Help Needed - Student Council Tax Reduction

CIS

The decision is open to interpretation by the valuation tribunal. intention to return can last for years (Ward V Kingston upon Hull)

The key issue of Williams V Horsham was that the cottage which was originally deemed their main home had never been lived in by them so it was ruled that they could not have had intention to return. This doesn't appear to be the case for you.

SUMEGHOVA v McMAHON may be more applicable (thought should be given to where a person sleeps when considering main residence). I'll try to dig out a few more cases (I'll have to look through my course notes)

http://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk/Libraries/CT_Manual/CT_Manual_Feb_2011.sflb.ashx

educatingmyself

CIS wrote: »

The decision is open to interpretation by the valuation tribunal. intention to return can last for years (Ward V Kingston upon Hull)

The key issue of Williams V Horsham was that the cottage which was originally deemed their main home had never been lived in by them so it was ruled that they could not have had intention to return. This doesn't appear to be the case for you.

SUMEGHOVA v McMAHON may be more applicable (thought should be given to where a person sleeps when considering main residence). I'll try to dig out a few more cases (I'll have to look through my course notes)

http://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk/Libraries/CT_Manual/CT_Manual_Feb_2011.sflb.ashx

Thank you once again CIS

I have read the Ward v Kingston Upon Hull and is the overriding issue not the lack of security of tenure in Saudi? I am freeholder of both properties.

Also, the Willaims v Horsham, I agree that they never stayed there, but was it not the issue of "a reasonable onlooker" would view the college accommodaton as the main residence, and that took priority over the security of tenure?

The Sumeghova v McMahon case does give me some hope, because I have not slept one night in the house with my daughter since I left. Moreover, I asked the council if I could rent it to her and she claim housing benefit and they said no, it would be a contrived tenancy and they would not pay. I had to rent it out to pay the mortgage and the tenants did a bunk, wrecked the house and didn't pay the rent! Then I found out that I could have rented it to her, as long as I had a proper commercial contract and set a normal rent! So, my house was wrecked, I didn't get the rent and my daughter went through the severe emotional turmoil of being torn from the home she had lived in her whole life! She sobbed and sobbed, and has not set foot in the house since. She can't bear to come near the house with me when I visit the tenants in place now.

Any other information would be gratefully received. I have to prepare a late application for Judical Review; and given my poor performing brain, I need all the advice I can get!

Thank you.

EM

CIS

I have read the Ward v Kingston Upon Hull and is the overriding issue not the lack of security of tenure in Saudi? I am freeholder of both properties.

Security of tenure was an issue but intention to return was also a requisite issue (without intention to return they would have had difficult arguing it was their main residence).

Also, the Willaims v Horsham, I agree that they never stayed there, but was it not the issue of "a reasonable onlooker" would view the college accommodaton as the main residence, and that took priority over the security of tenure?

It was considered that a reasonable onlooker would consider it but it also went deeper than that as it also considered intention to return. It also considered the fact that a person can have more than one residence and that the facts raised were the key to determining the main residence.

John_Pierpoint

Another example if "[un]joined up government". (*)
For Capital Gains Tax purposes educatingmyself has one principle private residence but for Council Tax purposes there are two residences.
Can the now rented out property be a previous PPR (within the last three years) and be gifted tax free to the daughter?

I did something like this when my son went to University - that took care of his (then) University costs.

It never occurred to me that there could have been a Council Tax angle, had I structured our arrangements differently.

John.

(*) My other light bulb moment supplied by CIS, was the discovery that the Council Tax and Planning Department of the council disagree over the definition of a House in Multiple Occupation - HMO (mind you England & Scotland disagree over that one too - son did not go to a Scottish university).

educatingmyself

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Another example if "[un]joined up government". (*)
For Capital Gains Tax purposes educatingmyself has one principle private residence but for Council Tax purposes there are two residences.
Can the now rented out property be a previous PPR (within the last three years) and be gifted tax free to the daughter?

I did something like this when my son went to University - that took care of his (then) University costs.

It never occurred to me that there could have been a Council Tax angle, had I structured our arrangements differently.

John.

(*) My other light bulb moment supplied by CIS, was the discovery that the Council Tax and Planning Department of the council disagree over the definition of a House in Multiple Occupation - HMO (mind you England & Scotland disagree over that one too - son did not go to a Scottish university).

For the record there is no gifting or avoidance of tax; and CGT is the furthest thing from my mind, in fact there is no "angle", I have paid my tax in full, regardless of the fact that I was entitled to a single person's discount, I was too busy struggling to keep my family together and my business afloat, whilst being dumped upon by others. My main objection is being charged twice, especially when I did not live in the second property and it was exempt!

EM

educatingmyself

CIS wrote: »

Security of tenure was an issue but intention to return was also a requisite issue (without intention to return they would have had difficult arguing it was their main residence).



It was considered that a reasonable onlooker would consider it but it also went deeper than that as it also considered intention to return. It also considered the fact that a person can have more than one residence and that the facts raised were the key to determining the main residence.

