Council Tax. Council's powers to obtain information

Wee_Willy_Harris

Barry_D wrote: »

well, sometimes, just sometimes, common sense prevails....!

(but then isn't the activity you describe reckless driving - which is against the law?)

And isn't the activity you describe essentially non payment of lawful tax, which is also quite naughty?

Barry_D

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Regardless of what your tenancy agreement says, in basic terms, if the occupation complies with the 1988 Housing Act definition of a tenancy, then it's a tenancy. In basic terms, the exchange of rent for exclusive occupation is a tenancy, regardless of what either the LL or the tenant may believe. Any "unusual" clauses that may differ from that may well be unenforceable, but they will be very, very unlikley to void a tenancy.

Again, I agree, but I know of at least two instances where the tenancy agreement was so badly worded that it protected neither the landlord nor the tenant and exposed each party to an unacceptable level of risk. The tenancies weren't void but were re-written almost immediately after they had been seen by the respective parties' solicitors to provide the necessary protection to each party.

Barry_D

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

And isn't the activity you describe essentially non payment of lawful tax, which is also quite naughty?

Inasmuch as it has not yet been paid, yes it could be classed as non-payment, even though the liable person has stated she will pay upon receipt of a correctly addressed bill...but then you could argue that the council hasn't asked the right person for the money!

Wee_Willy_Harris

Barry_D wrote: »

Again, I agree, but I know of at least two instances where the tenancy agreement was so badly worded that it protected neither the landlord nor the tenant and exposed each party to an unacceptable level of risk. The tenancies weren't void but were re-written almost immediately after they had been seen by the respective parties' solicitors to provide the necessary protection to each party.

Housing legislation will always trump whatever is in a tenancy agreement, so the minimum security afforted to a tenant/ll is that contained within the act. Again, non of which will be of any interest to the c/tax team.

ILW

BarryD
Please tell me, what is the problem with just showing them the agreement?
Or are you being awkward just for the sake of it?
I truly cannot understand your problem.

clutton_2

""Or are you being awkward just for the sake of it?
I truly cannot understand your problem"

got it in one....


there is something hideously addictive in this thread... each day i wonder what new nonsense will appear from Barry

today i love this legalese from him

""Inasmuch as it has not yet been paid, yes it could be classed as non-payment"

waaay too much time on your hands as someone said weeks ago.........

Barry_D

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Housing legislation will always trump whatever is in a tenancy agreement, so the minimum security afforted to a tenant/ll is that contained within the act. Again, non of which will be of any interest to the c/tax team.

Mostly, yes; but a tenancy agreement can contain clauses which extend the liabilities of one party or the other and which are not considered in the 1988 Act - in which case that Act would provide no mechanism for either the landlord or tenant to respond in respect of those clauses.

RecoveringAlcoholic

Please let this thread die.




:beer:

Barry_D

ILW wrote: »

BarryD
Please tell me, what is the problem with just showing them the agreement?
Or are you being awkward just for the sake of it?
I truly cannot understand your problem.

There is no problem for you to understand. There is, however, a question in the original post which hasn't yet been answered...

Barry_D

clutton wrote: »

""Or are you being awkward just for the sake of it?
I truly cannot understand your problem"

got it in one....


there is something hideously addictive in this thread... each day i wonder what new nonsense will appear from Barry

today i love this legalese from him

""Inasmuch as it has not yet been paid, yes it could be classed as non-payment"

waaay too much time on your hands as someone said weeks ago.........

Clutton - I love your habit of taking things completely out of context!!! It is NOT non-payment, as payment to the council has been offered.

And as for this gem:

'i certianly did GET the point - its a stunningly ridiculous point... a laughable point .... a nit-picky time-wasting point..... a pointless-point...'

You remind me of Rabbit out of Winnie the Pooh when he gets irate with Tigger