Council Tax, Benefit Fraud & Hierarchy (wishful thinking)

Long story short. My client was prosecuted for benefit fraud, claiming HB & CTB (as was) as a tenant, when in fact her partner was the resident owner of the property. They were not married & he was the sole owner of the property.

He has been prosecuted for something else, and is currently in prison, though shortly due to be released.

She has been held to be J&S liable for the period in which she was fraudulently claiming CTB, and is now repaying the outstanding council tax debt.  He is not, as he is in prison.  The property has been sold, so there is no ongoing liability issue.

As the sole owner, should it actually be him who was liable, and not her? Though she was his partner, she was not an owner.

I know it’s wishful thinking, but they were never named jointly on the bill when they were both resident in the property.

Section 9(1) and (3) LGFA 1992 makes unmarried partners jointly liable.  So the only point she can argue is that they weren’t partners.  The criminal conviction means that certain facts have been established beyond doubt and would be binding on any Valuation Tribunal, but there is a slight chance that the facts proved in the criminal case do not necessarily make them a couple.  Criminal courts are notoriously badly informed about benefit entitlement conditions, as discussed at huge length on here from time to time, and I guess the same would apply to matters affecting CT liability.  That is a very long shot though.

The reason they weren’t named jointly on the bill is because she misrepresented the situation in order to claim benefits - that isn’t going to help her, liability will be determined by the true facts.

I thought that would be the case, just one of those moments of “oh, but maybe if…”

Thank you.