Thank you once again CIS for the clarity

It is just a shame that I was not allowed to address "the facts raised" at my Tribunal, given that it was the morning after my daughter attempted to commit suicide and I was distraught; and they landed a huge submission on me in the hearing, to which I was not given the opportunity to provide the evidence to refute!

EM

CIS

Have you got the actual decision from the tribunal with their statement of decision ? - what exactly do they say.

Codner v Wiltshire VCCT 1994

[Appeal from valuation and community charge tribunaL] LIABILITY - TWO DWELLINGS - MAIN RESIDENCE
The case

The appellant in this case was a barrister who worked in London for a period of time but whose family home was in Wiltshire. He was registered for the purposes of community charge as being resident at the Wiltshire address, and he appealed to the valuation and community charge tribunal against that decision by the council's community charges registration officer.

The chargepayer initially lived, with his wife, in a flat in London, but they then bought the house in Wiltshire in August 1990. His wife and children moved to their new home at that time, but he remained at the London flat during the week and only went to Wiltshire for the weekends. He estimated that he spent 70% of each week at the London flat.

The appeal to the tribunal concerned the question of whether the house in Wiltshire was the chargepayer's main residence during the relevant time, and the tribunal ultimately upheld the decision of the registration officer that it was. The period in question was from August 1990 to 31 st March 1991, since the appellant eventually gave up his London flat and commenced to practice from his home in Wiltshire,

The chargepayer appealed to the High Court on the basis that the tribunal erred in law because they had had regard to irrelevant factors, namely the situation of his wife and children, and that the only consideration that should have been taken account of was the proportion of time spent by the appellant in the subject property.

In the High Court, the judgment of Hutchinson J in Bradford Metropolitan City Council v Anderton [1991) [see this section] was emphasised, in which it was said that the tribunal on that occasion was in error because it had confined its attention, almost exclusively, to the question of time.

Laws J, in the present case, said that in his judgment it was beyond contention that the question of a person's main residence was not to be determined purely by reference to the amount of time spent there. He said that the tribunal plainly addressed the issue by considering what, in substance, was the chargepayer's home, what was the place to which he returned whenever possible, and how strong were his links with that place.

It was concluded that all the factors which should have been taken account of by the tribunal were relevant factors, particularly the residence of the family in the house in Wiltshire and the appellant's part ownership of it. The appeal was, consequently, dismissed.



Cox v London (South West) VCCT & Poole BC CCRO 1994
The case

It was determined by the valuation and community charge tribunal in this case that the chargepayer's name should be removed from the personal community charges register for the area of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, with effect from 1 st April 199O, on the basis that his main residence was in Poole. The chargepayer appealed to the High Court against that decision.

The circumstances were that the chargepayer lived in a flat in Kensington during the week, while working in London, but he also spent time at weekends, with his wife and young child, at the family home in Poole. He was the owner of both dwellings.

The chargepayer said that he spent "at least five days and five nights every week" at his Kensington flat. On appeal, he submitted that the finding of the tribunal that he spent most weekends at the property in Poole was a "non-decisive point" in determining where his main residence was.

In dismissing the appeal, Turner J said that, in the absence of any evidence to show that there was some special or unusual feature in connection with the relationship between the chargepayer and his wife and child, the tribunal was able to draw the inference, as it did, that it may reasonably be presumed that the place where the wife and child of a person permanently reside would be regarded as the main residence of the husband.
Frost (Inspector of Taxes) v Feltham 1981

Nourse J presiding:

The case involved the question of loan interest relief from taxation to which a taxpayer was entitled only in respect of his only or main residence.

In this case a couple lived most of their time in a tenanted public house in Essex but owned the freehold of a house in Wales.

Their contention was that although they spent most of their time in the public house and only visited. The house in Wales some time each month, their main residence was the public house.

The judge held that a most important factor was the security of tenure aspect and held that the house in Wales was their main residence.
Levene v Commissioners of the Inland Revenue 1928

This case looked at the definition of residence where a person spent a limited time in the UK
Re; Young 1 Tax Case 51

This case concerned a ship's captain who spent the greater part of a year away from the UK. He had a house in Glasgow, which was held to be his residence.

" He goes on board not as a residence but for the purposes of his trade"
Rogers v Inland Revenue 1879 Tax Case 225

A case concerning a merchant navy Captain who was absent for the whole year.

He was found to still be resident in the UK even though his business kept him away.



MULLANEY AND CLAYTON v WATFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL AND HERTFORDSHIRE VALUATION TRIBUNAL [1997)

LIABILITY - TWO DWELLINGS - SOLE OR MAIN RESIDENCE - QUESTION OF FACT AND DEGREE - SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE

This case arose from the decision of the valuation tribunal that the main residence of Miss M was in the dwelling owned by Mr C, and that Mr C was not, in consequence, the only person resident in that property. The tribunal's decision was based upon evidence, given by the billing authority, which showed Miss M to have been seen leaving Mr C's property on a number of occasions, and upon information that personal possessions of hers were kept there, that she had a financial interest in the property, and that there was a record of a conversation in which Mr C had said that Miss M lived there.

