Council Tax: Single Occupancy - Residence vs occupancy

Samuel_Orange

Another thing that I recall the official from the Council saying was that - "The only way to avoid liability was for Miss B to get someone else to take over the tenancy from her" - i.e. for Miss B to find Miss X in order for the latter to share the house with Miss A.

This would be what they appear to be hanging their decision on - viz:- Miss B (although not living at the property in question) still has a tenancy.

I am confused. Sorry.

CIS

"The only way to avoid liability was for Miss B to get someone else to take over the tenancy from her" - i.e. for Miss B to find Miss X in order for the latter to share the house with Miss A.

They are relying on this incorrectly in my opinion.

Consider another example.

Mr & Mrs Jones own a house jointly - they seperate and Mr Jones leaves with no intention to return and Mrs Jones remains resident.

Common sense (and law) shows that Mr Jones is no longer jointly liable for the Council Tax.

This situation is no different in law to that for Miss B. If a person was locked in to a tenancy for the duration irrespective of residence then the law would state this.

I would also turn the question about and ask them to state what law they are basing their decision on.

Samuel_Orange

CIS wrote: »

They are relying on this incorrectly in my opinion.

Consider another example.

Mr & Mrs Jones own a house jointly - they seperate and Mr Jones leaves with no intention to return and Mrs Jones remains resident.

Common sense (and law) shows that Mr Jones is no longer jointly liable for the Council Tax.

Thank you. That is what I thought initially, but became unsure when I read some of the earlier postings on this thread concerning the 25% discount not being given to the husband / wife remaining in the property. Is that because the Councils considered that they had an intention to return?

In this case, Miss B has no intention to return, but gets the 25% discount on account of Miss A being a full - time student.

Would Council Tax law back Mr. Jones in the example that you have quoted above please?

CIS

It pretty much comes down to intention to return - if there's no intention to return then it cannot remain your 'sole or main residence'.

Mr Jones would come under section 6 of the LGA 1992 - again as he has left the property and had no intention to return so he cannot be resident for council tax purposes. Intention to return is not covered specifically in legislation but various bits of case law have determined that it has to be considered in the determination.

Samuel_Orange

Thank you again.

I shall write a letter to the Local Authority along the lines that you suggested.

In the meantime, I would like to research some Case Law in order that I may be fully prepared for any eventuality, so to revert to my original posting, does anyone know where I can read a copy of 'Ryde' or any other case law publication.

I live in Southern England. Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

FredNiche

Write to your local council requesting an itemised list of all council services which they believe your wife has used during her 3 years in Japan. This will force the council to acknowledge in writing that they are willfully charging you for services that don't exist.
As the 'expert' as pointed out, previous case decisions are irrelevant. It may be an accepted doctrine to charge for any spouse who intends to return 'home', but this is merely that, a doctrine, not a law or indeed 'common sense'. If your wife is absent for 27 years before returning, according to 'doctrine' she must pay for 27 years of refuse collection and street lighting.
As we know, the tribunal can make new case decisions. Make your case as strong as possible by highlighting as effectively as possible the inherent absurdities to the situation. On a base level the council tax is meant to pay for council services, and the whole point to 'single occupancy discount' is based on the fact that fewer council services are being used by the household when only one person is living there. It is meant, in theory, to make council tax fairer and more just.
If they cannot justify the extra 25% if their council costs, then they cannot justify charging you for the non-existent costs. You may well still lose the case, but at least you would be morally vindicated. You may well succeed though, as you do at least have the power of reason and fairness on your side, as well as no 'concrete' legal basis to fail.
Fight the !!!!!!!s regardless of what 'legal advice' you are given.
Godspeed

lincroft1710

FredNiche wrote: »

Write to your local council requesting an itemised list of all council services which they believe your wife has used during her 3 years in Japan

On a base level the council tax is meant to pay for council services, and the whole point to 'single occupancy discount' is based on the fact that fewer council services are being used by the household when only one person is living there. It is meant, in theory, to make council tax fairer and more just.

Contrary to common belief Council Tax is not a payment for council services. It is a tax on domestic property which together with government grants and other such income goes towards funding local council(s), police and fire service spending. There are many services provided by councils e.g. schooling which many council taxpayers and their immediate families do not directly use.

Council tax is 50% for the dwelling, 25% for first adult occupier and 25% for second adult occupier, there being no extra charge if more than 2 adults occupy a house. So if a dwelling has 10 adult occupiers they will pay no more CT than jf there were only 2 adult occupiers at that dwelling.

CIS

As the 'expert' as pointed out, previous case decisions are irrelevant. It may be an accepted doctrine to charge for any spouse who intends to return 'home', but this is merely that, a doctrine, not a law or indeed 'common sense'. If your wife is absent for 27 years before returning, according to 'doctrine' she must pay for 27 years of refuse collection and street lighting.

The 'doctrine' of 'sole or main residence' and intention to return are set in law and have to be applied in cases where the criteria are met.

fedcba5210

I know this was posted years ago, but after I read it all I felt compelled to comment. I have just married and my husband is actively serving in the armed forces, not to mention that he will be on tour of duty in the new year. On contacting the council I was shocked to discover that despite him living and working 130 miles away the majority of the time, due to my marrying him, this is now classed as his main residence and I am being told that I have to pay for full occupancy on my house. I am not a happy customer and feel that most council's clutch at straws on this issue by quoting the same half dozen high-court cases to anyone who challenges this ridiculous ruling, which frankly belongs in the stone ago as proved by the gentleman whose wife lives in Japan with her parents and yet is still expected to pay as if she was living in the house. It makes you wonder how many back-handers were made to help the courts come to these select few decisions which have set a precedence meaning honest, hard-working people are being squeezed for every penny they can or cannot afford to fill the coffers of the council.

lincroft1710

fedcba5210 wrote: »

It makes you wonder how many back-handers were made to help the courts come to these select few decisions which have set a precedence meaning honest, hard-working people are being squeezed for every penny they can or cannot afford to fill the coffers of the council.

Backhanders to a court??

Where was his previous main residence? His own place or with his parents?