Thanks id6052, I think you've answered it: it seems to be the case that the council shouldn't charge for the first 3 months the property is empty but if it does, then the owner can ask for the exemption to apply. Therefore the council seems to be acting correctly and I have to pay the rates from the day the tenant's lease ended - unless I can convince them that the property wasn't empty......!? I think maybe I ought to lick my wounds and get on with finding a new decent tenant.

I understand that the 3 month exemption applies to the property but surely someone has to apply for it rather than the council decide that it is going to give it, and if not, does the council not need to establish with the person in possession if the property is indeed empty and not just cleared temporarily for decoration, say? A visual inspection from outside without checking the situation with either tenant or landlord seems a very tenuous basis for awarding the exemption - but then it was in the council's interest to reduce their bad debt by giving the 3 month exemption to a debtor, whether or not it was correct, knowing that I as the landlord would be an easier target for getting their money when the tenant's lease expired. I suppose, in a nutshell, I need to know if an application has to be made to trigger the award of an exemption or whether the council has the power to decide unilaterally. Presumably this is covered by some legislation somewhere?

I appreciate your input Lucky11 but I have found that a totally different set of rules apply to commercial property than domestic so I doubt the same appeals procedure will apply to business rates as for council tax. I have attempted to query the situation with the council but they conveniently side-step answering a direct question with a direct reply. They claim they sent someone round to the property on a particular day and saw the property was empty (purely from an external viewing) and so applied the empty property exemption. They made no attempt to ask me if I could confirm that the property was empty on an ongoing basis or whether they should apply the exemption - they just did their own thing!

Thanks Outlawla - I'll probably give that a try if I can't find out about the actual legislation. All the official "help" is directed at advising how to apply for the exemption but no mention about "refusing" an exemption given incorrectly and/or without being asked for. Ultimately, it would be better to know I'm in the right rather than hope I catch someone on a good day to do me a favour.

Can anyone tell me if the council have got this wrong, please? I rent out one property commercially and was unlucky enough to get a bad tenant. He did loads of damage to the property and then did a runner having not paid rent or any other bill (electricity, phone, water, rates). I was obviously not liable for any of these bills as there was a proper lease drawn up; the rent, of course, had to be written off. There was 8 months left on the lease and I was not able to re-let the property, and still am not. However, as one ray of light, I was expecting a 3 month rate-free period due to current Empty Property Exemption Relief. However, the council tell me that they realised the property was empty when the rates were not being paid so awarded the tenant (legally defined as the owner while his lease was in force) the 3 month's exemption so therefore I am not entitled to it. Apart from rubbing salt in the wound and added further to my costs/lack of income, this seems wrong that the council can decide who receives the exemption without there ever having been a formal application or notice to them that the property was empty, just so that they can mitigate their own losses. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?