A Ukrainian woman who fled to Scotland says she and her partner could face a £9,000 property tax charge because she still owns a flat in Kyiv, according to BBC News, in a case that highlights the clash between war, displacement and local tax rules.
The BBC reports the couple fled the war in Ukraine and settled in Scotland, but were told they could face a second-home tax charge because they still own a property in Kyiv. The flat is in a war zone, making it impossible for them to live in it, sell it easily or use it as a conventional second home. Their case raises a basic question: should people displaced by conflict be treated as owning a luxury second property when the home in question is inaccessible and at risk?
How second-home rules work
Second-home and council tax surcharges are designed to discourage people in Britain from keeping properties empty or as holiday homes while others struggle to find housing. Local authorities can apply higher charges, and in Scotland additional dwelling supplement rules can affect people who own more than one residence. For most taxpayers, the rules are based on the straightforward idea that a person has a main home and an additional property that could be sold, rented or taxed as an extra asset.
War complicates that logic. The couple are not keeping a flat in Kyiv as a lifestyle choice or investment property while living comfortably in Scotland. They are refugees from a conflict, and their Kyiv home may be damaged, under threat or impossible to return to. The BBC says they still legally own it, and it is that ownership, rather than practical use or value, that triggers the potential charge. The distinction between legal title and real-world reality sits at the heart of the dispute.
Why it matters
Across the UK, Ukrainians who arrived under Homes for Ukraine and other schemes have rebuilt their lives while maintaining ties to homes they may never safely return to. If local tax rules treat those homes as second properties, displaced families could face substantial bills for assets they cannot access. A £9,000 charge is a heavy burden for any household, and particularly for people who have already lost income, security and community through war.
The case also tests how councils and the Scottish government interpret fairness. Supporters of strict second-home taxation argue that rules must be applied consistently and that exemptions create loopholes. Critics argue that war-displaced people are a distinct category, and that applying the same rules as wealthy owners of holiday homes undermines the purpose of the policy. The outcome could set a precedent for others in similar circumstances.
ADVERTISEMENT
What happens next
The couple’s position is expected to be examined by the relevant local authority, with attention on whether discretion can be applied, whether the flat’s condition affects the charge, and whether Scottish ministers should clarify the rules for people fleeing conflict. The BBC report is likely to prompt questions from MSPs and local councillors about whether current guidance is fit for purpose.
Until a decision is made, the couple face uncertainty over a large bill for a home they cannot use. Their experience is a stark example of how peacetime tax categories can break down when applied to people caught up in war. For policymakers, the challenge is to protect housing policy goals without penalising refugees for owning homes in a war zone.
We do not allow links of any sort in comments. No SPAM whatsoever. On topic comments only.