Jump to content


oldbag

council tax liability order but council tax paid as part of rent

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 635 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

It mentions the word council tax and the promise to pay it in the wording, how much more plain can it get?

 

Even if you ignored the council tax legislation for a moment and look at it contractually. You made a contractual agreement with the landlord only. A contractual agreement between two parties cannot bind a third party unless that third party have agreed to be -the council haven't.

 

All this is going around in circles anyway as your agreement with the landlord cannot override statute, the council are only able to follow what legislation says is the case. You need to sort out your liability with the council and then pursue the landlord yourself for any monies he may owe you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the person in the statutory periodic tenancy expired and served with a Notice Requiring Possession' still live in the property and liable for council tax? or are they homeless as the council awarded a status of homelessness still owe council tax? When would it be reasonable to presume they did not owe council tax a sit seems they can now owe council tax whilst being deemed resident in two different properties,(whether they are or not ) one of which they are evicted form. It seems that "cease to be resident in the property" is open to interpretation and may extend long after the tenant thinks they have left .

 

It seems now that the tenancy agreement may not have been valid because of Being let to a tenant while the landlord is residing in the same property?

Edited by oldbag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Housing Act 1988 defines several main criteria for an Assured Shorthold Tenancy to be set up:

 

  • The property must be let as separate accommodation
  • The property must be the tenant’s main or principal home
  • The tenant should be an individual

However, there are some circumstances in which a shorthold tenancy cannot be used. For example, when a property is:

 

  • Being let for a very high rent (more than £100,000 per year)
  • Being let for a very low rent / at no cost
  • Being let as a holiday home
  • Being let to a tenant while the landlord is residing in the same property
  • Being let with more than two acres of agricultural land or an agricultural tenancy
  • Being let under a tenancy which began prior to the 15 January 1989, or which was formerly a protected tenancy
  • Being let to a private limited company
  • Owned by the Crown or a government department

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found this at https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/forum/residential-letting-questions/43739-council-tax

Whoever is registered to pay the council tax, is the one that has to pay it,

so if it's not you, the council will have to go after the tenant for council tax ,

and does not concern you.

Unless you are still registered to pay the council, in which case, unless you

stipulated that the rent included council tax, or an extra payment was

required, you cant ask for council tax if you are the ones down to pay.

 

in which case, unless you stipulated the the rent included council tax, and in my case that was done at 3(b) of an assured shorthold tenancy that became a periodic.

Edited by oldbag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just found this at https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/forum/residential-letting-questions/43739-council-tax

Whoever is registered to pay the council tax, is the one that has to pay it,

so if it's not you, the council will have to go after the tenant for council tax ,

and does not concern you.

Unless you are still registered to pay the council, in which case, unless you

stipulated that the rent included council tax, or an extra payment was

required, you cant ask for council tax if you are the ones down to pay.

 

in which case, unless you stipulated the the rent included council tax, and in my case that was done at 3(b) of an assured shorthold tenancy that became a periodic.

 

The person who is registered on the council tax account will pay by virtue of the fact that the council will chase the person shown on the council tax account until they get sufficient evidence that they are not liable - this will always be the case. The determination is made under legislation not a 'the landlord said he will pay agreement'.

 

Does the person in the statutory periodic tenancy expired and served with a Notice Requiring Possession' still live in the property and liable for council tax? or are they homeless as the council awarded a status of homelessness still owe council tax?

You can be called whatever you like - what matters are the facts of the situation. Being termed homeless or not make no difference - only the facts of the situation as they apply to council tax.

 

When would it be reasonable to presume they did not owe council tax a sit seems they can now owe council tax whilst being deemed resident in two different properties,(whether they are or not ) one of which they are evicted form. It seems that "cease to be resident in the property" is open to interpretation and may extend long after the tenant thinks they have left .

As I have already said, resident is a specific term for council tax purposes- you cannot try to reinvent the term. The fact is that a person may be liable for council tax on more than one property at a time - providing the right criteria are met in legislation then a person can be liable on a property since 1993 yet never been resident (or even lived in it).

 

At the end of the day there's only so many times you can be told that a personal agreement etc makes no difference. If you want to ignore discussing the correct issues with the council then they are simply going to continue to chase you for the money and you will go around in circles again. You may or may not be liable for the period in question, it depends on the exact circumstances and how legislation applies under s6, but simply arguing the landlord had an agreement to pay will not make the issue go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...