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

clutton_2

franklee i agree it is a far from ideal scenario - and i do understand the frustrations - but i also see the landlords point of view here.

The landlord has agreed to accept a Benefit tenant (knowlngly or unknowingly) and their rental income is already compromised by delays and possible non payment. So to have threats of further deductions - which they may see as illegal - is bound to get their back up - they have no guarantee at all that broclo will pass that money onto the tax man (and vice versa i have to say) - so it is no wonder that they are angry and upset - if broclo deducts the tax and spends it - guess who the taxman will go to for the outstanding tax - the LL

They confirmed that as Mrs *** is due to be a Non-resident for over six months and rental income is due to be paid directly into a UK bank account, by myself, that she falls within the NRL scheme


The LL may well see her "investigations" as malicious and nosey and the LL may well feel that the tenant has deliberately "dobbed her in" - under these circumstances there can be no trust left in this relationship. It is up to the LL to confirm with the Revenue what her intentions are, or are not, this is not up to the tenant.

As i have already said, i think this deduct/no deduct is up to the landlord and the tax man

but i think that broclo has alienated the landlord by her attitude and her demanding approach - as the posts have progressed it has become obvious that she is far more knowledgeable about L&T matters than we first thought -

good landlord and tenant relationships are entirely dependent on good communication - i utterly accept that she has been on the receiving end of some bad manners, and we have her assertion that she has not retaliated - but it seems a little odd that with only a couple of emails a LL should see that as sufficient to go for a restraining order ?

if the LL wants her to go - i would accept the offer (providing she gets her deposit back) and go find somewhere where she and her children will be happy -

otherwise she will spend all her time fighting these ignoramuses and in the end may get a moral victory (even a gas cert/erc) - but at what emotional cost to her and her family

only she can answer that

franklee

I do agree the restraining order bit was odd based on the information we've been given, as is asking the tenant to leave. The extreme reaction may be because the landlady really did want to emigrate and wants to hide her status from the tax man, the landlady hasn't acted to sort this with the tax office yet it's been going on for a while, the tenancy starting in April. Also broclo did mention lots of bills for the landlady turning up still introcucing the worry that she has debt problems. So we just don't know why the landaldy reacted like that, there is no saying it's justified and at the end of the day she did origionally state she was emigrating which is why the property was being let.

I'd be wanting to leave, but it depends if broclo can afford it right now as it does cost a bit to move.

lynzpower

I think you are missing something really fundamental here.

clutton wrote: »

franklee i agree it is a far from ideal scenario - and i do understand the frustrations - but i also see the landlords point of view here.

The landlord has agreed to accept a Benefit tenant (knowlngly or unknowingly) and their rental income is already compromised by delays and possible non payment. So to have threats of further deductions - which they may see as illegal - is bound to get their back up - they have no guarantee at all that broclo will pass that money onto the tax man (and vice versa i have to say) - so it is no wonder that they are angry and upset - if broclo deducts the tax and spends it - guess who the taxman will go to for the outstanding tax - the LL

The problem here is NOT the tenant- its the fact that the LL has decided to move abroad- and I agree that there is no agent to collect the tax. My old nightmarish LL moved abroad- however they did have anEA collecting the rent- however SHE did not priovide a manager in the UK nor did she provide a address to serve notices, so slightly different. I think OP is completely in the right here, she has asked the CNR if she needs to pay the tax on this, and suprprise, theyve told her YES you do.
If she doesnt pay now, Poor OP is going to pay FULL rent and also the tax- cant be right.
If Ops LL pays the tax on the self assessment, yet also the oP pays the tax then the LL can ask her accountant- and im sure she has one if she has a sol- to ensure less tax is paid. I really dont see what the problem is for the LL. and why shes being so aggro about it?

Its the LL who told the CNR she was emigrating at one stage, bnow she has changed her mind as sghes just realised this means less income. i wonder indeed if the LL was going to pay that tax on the self assessment at all- or just keep it quiet.

Isnt there an aspect of this ( read on here a few times) ( and tis is just a pondering) that there is a presumption from the Inald revenue and the taxmakers, that paying 20% is the tax rate. However, I also understand that you dont pay tax isd you are not making a profit- ie you can offset all rental income against your operating costs, therefore you only need to pay tax on the profit remnants that are left.

