Warwick District Council is to refund the extra council tax it charged for second homes having failed to implement the new policy properly. 

The district has been charging double council tax on second homes that are "substantially furnished but have no resident" since April 2025 but questions raised by a member of the public alerted the council to potential flaws around how the decision was taken.

An initial decision to charge a premium was taken by full council in February 2023 but the level of extra charge was not specified at that point.

The cabinet – the panel of Green and Labour councillors in charge of major service areas – agreed to move forward with the double rate in February 2025 but having obtained legal advice, the council has concluded "there is no clear evidence that cabinet considered" factors laid out by the government in November 2024 when the council was in the middle of pulling together this policy.

They state that councils should look at the volume of long-term empty homes in their area, circumstances that may preclude certain homes being used as main residences and the potential impacts on the local economy, including tourism industry, and local services before utilising the new powers.

It was also pointed out that the double rate had not been voted on by full council.

All of that led the council's monitoring officer Graham Leach – its most senior legal official – to the view that "the council did not meet all its obligations".

A meeting of all district councillors was convened on Wednesday with chair Cllr Naveen Tangri given the unenviable task of announcing the council had "acted outside the law" and that "immediate action needs to be taken to remedy this situation".

Cllr Adrian Barton described it as an "interesting position". 

"I don't wish to go back and blame but presumably we have gone wrong somewhere and we have learned lessons," he said. 

Mr Leach replied: "Yes, there are lessons to be learned. There were mistakes.

"We have undertaken report writing training for all senior officers in the council – that was planned anyway but it relates to this – and also changed our procedures for report checking before they come through as well, another pair of eyes to make sure everything is correct."

Vice-chair Cllr Pam Redford stressed the importance of civic leaders fronting up and said: "The clear advice is that we as a council have made an error and we should seek to correct this at the earliest opportunity."

A series of votes were held which saw the council stop the policy for now but immediately restart the process from scratch, beginning with a consultation that will be considered by the cabinet in February 2026 with a view to it kicking back in from April 1, 2027. The report estimates it will cost Warwick District Council £45,000 per year in the meantime.

Cllr David Armstrong was the only elected official present who did not vote for the measures.

"I understand the prudence of this recommendation, however the very principle of refunding a small group of second home owners a substantial sum due to a legal technicality when ours and the other impacted bodies struggle for funding for crucial responsibilities to our residents is unacceptable to me," he said.

"Unless we are unambiguously in breach of legal duty, which the legal advice didn't say as I understand it, I cannot vote for this."

Leader Cllr Ian Davison replied: "I certainly understand your frustration. 

"I am particularly frustrated that the government brought in guidance midway through. We were expected to know that, it came out last autumn, it was only part of the issue but I think from reading the confidential advice it was a major part.

"Officers, I believe, did their best endeavours and did well with the initial rules but then these changed halfway through and sadly we are in this position. 

"I fully accept your frustration but in terms of good use of public money, the risk is too great not to go with the chair's recommendation."

Portfolio holder for resources Cllr Jonathan Chilvers said: "We have been open and honest that we have made a mistake, as we should be, and we need to put things right."

He called for refunds to be processed "in a timely manner" but stressed his continued support for a second homes premium provided it is done "in a legal and correct manner".

"It is the right thing to do," he added.

The report also warned that the extra workload created could require extra staffing. 

It read: "The team responsible is coming into their busiest period of work for council tax precepting and billing. 

"This is combined with changes to the way business rates are charged through additional multipliers, all of which is currently being managed within existing resources with team members undertaking and working longer hours.

"The current software provider does not have a solution for this new way of billing process. Therefore, the time to consult, digest and provide appropriate and considered guidance to members will not be available without further resources of the required technical knowledge."