Each of the two parties owned a dwelling, Miss M's property being a mile or so away from that owned by Mr C. Between April 1995 and October 1995, the billing authority believed that Miss M resided in the property she owned, and they allowed a 25% discount against her council tax on the basis that she lived alone. Mr C was also receiving a 25% discount on his property, since it was believed that no one resided with him.

The High Court held that the valuation tribunal was entitled to make the finding it did, and that it was entitled to reject the appellants' evidence, in particular that suggesting that Miss M collected her car from Mr C's property every morning. Other photographic evidence, showing Miss M to have been at one property or the other at various times, was made available to the High Court, this not having been disclosed either to the appellants or the valuation tribunal, but Scott Baker J considered this to be neutral in its effect upon the case and rej ected the appellants' argument that they had been prejudiced by its having been withheld.

The High Court accepted that it was a fair inference from the evidence that Miss M was sleeping regularly at Mr C's property and that such a habit was a pointer to that property being, if not her sole residence, then at least her main residence. Further, he rejected the submission for the appellants that the tribunal had misled itself by leaving out of account factors relating to Miss M's property, such as her security of tenure there, her voting registration at that address, her registration there with her medical practitioner, and her own evidence that that was, in fact, where she really lived.

The final point dealt with in the High Court was the question of whether the appellants were prejudiced by information given to the tribunal by the council's officer regarding the possibility of the matter being referred to the police on the basis that false information had been given and that there was evidence of dishonesty. The court was not satisfied that the complaint that the appellants did not get a fair hearing had been made out, and Scott Baker J said that he did not think that there was any substance at all in the suggestion that, because of the observation of the council's officer, the tribunal took "as it were, an instant dislike to the appellants and refused to give consideration to the points that were being advanced on their behalf".

It was concluded that there were no grounds for interfering with the decision of the valuation tribunal, and the appeals were dismissed.


Clayton v Watford Borough Council & Hertfordshire Valuation Tribunal HC [RA 1997]

The taxpayers, Miss Mullaney and Mr Clayton, each received a 25% single resident discount in respect of two separate dwellings. The Billing Authority removed Mr Clayton’s single resident discount and Miss Mullaney was awarded a 50% no resident discount for her dwelling on the basis that it was no person’s sole or main residence. The Valuation Tribunal dismissed Miss Mullaney’s and Mr Clayton’s appeals, thereby upholding the Billing Authority’s decision.

Miss Mullaney and Mr Clayton appealed to the High Court. Justice Scott Baker considered the evidence presented at the Tribunal hearing in relation to the issue of which of the two dwellings was Miss Mullaney’s main residence, including: early morning surveillance reports; benefit investigation officer’s meetings with Mr Clayton; and, location of Miss Mullaney’s possessions. The High Court dismissed Miss Mullaney’s and Mr Clayton’s appeals.

The appeals were concerned primarily with the issue of “sole or main residence”. However, the determination of sole or main residence had ramifications for the awarding of discounts to the taxpayers. A dwelling which is only one person’s sole or main residence will attract a 25% single resident discount; a dwelling which is no person’s sole or main residence may attract a 50% no resident discount.

CIS

(*) My other light bulb moment supplied by CIS, was the discovery that the Council Tax and Planning Department of the council disagree over the definition of a House in Multiple Occupation - HMO (mind you England & Scotland disagree over that one too - son did not go to a Scottish university).

Its not that they cant agree , its that legislation doesn't allow them to.

John_Pierpoint

My perspective differs from yours.
They cannot agree because legislation (the rules) prevents them.
As a citizen and a tax payer I know that nearly half of the country's GDP is being spent by the "public sector" and has to be raised by taxation (or deficit printed). This proportion is getting on for twice what it was in "the swinging 60's".
The people who spend the money are public servants.
Now let us ask 4 of these people the same question and see what answer we get:
Yes: The Scotsman.
No: The Englishman.
Yes: The council tax collector.
No: The planning enforcement officer.
???: The bureaucrat in Brussels.

"When I use words, them to mean precisely what I want them to mean, nothing more and nothing less" Alice in wonderland & humpty dumpty.

I rather feel that it is the responsibility of these public servants to eliminate or at least rationalise and reduce this level of expensive complexity, that plagues the lives of ordinary citizens.

I don't see how the ordinary citizens can do it for them.

CIS

I rather feel that it is the responsibility of these public servants to eliminate or at least rationalise and reduce this level of expensive complexity, that plagues the lives of ordinary citizens.

We'd like to but we're as bound by legislation as everyone else - there are numerous areas which could be clarified or simplified but apart from putting across opinions during consultations we cannot change the decision of parliament/the relevant minister.