This does presuppose that landlords are making a profit, and we do know that many are only making profits as they are bouyed by such low interest rates. Some were ( in the heady days of 5%) making nothing and subsidising thier BTL so that they could keep it going. Taking 20% out of the rent when already that rent is having to be subsidised must be difficult. However, clearly that is what the law demands.

It also demands the EPC adn the Gas safety cert, thats hugely important.




The LL may well see her "investigations" as malicious and nosey and the LL may well feel that the tenant has deliberately "dobbed her in" - under these circumstances there can be no trust left in this relationship. It is up to the LL to confirm with the Revenue what her intentions are, or are not, this is not up to the tenant. Thats up to the LL, If shes so dumb/ uneducated that she cant see that the tenant simply wants to stop 20% of the rent being payable to the IR. Depending where you are you can easily call that 200 pcm. Or 600 per quarter. The tenant has to pay this - as the LL is out of the country. ( if we agree she is abnd if LL has told CNR thats shes emigrated then they need to establish that she really isnt. She therefore has to write to the CNR to \convince them that she is no longer emigrating only holidaying etc. I suppose they will use the same sort of questions lke when trying to assess where someone is ordinarily resident. For example the DWP would want to see proof of a return flight, if one says that this is a holiday only- for example. The tenant is LIABLE- ie she has to pay the 20% tax if the LLisresideing outside the EU.

As i have already said, i think this deduct/no deduct is up to the landlord and the tax man As stated, this isnt true

but i think that broclo has alienated the landlord by her attitude and her demanding approach - as the posts have progressed it has become obvious that she is far more knowledgeable about L&T matters than we first thought - why is this a problem,. I can easily see why a skint LL who cant afford the basics of renting thier house out would be concerned, but thats not the taxmans concern, its not the taxpayers concersn and in terms of health & safety in the building I dont think courts would be bothered with "i didnt likeher demanding atitude". At the end of the day, the focus should be on LLs to obey the law that is there to modify and control their trade. If you dont like it, dont be a LL, no one forced her to do it, She chose to do this with her property, she chose not to have a letting agent collect the income, she chose to have no manager out of the Uk, she chose to ignore gas safety, bond protection etc.

good landlord and tenant relationships are entirely dependent on good communication ( and playing fair, obeying the law) - i utterly accept that she has been on the receiving end of some bad manners, and we have her assertion that she has not retaliated - but it seems a little odd that with only a couple of emails a LL should see that as sufficient to go for a restraining order ? ( its clear the LL is backed into a corner. Maybe she cant afford to lose 20% , maybe it will mean she cant pay the mortgage. Certainly sounds a bit like that to me- shes scaed, people say stuopid things when they are scared) .

if the LL wants her to go - i would accept the offer (providing she gets her deposit back) and go find somewhere where she and her children will be happy - (I wouldnt, why should a woman and her children face upheaval again because LL cant be bothered to read landlordzone for 10 mins)
otherwise she will spend all her time fighting these ignoramuses and in the end may get a moral victory (even a gas cert/erc) - but at what emotional cost to her and her family ( i agree with this, but what if another family follow her into the house and die due to gas safety issues- was it ok to slink off quietly, take the cash & get out?

only she can answer that

Or their solicitors might want to answer why this tenancy has been botched from day one

You know I have a lot of time for you clutton, but Im not sure why you changed your mind here!

clutton_2

you argue your points very well Lynz - and yes i have changed my stance. i think i changed my stance when the OP told us that she was considering doing a runner and not paying rent

I agree that the LL has not complied with the law - i agree that the LL is a pile of poo - but i also think that i no longer trust the OP

You say ""Its the LL who told the CNR she was emigrating at one stage"" - not the case - the OP says in her original post that it was she who told the CNR who her landlord was, and then OP was told by CNR that the LL was not registered.

Call it gut instinct if you like - but the initial issues of "should i pay the tax or am i deluded" has been clouded and obfuscated with several other matters - Gas cert, epc, deposit etc - but i actually do now think that OP is deluded - as she has got her priorities absolutely upside down.

i also find it absolutely astonishing that the property has no Gas Cert and yet she is spending her time banging on about tax and has, apparently, made no efforts to sort this out quickly - this is only a life and death matter after all - not a matter of unpaid tax. She has not responded to any posters who have tried to focus her attention on this important matter.

