NRL Scheme-As a tenant should I be witholding tax to pay to CNR/IR-or am I deluded?!

N79

franklee wrote: »

We do agree an agent's address does not satisfy section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 thou

Indeed we do.

broclo

franklee wrote: »

:rotfl:I think you need a good nights sleep sez me with work still to do

That franklee is the most valid point on the whole thread :T
Will get a nice hot drink and head off



Thanks for your time and input today, very much appreciated :cool:

franklee

N79 wrote: »

Indeed we do.

So we just need to agree what place of business means.

If a landlord worked part time down someone elses's chip shop would that count as the landlord's plaice of business?

clutton_2

i find it astonishing that folks are up at 3.00am still debating this.

over-night i have come to a slightly different stance.

you as a tenant cannot be the judge here - if the LL tells you she has not emigrated, it is NOT up to you to decide if she is lying or not. Her residential status is a matter for the taxman to investigate and to pursue her - not you. I can really understand the LLs anger at what she sees as your interference in her private affairs.

You have now done your best to establish your "duty" to pass on the tax and you have not got any clarity from anyone.

So i suggest that pay the rent in full and let the LL and the tax man thrash it out between themselves as to if there you have a liability to pay the tax or not. Establishing your LLs tax-status is not your concern. Once the Taxman has instructed you to retain the tax - then it becomes your concern.

If you are subsequently deemed to be liable for the tax - you can always stop rental payments at a later date to claw back the tax-money which you MIGHT have to sent to the taxman.

What really concerns me now is your approach to being a tenant in other areas - as you say

""In all honesty the ONLY way I could see myself moving into a new property, with all our possesions, would be to withold the rent the LHA has just paid into my account, plus the next one which will appear shortly(they just backdated and next is due in 2 weeks for 2 weeks payment) and let them issue a section 8, find another place in the mean time, move in and then send them a letter offering to pay the arrears by a deduction from my benefits.

Now that is certainly not cricket and i'm certainly not thinking of doing it at this moment in time.""

When are you thinking of doing it then ?

So, just because this landlord is being difficult you think it acceptable to "do a runner" and withold the rent ? You do realise i hope that you will be committing benefit fraud if you do this ?

""send them a letter offering to pay the arrears by a deduction from my benefits." - i laughed out loud when i read this bit - as (in my experience with difficult tenants) this will only happen when hell freezes over !!!

I'm afraid that you have lost my sympathy - i was not at all surprised when your LL threatened a restraining order - as your insistent and rather demanding way of interacting with this landlord would make me mad also.

Pay the rent in full, and get on with your life - if you are saying that you can afford deductions from your benefit to pay any unpaid rent - then you can afford to save for a deposit to move elsewhere.

Your landlord has given you an "out" - ask for your deposit back immediately and then move on - as i can see no way that this relationship is reparable. I would be only too delighted to give you back your deposit to have you move on

broclo

clutton wrote: »

i find it astonishing that folks are up at 3.00am still debating this
Insomnia?

over-night i have come to a slightly different stance.

you as a tenant cannot be the judge here - if the LL tells you she has not emigrated, it is NOT up to you to decide if she is lying or not. Her residential status is a matter for the taxman to investigate and to pursue her - not you. I can really understand the LLs anger at what she sees as your interference in her private affairs.
She had that stance as soon as the issue was raised. I simply looked into the matter and told her the advice I was given by the CNR based on the info she has given me. That is not interference, but protecting myself from being liable.

You have now done your best to establish your "duty" to pass on the tax and you have not got any clarity from anyone.

So i suggest that pay the rent in full and let the LL and the tax man thrash it out between themselves as to if there you have a liability to pay the tax or not. Establishing your LLs tax-status is not your concern. Once the Taxman has instructed you to retain the tax - then it becomes your concern. They did tell me to retain unless they said otherwise, albeit verbaly at this point

If you are subsequently deemed to be liable for the tax - you can always stop rental payments at a later date to claw back the tax-money which you MIGHT have to sent to the taxman. If the tenancy ends, I could be liable an there may not be able to recover.

What really concerns me now is your approach to being a tenant in other areas - as you say

""In all honesty the ONLY way I could see myself moving into a new property, with all our possesions, would be to withold the rent the LHA has just paid into my account, plus the next one which will appear shortly(they just backdated and next is due in 2 weeks for 2 weeks payment) and let them issue a section 8, find another place in the mean time, move in and then send them a letter offering to pay the arrears by a deduction from my benefits.

Now that is certainly not cricket and i'm certainly not thinking of doing it at this moment in time.""

When are you thinking of doing it then ?
The above does not mean I intend to, I did say on many posts, throughout this thread so far, that I was waffling and 'thinking aloud'
So, just because this landlord is being difficult you think it acceptable to "do a runner" and withold the rent ? You do realise i hope that you will be committing benefit fraud if you do this ? I understand that fully. However the amounts coming in now are actually backdated and have already been paid by myself, plus they have the deposit in their hands, which actually is MORE that the LHA I have recieved. So at the moment I have paid the LL, to which LHA has been paid

""send them a letter offering to pay the arrears by a deduction from my benefits." - i laughed out loud when i read this bit - as (in my experience with difficult tenants) this will only happen when hell freezes over !!!

I am NOT a difficult tenant, I have followed CNR advice, based on information given by the LL themselves. I also am not difficult because I want GSC's or my deposit protected!
I'm afraid that you have lost my sympathy - i was not at all surprised when your LL threatened a restraining order - as your insistent and rather demanding way of interacting with this landlord would make me mad also.
I did not even send that email in the end! I simply sent ONE email bringing the issue up after the LL's brother was screaming down the telephone, then ONE email responding to the 'domicile' issue after the CNR avised me to. That is in no way unnaceptable. Demanding? You mean demanding to have writen proof or permission as advised by the CNR? Demanding a GSC? Demanding my deposit is protected within 14 days as the landlords contract advises they will?

