Now that our petition calling for a full, independent review of property taxation has surpassed 10,000 signatures, the Government has issued its formal response. While it concedes that the current system has shortcomings, it ultimately falls back on defending a status quo that is becoming ever harder to justify in the face of mounting evidence and public concern.

Here’s why:

  1. An outdated system cannot deliver fair outcomes

Council Tax may be stable and widely understood, but it is still based on property values from 1991. Over three decades of house price divergence mean that liabilities no longer reflect real property wealth or ability to pay. As a result, the system is regressive in practice, with households in lower-value areas paying a higher effective tax rate than those in far more expensive properties. For example, a modest home in Hartlepool can face a higher proportional burden than a high-value property in Westminster.

The Government suggests that banding remains a practical necessity. However, regular, up-to-date property valuations are standard practice across many comparable countries. With modern datasets, automated valuation models, and AI-driven techniques, frequent and accurate revaluation is now both technically and administratively feasible. The continued reliance on 1991 values is therefore a policy choice, not a constraint.

  1. A system under strain: rising debt and fiscal pressure

The sustainability of the current system is increasingly in question.

  • Council Tax arrears in England are estimated at over £6 billion annually, with total outstanding debt exceeding £8 billion
  • At the same time, numerous local authorities face acute financial pressure, with multiple councils issuing effective bankruptcy notices in recent years

This reflects a system under strain on both sides:

  • Households struggling to meet liabilities that do not reflect current values.
  • Councils reliant on a tax base that is both politically constrained and economically outdated.

A fairer, more proportionate system would improve compliance, reduce arrears, and provide a more sustainable funding base.

  1. Reliefs and discounts: arbitrary and symptomatic

The Government highlights the scale of reliefs and discounts as evidence of fairness. In reality, their breadth reflects systemic weakness. This is because:

  • Reliefs are often arbitrary in structure, inconsistently applied, and only loosely linked to property value.
  • They introduce complexity and administrative burden.
  • They treat symptoms  rather than addressing the underlying misalignment in tax design

A system that requires millions of households to be retrofitted into fairness is not functioning as intended.

  1. The Government’s High Value Council Tax Surcharge: proof reform is possible

The proposed High Value Council Tax Surcharge contains several constructive elements:

  • A more progressive approach to high-value properties
  • The use of updated valuations
  • Consideration of deferral mechanisms for asset-rich but cash-poor households

These are precisely the principles that have been consistently advocated in broader reform proposals. Their inclusion demonstrates that modernisation is both feasible and politically deliverable. However, as currently designed, the surcharge remains a partial measure layered onto an outdated system, rather than a comprehensive solution. It shows reform can be done but stops short of doing it fully.

  1. Stamp Duty: a drag on mobility and growth

The Government emphasises Stamp Duty’s administrative efficiency and progressivity. This overlooks its core flaw: it is a tax on moving home.

  • It discourages downsizing and upsizing
  • It reduces labour mobility
  • It suppresses housing transactions and market efficiency

These distortions are particularly problematic given the Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million new homes, a target that remains significantly off track. A tax system that inhibits transactions risks compounding housing supply challenges rather than supporting them.

  1. The benefits of comprehensive reform for households

A more proportionate, modernised property tax system, such as that proposed by us, would deliver clear benefits:

  • Fairer bills, more closely aligned to current property values
  • Lower costs for 77% of households, particularly those in lower- and middle-value homes
  • Removal of Stamp Duty, making it easier to move home
  • Greater transparency and simplicity, reducing reliance on complex reliefs
  • Improved economic mobility, allowing households to move according to need rather than tax considerations

In short, reform would not only improve fairness—it would make the housing market work better for ordinary households.

  1. Incremental change is no longer sufficient

While the Government states that the system is kept under review, this has been the case for decades without meaningful structural reform. Incremental adjustments have consistently failed to resolve widely acknowledged problems.

The current system is:

  • Outdated (based on 30+ year-old values)
  • Inequitable (regressive in practice)
  • Distortive (penalising mobility and economic efficiency)

Conclusion: The case for a full review

The Government’s response acknowledges many of the issues but stops short of engaging with their logical conclusion. The case for a full, independent, evidence-based review is clear and overdue. This is not about advocating a single predetermined solution. It is about ensuring that the UK’s property tax system is fair, modern and sustainable.

If we are to secure meaningful reform, this issue must be properly debated in Parliament. That will only happen if there is sufficient public support.

We encourage everyone concerned about fairness, housing, and the cost of living to sign and share the petition.

A system this important should not be preserved by default. It should be examined, openly and rigorously, in the national interest. If you agree, please support our petition.