If you want to get a LL to toe the line, you go to the local council private sector staff and get them to write on your behalf (especially since relations here are irreparable) - you dont waste time and energy on someone else's tax bill. Councils have legal clout to force landlords to comply with safety/deposit protection legislation - tax men dont.

She has got her priorities really wrong - that is why i have changed my stance, and that is why i do not support her any longer. (That is not to say that i support the LL - i dont - i have just been putting the other perspective here)

There are always two sides to a story - and lets not forget on this forum we only ever have one side

If this LL is so incompetent - we can have no idea how long ago she serviced this boiler - - i have personally seen properties where boilers have exploded - NOT a pretty sight i can assure you.

i recommended leaving because she and her family will never have peace of mind in this property - she will always have stress at the back of her mind and sooner or later the relatioinship will, as they say, irrevocably break down - if it has not done so already

I still recommend that she leave now while she has some sanity - her childrens peaceful environment should come foremost

broclo

clutton wrote: »

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. Not the advice given by the CNR

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 As I said, I never sent that email at all...just put it here, my only contact was a polite call where I was screamed at and a reply regarding domicility which was polite. What I have writen here for opinion or to off load random thoughts is NOT the same as what has been said or written to the LL. Have you considered that on my posts I may say whatever was running through my head at the time as I have felt threatened and intimidated by the LL?

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. I think any tenant should follow the advice of the CNR!!! I have been looking into the deposit issues, they are many timing factors to consider, it has been requested many times and I am waiting on written(verbal only recieved) confirmation. I have writen to LL about GSC...after seeking advice from the authorities, these matters are not being ignored or not prioritised!

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 I am putting energy into both. A few calls to the CNR and some posts here and research does not mean I have not put energy into the other issues!

You seem to believe that putting energy into one thing means other issues are not been addressed and you are incorrect I am afraid.

broclo

franklee wrote: »

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.

The tax is liable from the start of the tenancy or if latter the date the LL becomes a NRL. Tenants are liable without a certificate of exemption from the CNR. The CNR have stated that the tenant is liable without the certificate even if they knew nothing whatsoever about the scheme.

I certainly can not raise a deposit, month in advance and moving costs!

broclo

clutton wrote: »

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....

How presumptious! In fact you a wrong. I am 'one of the penniless'!

The money did not just pop out of a hat, I had no time to save this money as I was new to benefits after excaping DV. I then had to move again and in a hurry for safety reasons(amoungst others) and although I may have paid the money to the LL...it did not come out of my pocket or any benefit agencies either.

broclo

franklee wrote: »

(Saved from the break only by the lack of deposit protection).
I understand franklee that a S.21 can not be served if deposit not in TDS. I presume this means, from what you say, that any breakclause can not be used also? If correct...I wonder if the depsit is then rotected late, if and how it affects this

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?

I was told twice on the phone to the CNR, that it certainly was felt 'unfair' in the 'office' and one person told me that the part of their job they hated the most, was when a tenant had left a tenancy a long time before and then been chased for 3 years of tax on a tenancy, it had hapened the week prior. Both people though said that the libility, fairly or not, was put on a tenant as the HMRC can recover funds, but it is very complicated from a LL as the authorities in the NRL country generaly have to get involved and of course the compliance depends on the relationship with that particular country. Unfair, but I guess understandable from HMRC view?

broclo

clutton wrote: »

franklee i agree it is a far from ideal scenario - and i do understand the frustrations - but i also see the landlords point of view here.

The landlord has agreed to accept a Benefit tenant (knowlngly or unknowingly) knowingly, they themselves recieved LHA according to the LL and their rental income is already compromised by delays and possible non payment. So to have threats of further deductions - which they may see as illegal - is bound to get their back up - they have no guarantee at all that broclo will pass that money onto the tax man (and vice versa i have to say) - so it is no wonder that they are angry and upset - if broclo deducts the tax and spends it - guess who the taxman will go to for the outstanding tax - the LL Incorrect according to the CNR. The CNR state that they would not persue the LL not only verbaly but in written documents. If a tenant like myself request registration, give all their details, ask for payments slips so it can be done monthly, not quarterly, I think it safe to say the tenant will pay!

