Forum Home → Discussion → Other areas of social welfare law → Thread
Council Tax liability
Hi
I am working with a client who has been decanted from their housing association property due to a fire. They are being treated as still liable for the rent on their original property.
The council is charging them full council tax for the property that they have moved to, and 50% council tax on their damaged property. They are also saying that no longer entitled to CTR for the original property, as not living there and now have arrears on property that they are living in as CTR ended and new claim cannot be backdated.
Am I right in thinking that not liable for CT at original property as not the owner and not resident - so liable for current property?
Thanks
Having done a bit more digging, think it might be relevant that the tenant was on a 7 year fixed term tenancy at the fire damaged property, but at the end of the fixed term was issued with a new assured weekly periodic tenancy. At the property she moved to, she is on a weekly decant tenancy.
The Cornwall County Council website states you are able to get 50% CT discount where you are not occupying your home due to disrepair.
They would be liable for Ct in the property they are now occupying as well, so it would appear that you might need to ask the council to use their discretion under section 13a of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 in these circumstances. There is no time limit for applying and an exemption can be backdated to the date it should have first applied.
They also seem to have a blanket policy of no backdating of CTR which isn’t especially helpful so again, i think you’re falling back on sec.13A.
https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/benefits-and-support/council-tax-support/backdating-council-tax-support/
Thanks Paul
The 50% discount has already been applied.
Why do you think that they are liable for the council tax at both properties?
I think that they are only liable at one, but maybe missing something.
My argument would be that they have weekly periodic tenancies at both properties, and therefore do not come under the definition of ‘owner’ in section 6 of the LGFA where owner is defined as having been granted a freehold or leasehold interest of 6 months or more. The caselaw that I have seen around this suggests that a weekly periodic tenancy would not class an interest ‘granted’ for over six months even if cumulatively the tenant had been resident for over six months. (CH/4148/2012)
And a resident is only liable at their ‘sole or main residence’, and as both properties cannot be the main residence they cannot be liable at both properties.
Am I going wrong somewhere?
Yes I can see that point of view - I can’t understand how their main or only home as required under sec.6(5)(b) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 in terms of council tac liability interacts with the apparent fact that you can still be liable if you own or rent a second home and that is unoccupied?
Is it because of the CTS award on the current accommodation that the council are treating that as their main or only home, for the moment and are applying the discount on the other property because they are also still a tenant in that property, even though that isn’t currently their main or only home, even though it would be apart from the fire damage?
I haven’t got my Shelter books to hand so was relying on googling this, hopefully someone might be able to offer some more informed opinion than my ramblings, sorry for any confusion.
There isn’t actually any CTS in place at either property because the council have stopped it - which is what I need to look getting reinstated into once I have established their correct CT liability.
I can see the arguments for either the damaged property or their current property being classed as their ‘main’ residence - but to be honest I am not that bothered which the council chose as long as they are liable for only one.
In terms of second home owners - if no one is actually resident then the ‘sole or main’ part is irrelevant and it comes down to who is classed as the ‘owner’, and if there are more than one person classed as an ‘owner’ then it is the one with the inferior material interest who is liable.
At least that is my reading of the legislation…...
Not my area at all, but it has been interesting to look into.