Pay the rent in full, and get on with your life - if you are saying that you can afford deductions from your benefit to pay any unpaid rent - then you can afford to save for a deposit to move elsewhere. Not by the time they can action within the break clause, no

Your landlord has given you an "out" - ask for your deposit back immediately and then move on - as i can see no way that this relationship is reparable. I would be only too delighted to give you back your deposit to have you move on She has not outlined any terms yet...i'd email her as others have advised on this subject, but you seem to think that would deserve a restraining order! The restraining order idea is past daft, I sent 1 email and 2 replies, after the LL's bro got abuse on the telephone to me, when I remained calm. They sent 5 back...[/QUOTE]


Since your altogether different posts yesterday, you fail to realise that I have recieved 3 emails and I have not even responded to them. Nothing about my position or or attitude towards them has changed. I spoke out loud about my thoughts as I am feeling frustrated that as I have tried to protect my interests and RIGHTS, the LL has treated ME badly.

The LL has broken the LAW on more than one instance. I can not understand how the LL can be given such incredible sympathy for sticking two fingers up at various laws and then I am seen as harassing as I simply try to make sure that I am not going to end up liable for taxes, have my deposit safe(not theirs mine) and the safety of my children protected.

You have gone from one view, to a completely different one, yet I have not done anything, just spoken of my 'thoughts'.

franklee

Hi clutton,

broclo has not tried to judge the landlady's residential status but has given CNR the facts as they keep emerging and asked for their advice to protect herself from any tax liability.

I read it as broclo trying to establish if as a tenant she has liability to collect the tax. To do this broclo has relayed the information given to her by the landlady to CNR and asked if she is liable to collect the tax.

The problem is that the landlady has changed her story from: That she is emigrating, which is why the property is being rented out to that she isn't non-resident as she has not yet been away for more than six months. Given this CNR still told broclo to collect the tax.

Now the landlady has provided new information that she will return within six months and isn't emigrating. Therefore I suggest that broclo should give CNR this new information and ask them if this removes the tenant's liability to collect tax - with confirmation in writing. Hopefully it does.

If the landlady was acting in good faith the she should, when the matter was raised, have sorted this out with CNR and requested that they let her tenant know what to do. But she hasn't done that, has not acknowledged any of the problems this is causing the tenant and is suggesting the tenant leave the property. There was no need for her to react so aggressively as whatever the outcome broclo did have a legitimate query which she raised with CNR telling them the facts as the landlady had given them at that time. Perhaps broclo should ask CNR how a tenant should determine if they are liable to collect tax or not when faced with the situation of a landlady changing her story so the tenant does not know if she is coming or going.

In my opinion what broclo really needs is a note from CNR saying the she isn't liable to collect this tax and it's sorted.

It should have been possible to resolve this without the need for broclo to feel she can't stay in her home and is now being pushed into moving with the attendant stress and costs. After all the crap legislation or advice from CNR putting unreasonable responsibilities on the tenant is not the tenant's fault.

clutton_2

Franklee sums it up well -

"In my opinion what broclo really needs is a note from CNR saying the she isn't liable to collect this tax and it's sorted.""

Yes - and in the meantime she should pay the rent in full until this tax matter is sorted out between the landlord and tax man.

yes i still think that broclo is a demanding person - my very first response to this post was a request to "soften" her language - demanding and demanding and demanding is much less likely to get the result she wants - requesting and negotiating are much more likely to get a result - but i think she has got a bee in her bonnet about this tax business and has l ost sight of the bigger picture - the longer term issues

if it was me as tenant - i would be paying the rent in full; ignoring the tax issue until i received a written instruction from the tax man; and contacting private sector housing to sort out the issues around gas safety and her deposit - these are much more important.

broclo says "" I can not understand how the LL can be given such incredible sympathy""

i have no sympathy whatsoever for this landlord - as i said earlier - he gives us all a bad name.

i simply cannot understand your priorities ....... putting energy into retaining your own deposit monies - or fighting for the tax mans monies..... crackers

franklee

Hi clutton,

I can understand the worry a tenant would have that they may be faced with having to find 20% of the rent for a few months to pay the tax man. Many tenants just don't have that money to hand or would not know if they are liable or not. Certainly I do not know if it's backdated till the start of the tenancy etc.

Same problem with moving, many tenants don't have the cash required to find a new deposit etc. up front.

clutton_2

but broclo has already told us that she has paid her rent in advance of getting LHA thru


However the amounts coming in now are actually backdated and have already been paid by myself

so she is not one of the penniless....

franklee

Ah well how benefits work is something I've not got a clue about, so don't realise who has what money when on that score.

If I was due to pay a tax bill that wasn't mine I'd want to know I'd get paid back. If broclo hadn't made a fuss than I get the impression the landlady wouldn't yet have written the letter claiming she wasn't emigrating after all. (If receiving full rent why would the landlady bother to clarify her residency with HMRC especially if she really did think she might emigrate). This would have delayed getting it sorted letting the tax bill build up (can it be backdated to the start of the tenancy, I don't know). Considering there is a break clause, worst case broclo may have been asked to leave before she could claw back the tax bill from the rent. (Saved from the break only by the lack of deposit protection).

Basically the tenant is in trouble either way on this one. Pay the rent in full and risk liability for the tax without being able to get it back from an absent landlord. Withhold the 20% and have an irate landlord putting the tenancy at risk.

I wonder why HMRC dreamt this method up in the first place, perhaps because they don't want the hassle of collecting tax from an absent landlord so put it on the tenant?