Did I own a council house? Council Tax liability

[pimpdaddydog]

Please forgive the length of this post but I can't really make it much shorter. I am in dispute with my local council.

 

I rented a council house for 10 months but only lived in it for the first 2 months, I am trying to reclaim council tax that I paid for 8 months during which the house was unoccupied. The council fully accept that the house was unoccupied and have awarded me an exemption for 6 months however they want me to pay the rmaining 2 months.

 

They have reffered to the law as set out below:

 

Council Tax liability is governed by a strict hierarchy for any particular dwelling. These rules are strongly dependent on a person's residency status and identify a number of categories into which people may fall. The liable person is whoever comes within the first category to apply taking them in order.

 

The categories are:-

 

1. residents who have a freehold interest in the whole or any part of the property;

 

2. residents who have a leasehold interest (including an assured shorthold tenancy) in the whole or any part of the property (or the superior leasehold interest if there are tenants with different leasehold interest);

 

3. residents who are statutory or secure tenants of the whole or any part of the property;

 

4. residents who have a contractual licence to occupy the property or any part of it;

 

5. other residents; or

 

6. non-resident owners of the property.

 

Please note that for the purposes of item 6 above, an “owner” in relation to any dwelling is someone who holds a material interest in the whole or any part of the dwelling. A “material interest” is further defined as a freehold interest, or a leasehold interest which was granted for a term of six months or more. It therefore follows that in the case of a six month shorthold tenancy, for the purposes of Council Tax, it is the tenant who will be classified as the “owner”.

 

The council say that for the purpose of the local government finance act I am defined as the owner.

 

I disagree, my tenancy agreement was a starter tenancy which is quite common in public sector housing apparently, the agreement cleary states that it is a "weekly periodic short term periodic tenancy".

 

My argument is that a weekly periodic tenancy agreement does not confer as much material interest as a six month shorthold tenancy and on that basis I wasn't the owner but the landlord was.

 

Who is right?

 

Can anybody please tell me how to go about arguing my point?

 

Is there any case law or statutory law which better defines the difference in tenacy agreements and how they relate to material interest?

 

Thanks in advance.

[jackieandwayne]

If you occupied the property as the legal tenant, even though this was an introductory tenancy, you are liable to pay the C/Tax, whether that be outof your own pocket, or covered by benefits.

[pimpdaddydog]

If you occupied the property as the legal tenant, even though this was an introductory tenancy, you are liable to pay the C/Tax, whether that be outof your own pocket, or covered by benefits.

 

Thanks for you reply and yes you are correct in saying that if I occupied the house I would be liable for the council tax, this would fall under heading 2 (residents who have a leashold...).

 

However the house wasn't occupied and the council fully accept this. They also accept that the liablity lays with the owner, the only point in issue is whether or not - for the purpose of the local government finance act - I was the owner. The owner is defined as somebody with a leasehold interest which was granted for a term of 6 months or more. (or a freehold which is irrelevant in this case)

 

I don't think a weekly periodic tenancy is granted for a term of 6 months or more, I think it's only granted for 1 week at a time and has no definite duration as an AST would have.

 

What I could really do with is a legal definition of leashold which is generally accepted as a definition accepted by the courts!

[jackieandwayne]

That's too in depth for me - but I would say that if with the Council's agreement the house was empty - they are responsible, but, why was it empty? They should have ended your AST, or you should have given notice, to show to true position.

 

If you click the warning triangle, one of the site mods may be able to help, they have some brilliant legal people.

 

Hope you get it sorted.

 

If you wanted to put a few more details up I may be able to filch through what has happened for you, but I understand if you want to keep it private.

[pimpdaddydog]

That's too in depth for me - but I would say that if with the Council's agreement the house was empty - they are responsible, but, why was it empty? They should have ended your AST, or you should have given notice, to show to true position.

 

If you click the warning triangle, one of the site mods may be able to help, they have some brilliant legal people.

 

Hope you get it sorted.

 

If you wanted to put a few more details up I may be able to filch through what has happened for you, but I understand if you want to keep it private.

 

Thanks again Jackieandwayne, I will take your advice re: clicking the triangle, I didn't even realise you could so I'm very grateful for the pointer.

 

The matter is a little personal and although I don't mind discussing it I'm not really sure it's relevant given that the council have accepted that the house was empty and they knew it was empty.

 

They accept that the liability lays with the owner, it's just a case of deciding who the owner actually was at the material times.

 

I have managed to find some case law (lace v chantler 1994) which seems to suggest that for a lease to be valid it must be granted for a period of time which is clearly defined and that it must be possible to determine that time from the outset. (for example in a standard AST there is usually a term which says something like "for a term certain of 6 months")

 

My agreement was a periodic weekly tenancy so in my opinion the only certain term was 1 week after which a new 1 week lease would start and so on unil either me or the landlord eneded the agreement.

 

I'm not a lawer and I may well have misunderstood the relevant law but hopefull, with the help of your suggestion, I will get some clarification.

 

Thanks again jackieandwayne, much appreciated!