Landlord discrimination – the last straw?

Reply to the comment left by TheMaluka at 17/10/2024 - 13:55
Exactly. It's the law, not discrimination.

Reply to the comment left by Susan Robinson at 17/10/2024 - 17:50One of the benefits of using Contractual Periodic Tenancies is that the tenant retains statutory liability for the CT until the tenancy ends, not just contractual liability.

TheMaluka - the law is fine it's the interpretation that's wrong. The tenant should legally be deemed in situ until the tenancy is legally ended, which the tenant can easily do by giving one months notice. By not ending the tenancy the tenant has all rights to the property and therefore associated costs. What do you think of this as a lawful principle?

Reply to the comment left by Paul Smith at 18/10/2024 - 11:11
I agree that the law is unreasonable, but that is just tough, there are many laws which could be considered unreasonable, e.g. Section 18 of the Distress for Rent Act, 1737.
There is an easy way to avoid problems by including a clause which mandates any tenancy continuation after the fixed period as 'Contractual Periodic'.

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 18/10/2024 - 11:02
Thanks, but I think you 'missed my point'. The Council weren't interested in tenancy documentation but whether that individual was in residence. One clerk stated that the individual could not be resident in two homes! I was able to prove that she was still using the house and had therefore lied to the rates officer, and that was the important point which may be helpful to Paul.

TheMaluka - I am not sure I explained well. Your reference to the 'Distress rent act' allows for double charging if the tenant doesn't leave. The tenant may see this as unfair, but that is the law. In this case I had a tenant who led me to believe they were still in situ. Because they didn't end the tenancy I was legally obliged to assume they were in situ. The law prevented me accessing the property because they have rights being in Situ. The council advise they are required to pay council tax while in situ. The problem I have despite all this legal protection they told the council they were not in situ and the council accepted this based on a van receipt. At the very same time I was legally obliged to accept they were in situ under their statutory periodic tenancy. This is not the law at fault, but the failure of the council to accept the landlord's legal position.

Reply to the comment left by Paul Smith at 19/10/2024 - 09:03
With a Statutory Periodic tenancy, there is a residency condition. If the Tenant is not in residence, then the Landlord is responsible for the Council Tax. This comes about because each monthly period is considered to be a new tenancy, and only with tenancies of more than six moths is the tenant responsible for Council Tax (Leeds County Council vs Broadley). If the original tenancy specifies a Contractual Periodic continuation then the continuation is considered to be an extension of the original tenancy, hence the tenant is responsible for the council tax at all times until the tenancy is ended.

Reply to the comment left by Susan Robinson at 18/10/2024 - 12:05
No, I understand your point Susan. The legal test for council tax liability is whether the tenant has a tenancy of at least 6 months, (which an SPT is not, but a CPT with initial term of at least 6 months is). If not, then the second test is whether they're living there as their principal home, (not whether they still have a tenancy). If not, then they are no longer statutorily liable for the council tax and it passes to the next in line, usually the landlord.

I would dispute the ability of a tenant to claim they have left a tenancy and move responsibility to the landlord without prior notice given to the landlord. It cannot be legally right a tenant transfers costs to a landlord without his knowledge and where he has no rights over the property. I doubt the Leeds case relates to this lack of knowledge by the landlord and would therefore not apply.

Reply to the comment left by Paul Smith at 19/10/2024 - 14:16
You can dispute it as much as you like but you will go blue in the face before you get a court to agree with you.

It's case law and whether you like it or not you will get stuffed by it.

I got caught out with several ASTs (from several different agents) that were drafted by lazy / incompetent solicitors a few years back.

In my cases (yes, there were several before I clocked on!) I only got caught for a day's worth of Council Tax on each occasion due to the way that the law draws a distinction between the two types of periodic tenancy but it could have been much worse. It's not the money, but the sheer hassle of having to deal with the damned ignoramuses** at the council that got to me.

[ ** In fact, they are not anywhere near as ignorant as they make out because the relevant case law is actually well known within the various council housing departments because Leeds council lost so spectacularly that all of them are all still smarting from it even after all these years.]

Once I did finally clock on I began insisting that all of my ASTs specifically refer to CONTRACTUAL periodic tenancies rather than the lazy (or just plain stupid) lawyer alternative of either not mentioning it or, worse, specifically referring to a STATUTORY periodic.

Some agents immediately got the point and some took a bit of persuading. Those got to keep my business.

Those that didn't got ditched by me.

I once pursued the matter all the way up to divisional level (three levels up from the local branch) in a major chain of letting agents only to be sneered at by ignorant and dismissive in-house lawyers who refused to modify their "standard" AST.

(Yes, Reeds Rains, you can hang your collective heads in shame for it is roundly deserved and you will NEVER AGAIN get the chance to have any business of mine.)