The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

Why? Does a single person living in a tiny house in the "right" area
use 10
times as many amenities as a family of 5 in a council estate?
Again, no-one's been able to clearly explain that one to me either!

It has always been based on an assumed ability to pay derived from the
property value rather than amenity use. Everyone has appreciated that those
using most amenties - eg elderly, sick & those with children - aren't
the ones
who can afford most. property values are a good option and redress the
balance
a bit for those not paying enough income tax (by fiddling their income) but
living in big houses.

The previous poster was positing a tiny house, not a big one. Size
doesn't appear to have much relevance to Council Tax banding and even
OMV is not the whole story.

Council tax is unjust on many levels a few of which I have listed below.

It is of no consequence whether the tax payer is the owner or the tenant
or whether the owners equity in the property is 100% or some negative
figure.

It is of no consequence whether the tax payer has modest savings or
millions in the bank. There is no relief however low the income unless
the savings are minimal.

It is of no consequence that old properties cost their occupiers far
more to run and maintain than new properties and there is a double
whammy in that the council tax band is based not on the open market
value of the property (which in any case is inflated by a foolish desire
of many prospective buyers to own old property) but on what it would be
worth if it were in first class condition.

There is no connection between the level of services the council
provides to your immediate locality and the tax paid.

--
Roger Chapman