sometimes high cost of preserving heritage just as the public purse is to be by the Big Ben and wider Parliamentary estate costs.

Surely any profit you make on the sale ( if sold ) is all yours, so the costs you incur must surely be all yours?

I can understand your frustration at the 'retrospective listing' element of your argument, but I'm genuinely struggling to understand why you believe you should be in line for some special 'discount'.

[JohnfromUK]

Surely any profit you make on the sale ( if sold ) is all yours, so the costs you incur must surely be all yours?

I can understand your frustration at the 'retrospective listing' element of your argument, but I'm genuinely struggling to understand why you believe you should be in line for some special 'discount'.

'Profit' is indeed mine - although arguably being listed can depress the price (scares buyers off).

 

Most listed buildings work used to be zero rated for VAT up to 2012 - (in reflection of the fact that the listed buildings usually cost more to run and maintain in good order) was placed on the owner without consent or consultation. In 2012 repair/maintenance work was changed to standard rating thus applying an immediate 20% increase in all repair and maintenance costs (although approved 'alterations' remained zero rated). If HMG wish to encourage owners to maintain their 'important' properties well, applying a sudden 20% increase in costs wasn't a helpful move.

[Scully]

'Profit' is indeed mine - although arguably being listed can depress the price (scares buyers off).

 

Most listed buildings work used to be zero rated for VAT up to 2012 - (in reflection of the fact that the listed buildings usually cost more to run and maintain in good order) was placed on the owner without consent or consultation. In 2012 repair/maintenance work was changed to standard rating thus applying an immediate 20% increase in all repair and maintenance costs (although approved 'alterations' remained zero rated). If HMG wish to encourage owners to maintain their 'important' properties well, applying a sudden 20% increase in costs wasn't a helpful move.

Again, I can understand the points you're making, but still fail to see why you believe those who own listed properties believe they should be entitled to some sort of discount.