Council tax demand and told every tenant should be on a fixed term AST!

The council is correct in that if the tenancy is for a term of less than 6 months then the landlord immediately liable for CT if the tenant no longer resides at the property.
This is as per s.6 LGFA 1992 and case law.

If the tenancy agreement is well drafted then the landlord may go after the tenant for reimbursement, or wait until the tenant/council provides a CT statement before releasing the deposit.

Now, there is also a bit of misunderstanding as to what a "contractual periodic tenancy is". It is just a normal periodic tenancy expressly agreed as opposed to a SPT, and thus is does not 'fix' the issue in itself.

What is possible is to create a tenancy that starts with a term and continues periodically (what David Price suggests).
It has some drawbacks as well, though.

Please , what is the case law reference?
Apart from the definition "resident" I cannot derive any substantiation of the practice from S6

Reply to the comment left by "Rob Draper" at "11/11/2015 - 16:00":

These two:
MacAttram v. London Borough of Camden [2012] EWHC 1033
CT v. Horsham District Council [2013] UKUT 617 (AAC)

If I may, I also wrote an article on this:
https://lettingmate.uk/book/7-council-tax

Thanks - I will look up and read your article.
- RRD

Re your article.
"Therefore, a tenant who is no longer resident only remains liable "for council tax until the end of the tenancy if that tenancy is for a term of at least 6 months.

If the tenancy is a periodic tenancy, including a statutory periodic tenancy, and the period is less than 6 months, then the landlord becomes liable for council tax as soon as the tenant is no longer resident, even if the tenancy continues."

If a person ceases to be resident then I cannot undersand why the liability does not immediately devolve to the freeholder.
It surely does not matter what contractual relationship is in place? It is a matter of fact.

Reply to the comment left by "Rob Draper" at "11/11/2015 - 21:07":

If there's no resident then liability falls on the 'owner' (bullet (f) in the list). As mentioned in the article, the definition of 'owner' is crucial.
If the tenancy is for a term of at least 6 months then the 'owner' is the tenant, not the landlord.

This is also why a leaseholder remains the person liable for CT instead of the freeholder when a property is vacant.

I thought that after the Superstrike case, [which if I remember correctly was over the reregistering of deposits as the S Periodic tenancy overtook a Fixed term] there were moves afoot in government to redefine such as the same tenancy since it arose statutorily if no other contract had been instituted. Must be wrong.
It is odd that an interest in possession only becomes 'material.' when embedded in a lease of over 6 months.
Indeed since tenants have statutory protection from peremptory eviction they obviously have a material interest the whole time they are legally entitled to reside whether by virtue of contract or not.
Is a free/leaseholder CT liable for Squatters residency for instance?
Law designed for lawyers! Pseudo precision, practical confusion. Best renew agrs every 12 months - but entirely negates the "carry over" principle of the statutory periodic of 1988.

Reply to the comment left by "Rob Draper" at "12/11/2015 - 23:36":

Could not agree more, buggers muddle. I will leave the reader to decide just who are the buggers in this instance!p

As a legal definition, in a general sense, what is 'material' interest?

If, as Rob states, because tenants have statutory protection from peremptory eviction, this gives rise to material interest, surely this needs to be challenged.

Reply to the comment left by "Luke P" at "13/11/2015 - 07:48":

I believe that in the current context a material interest is defined by having a lease of six months or more. Hence the importance of not allowing statutory perodic tenancies.