They confirmed that as Mrs *** is due to be a Non-resident for over six months and rental income is due to be paid directly into a UK bank account, by myself, that she falls within the NRL scheme


The LL may well see her "investigations" as malicious and nosey and the LL may well feel that the tenant has deliberately "dobbed her in" - under these circumstances there can be no trust left in this relationship. It is up to the LL to confirm with the Revenue what her intentions are, or are not, this is not up to the tenant. According to the CNR... I have a legal responsibility, if I believe the LL is an NRL, to inform them and then pay them directly, unless I recieve a certificate

As i have already said, i think this deduct/no deduct is up to the landlord and the tax man Incorrect according to verbal and written information from the CNR

but i think that broclo has alienated the landlord by her attitude and her demanding approach - as the posts have progressed it has become obvious that she is far more knowledgeable about L&T matters than we first thought - Incorrect, I knew nothing of the CNR or NRL Scheme prior to a few hours before starting this thread. I stumbled across the information when searching for information on getting NRL's to comply with the TDS and GSC's when there is only a c/o address, it was by putting in 'NRL' that the information was discovered...then of course I have asked questions here and tried to find out more information from the CNR, to establish the facts.

good landlord and tenant relationships are entirely dependent on good communication - i utterly accept that she has been on the receiving end of some bad manners, and we have her assertion that she has not retaliated - but it seems a little odd that with only a couple of emails a LL should see that as sufficient to go for a restraining order ? Yes...it is as odd as 7 days before my rent was due I had the LL call at 10:30 pm to check it would be going through, stating that she had retained my deposit illegaly in case it did not and that she had 'people lined up' should it not. Yes...it is strange that when I told the brother about the tax issue, calmly and politely he threw a hissy fit, insisted I was 100% wrong and got very verbally agrresive and intimidating, then when I said I would email the details so he could look as I had didcovered the information and just needed to establish the situation, that he went completely mental and told me that I WOULD continue to communicate by telephone and slammed the telephone down. Alot of the pairs behaviour is odd... Maybe that is because they are dodgy as hell? Think about it...debt collectors knocking for bills in LL maiden name that were run up just prior to leaving on cards? Maybe they have that attitude because of those types of things? I personaly think that the LL has no intention of getting an order...as if it would be granted on 3 emails, and answering their calls and protecting myself from tax liabilities by fufilling my responsibilities! Laughable really. That in my opinion is the LL just wanting to intimidate me so I back off...the question is why?!

if the LL wants her to go - i would accept the offer (providing she gets her deposit back) and go find somewhere where she and her children will be happy - It would be VERY convenient for the LL!

otherwise she will spend all her time fighting these ignoramuses and in the end may get a moral victory (even a gas cert/erc) - but at what emotional cost to her and her family

only she can answer that

I think you fail to see that my LL behaviour is OTT which does bring raise the subject of why and fail to understand that I have only done what the CNR insist I do!

broclo

franklee wrote: »

I do agree the restraining order bit was odd based on the information we've been given, lol my posts are very long, you have been given as much info as there is as is asking the tenant to leave. The extreme reaction may be because the landlady really did want to emigrate and wants to hide her status from the tax man, the landlady hasn't acted to sort this with the tax office yet it's been going on for a while, the tenancy starting in April. CNR state that they should know her status and they do not Also broclo did mention lots of bills In maiden name, lots of CC's run upto max prior to leaving etc for the landlady turning up still introcucing the worry that she has debt problems. Hence why they probably have not put my deposit in a TDS So we just don't know why the landaldy reacted like that, there is no saying it's justified and at the end of the day she did origionally state she was emigrating which is why the property was being let.

I'd be wanting to leave, but it depends if broclo can afford it right now as it does cost a bit to move.

No way in a million years I can find deposit, 1m rental and moving costs. Spoke to shelter today and I am not able to get assistance as such. They can only help when i'm basically on the street as far as financial.

That is why I was 'chatting aloud' about just moving ... they do after all have my deposit! I would have thought that there was a possibility of that option as if say I left in 2 weeks, if they keep the deposit they have unlawfully retained, only 2 weeks would be owed.

Rightly or wrongly, I do kind of feel that paying 2 weeks rent back to them, when they escape a x3 deposit is actually an advantage to them!!!