Council Tax and Periodic Tenancy

Yes Vanessa this changed a few years ago in my area and you will find it does make an impact as whenever your rental property is empty during tenants, you will be paying full council tax. Best practice is to allow for this expense, even if in your area there is still some type of exemption, as my bet is that all councils will change this soon. In some areas I have heard they are considering charging twice the council tax charge for empty properties. No doubt this will be popular in seaside towns and places in the UK where holiday lets are popular.

The Localism Act 2011 changed everything - It put power into the hands of local authorities to change the rules in their area for council tax, landlords etc. These are councils that were in deficit at the time, so they will use these powers to their full advantage eg. licensing the private rental sector will be a good money spinner for them and these licensing schemes are springing up all over the UK right now.

If I understand this correctly this only applies for tenancies that have gone periodic.

But how would the council know whether a tenancy is periodic or fixed? Most of my tenants wouldn't have a clue if they were asked.

Reply to the comment left by "Steve Gracey" at "28/04/2014 - 19:02":

If they billed you, the landlord, you would surely show them a copy of the fixed term tenancy argument to prove that the tenant was still liable.

Reply to Steve and Romain - basically the Council will take the word of the tenant. If they claim to have moved out then they will charge the landlord regardless of your agreement. It is then up to you to argue the point, of course but in the case of the original poster the tenancy agreement expired on the 24th and the tenants moved out earlier and told the Council they had moved out therefore the bill arrived at an earlier date than expected. I have had tenants who have told the Council they are vacating, then changed their minds and stayed and so I receive a council tax bill in my name for the property. I then write back and let the Council know what has happened.

What irritates me about this is that the Council Tax have my email address and it would cost them virtually nothing to check with me that the date the tenant gave was correct. The onus however seems to be on the landlord to prove their billing incorrect once the rogue bill, addressed to the landlord, arrives on the door mat!

so we now need to hold onto the deposit to see if we need to make any deductions for Council Tax. How long is reasonable to wait to see if the Council are going to bill me so that I can return the tenant's deposit?

Reply to the comment left by "Tony Atkins" at "28/04/2014 - 16:08":

The reason there is a problem Tony is that if there is no legal liability on the tenant to pay, but that has reverted legally to the LL then he has to pay.

Don't know if it has already been posted no time to read all this thread, but this Nearly Legal post from January has all the detail you need.
Basically you need your AST to run on Contrractual not Statutory that way it is a single tenancy and this problem does not arise.

http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2014/01/shorthold-tenancies-and-council-tax-liability/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Nearlylegal+%28nearlylegal%29&utm_term=feed

Surely if the tenant still has the keys and have possessions in the property, e.g. while cleaning it prior to handing it back, then they are still legally "in occupation" regardless of whether they have another tenancy elsewhere or whether they are on holiday or staying in a hotel or visiting friends or staying with family, their actual location or sleeping arrangements are irrelevant, they are still technically "in occupation". This means that they would still be liable for the Council Tax.
Presumably the fact that in law they would still be legally occupying the property, (Protection from Eviction Act), and that is why "abandonment" cannot be assumed if the tenant still has the keys and has possessions in the property, then this is proof that the tenant is still liable for the CT, not the LL. The law cannot say that, on exactly the same facts, the tenant is occupying for the purpose of one law, but not in occupation for another law, this would be legally perverse! - I suspect this point may not have been argued in the caselaw cited.