Council Tax and Periodic Tenancy

Council Tax and Periodic Tenancy

15:26 PM, 28th April 2014, About 11 years ago 50

Text Size

Good morning,

I have just ring my local Council Tax office to advise them that a tenant has vacated my property. I was advised that the tenant had already notified them and that the date given was 8th April 2014.

I advised them that the tenancy actually ended on 24th May 2014. I was then told that as the tenant was on a Rolling Tenancy, they were only liable for the Council Tax until the day they actually moved out, which I was told was the 8th!

I pointed out that the tenant still had the keys and was in cleaning etc for the remaining time and that I was not aware that he had moved out. The CT office said this was a relatively new ruling but could tell me no more. They did give me four weeks exemption to do any remedial works, but I have effectively lost half of that allowance!

Has anyone else come across this new decision?

Carolcouncil tax


Share This Article


Comments

Robert M

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

9:28 AM, 30th April 2014, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "30/04/2014 - 09:17":

Thank you for that definition. If it is tightly defined then not so easy to use the arguments about definitions in other legislation. However, does it say anything that prevents the property being considered as the tenant's second home?

My company leases some properties from landlords to sub-let (with their permission), but I am never the "resident" as I don't live there. When my tenants move out at the end of their tenancy, my company becomes liable for the Council Tax even though it (or me) does not "reside" there, and we are not the owner ("Head Landlord"), so does that mean that the Council should really be billing the property owner, not me? (and presumably the Head Landlord would then have to bill me for the same amount).

Romain Garcin

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

9:39 AM, 30th April 2014, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Robert Mellors" at "30/04/2014 - 09:28":

I would think that in your case the scenario is what was in fact argued in the case(s) above. I.e. that when there is no resident CT liability falls back to the 'owner' and the definition of 'owner'.
The Act says that 'owner' is the first superior landlord with a lease of a term of at least 6 months, then the freeholder.
This is the reason why they ruled that the landlord becomes liable for CT when the tenant on a periodic tenancy moves out even if the tenancy continues.

Presumably your company leases for terms of more than 6 months and thus would be deemed liable for CT.
I'm assuming that a company is treated in the same way as a 'person' for CT purposes here, but I don't know if that's the case [and I'm not a lawyer].

Robert M

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

9:45 AM, 30th April 2014, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "30/04/2014 - 09:39":

Thank you for the Act's definition of "owner", I was not aware of this 6 month rule, but it does explain why they bill me (my company) rather than the freeholder. - It would have got very complex if the freeholder had to bill me each time they got a council tax bill for a property they lease to me!

What about the tenant's "second home" argument, can that have any effect?

Romain Garcin

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

10:02 AM, 30th April 2014, About 11 years ago

'second home' for CT discount is class B, if I understand correctly. Looking at the definition I think it could indeed be claimed if the property is furnished (otherwise it would be class C, empty property, I think), so worth a try.

Robert M

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

10:09 AM, 30th April 2014, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "30/04/2014 - 10:02":

so the landlord could argue that it is the tenant's "second home" until their tenancy end date, in which case this would pass the CT liability back to the tenant until the end of their tenancy agreement (but on the basis of it being their second home rather than their main residence)?

Romain Garcin

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

11:03 AM, 30th April 2014, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Robert Mellors" at "30/04/2014 - 10:09":

No, I think that if the landlord becomes liable for CT because tenant he might be able to claim the 'second home' (class B) discount for himself if the property is still furnished and if the council still grants such discount.
If the property is unfurnished then there is of course the 'empty property' (class C) discount.

Industry Observer

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

11:11 AM, 30th April 2014, About 11 years ago

Try this from last Thursday 24th it even contains Q&A's

http://blog.painsmith.co.uk/2014/04/24/council-tax/#comments

Romain Garcin

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

11:18 AM, 30th April 2014, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Industry Observer " at "30/04/2014 - 11:11":

Ah missed that one.
Reading it at least it looks like I read the Act and case law correctly in my replies to Robert.

Industry Observer

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

11:23 AM, 30th April 2014, About 11 years ago

Yes but note comments on "owner" as opposed to resident which are closer to my thinking in terms of someone actually having a contract and exclusivity of the CT rated property

Romain Garcin

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

11:30 AM, 30th April 2014, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Industry Observer " at "30/04/2014 - 11:23":

Well they match what was said in previous posts on this thread.

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Automated Assistant Read More