Help Needed - Student Council Tax Reduction

lincroft1710

CIS wrote: »

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.

I echo CIS's comments.

educatingmyself

CIS wrote: »

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

I will look out the decision and post a summary! If I recall correctly they state that it has been my main residence up to March 2010, when my new tenants moved in. This includes a period for the tenants that did a bunk. This is due to my intention to return. However, I shall check and confirm.

I have read all the cases, thank you for those, all of the "either or" questions of residence are due to people staying in both properties for a proportion of the time, it seems?. I did not stay one single night in the house after I left, up to the present day, that is five whole years!

Thank you once again CIS.

EM

John_Pierpoint

When I see accountants and tax collectors some times having a pop at each other but often both making the recommendation "you need to get yourself an accountant"; I ask myself if there might be an unholy alliance between the poacher and the game keeper, as both have a vested interest in the income it produces.

I wonder how many hours were devoted to simplifying the rules last year; rather than automating the muddle and creating computerised chaos? Does every tax gathering office in the country have a system of "Quality Circles" devoted to improving the efficiency of their function?

Do turkeys vote for Xmas?

Let us leave it there - The council tax department (surprise surprise?) is one of the better communicating departments in my local authority; though I don't know the standards against which they are judged (% of revenue lost to costs of collection, percentage written off as non-collectable bad debt, and mal-administration rulings by the Local Authority Ombudsman would seem to be a good start.)

educatingmyself

educatingmyself wrote: »

I will look out the decision and post a summary! If I recall correctly they state that it has been my main residence up to March 2010, when my new tenants moved in. This includes a period for the tenants that did a bunk. This is due to my intention to return. However, I shall check and confirm.

I have read all the cases, thank you for those, all of the "either or" questions of residence are due to people staying in both properties for a proportion of the time, it seems?. I did not stay one single night in the house after I left, up to the present day, that is five whole years!

Thank you once again CIS.

EM

Hello again CIS

I have reviewed the decision and basically in the summing up it deemed that my main residence was at the appeal property because it was "always" my intention to return!

It states, in particular the Panel noted the following:-

1) The appeal property was a house in Band C and had been owned by the appellant since before April 1993;
2) The other property was a guest house with a one bed flat in Band A and the appellant had acquried a mortgage on the property in 2005; (There is no separate flat, it is effectively an eight bed house and the date of the mortgage is not correct, but probably irrelevant);
3) The appellant's daughter had remained in the appeal property at 16 yrs of age, but she was not considered a resident for council tax purposes until she had attained 18 yrs of age;
4) The appellant's son resided in the guest house with her;
5) As owner and the responsible person for the guest house the appellant was required to live there;
6) The appellant had vacated the appeal property in March 2006;
7) The appeal was made to the Val Trib on 25 February 2010;
8) The appellant had accepted liability for the appeal property in Sept 2009 at a court hearing; (This is not accurate, it was what the council put in their submission, I quite clearly stated that I do not accept liability and it was only for the period Jan 05-March 06, not the period in question);
9)The appellant had stored her belongings in the garage at the appeal property; (There is no garage at the appeal property, but I have a huge garage at the guest house);
10)There had been sewage flooding in the basement of the guest house;
11)The appellant had claimed housing benefit in 2006 in respect of the appeal property; (I did not claim, I started a claim naively thinking I could return, but did not complete the claim because it was obvious I was not going to return);
12) There had been visits to the appeal property by the council's Property Inspector and bailiffs had been refused entry; (This was by my daughter, I have never been present when anyone arrived);
13) The appellant's daughter had been disregarded as a student for council tax purposes at the appeal property;
14) The appellant had always intended to return to the appeal property; (This is untrue, for two months I thought this);
15) Her son had remained at school in the same town as the appeal property.

In conclusion, there was no strong evidence to suggest that the guest house was the main residence and the Panel was not convinced that the appellant did not continue to reside in the appeal property from March 06!

I was of the belief that one could only have one sole/main residence and due to the fact I was living in and paying in full for my sole/main residence; and I had not spent a single night in the appeal property, I did not think that there was much to argue! How stupid of me!

Any suggestions CIS?

EM

CIS

Which property was the one you were living at - the guest house or the Band C property (I am assuming it was the guest house).

If it was the guest house then what was the requirement for you to live there (did you move there to run the guesthouse ?) and did you own the guest house.

educatingmyself

CIS wrote: »

Which property was the one you were living at - the guest house or the Band C property (I am assuming it was the guest house).

If it was the guest house then what was the requirement for you to live there (did you move there to run the guesthouse ?) and did you own the guest house.

Hello CIS

I moved to the guest house to live and run it and I already owned it. My Fire Regs required a responsible person on site and I had care placements, eg, supported housing youths or those who were there for respite care and for whom I had to be on site. Also, I had two au pairs who, as the scheme requires, have to live as part of the family, experiencing all things British, familial, cultural as well as the language; I took my responsibilities seriously, making sure I bought all foods they had never tried, or even heard of and tried to expose them to all things as part of our family; and I enrolled them in local language classes. In return, they did household chores (which was great given my disabilites) cooking and child minding, my son loved their home made cakes!

EM

CIS

As far as I can see they have made the decision based on several key points:

point 8) What evidence was provided for this. Admission that you were liable (depending on what they have ) could have been taken as admission of residence.

point 9) What evidence did they use for this ?. Storage of goods at the property would support intention to return. It could be used to cast doubt on the quality of the supplied evidence.

point 11) This would certainly be taken as evidence that you would return and at least at some point considered it.

point 15) Was there a choice of schools ?, can you give enough evidence to suggest that he remained for educational reasons ?

point 10 & 12 & 13) I personnaly cant see why this was brought in to it.

The other point that I would have thought they would have considered is that as a business property you only moved there because of the job and not because of any other reason. It tends to suggest to me they have considered Ward V Kingston upon Hull and security of tenure however they have not considered the fact that you own both properties - did they mention this in the decision ?

educatingmyself

CIS wrote: »

As far as I can see they have made the decision based on several key points:

point 8) What evidence was provided for this. Admission that you were liable (depending on what they have ) could have been taken as admission of residence.

point 9) What evidence did they use for this ?. Storage of goods at the property would support intention to return. It could be used to cast doubt on the quality of the supplied evidence.

point 11) This would certainly be taken as evidence that you would return and at least at some point considered it.

point 15) Was there a choice of schools ?, can you give enough evidence to suggest that he remained for educational reasons ?

point 10 & 12 & 13) I personnaly cant see why this was brought in to it.

The other point that I would have thought they would have considered is that as a business property you only moved there because of the job and not because of any other reason. It tends to suggest to me they have considered Ward V Kingston upon Hull and security of tenure however they have not considered the fact that you own both properties - did they mention this in the decision ?

Hello CIS and thank you for your comments once again.

8) This was the council's word only. There is no evidence and at that time (2009) they had not added the rest of the years to the account, they did that more recently;
9) There was no evidence, it was the council's word, at the Tribunal when I explained I did not have a garage at the appeal property and I had stored it at my garage at my guest house, the council's response was "well I don't doubt that NOW!"
11) I did not deny that in the first couple of months I did intend to return, thinking it would be easier to find someone to manage the guest house, which I could not. Thus, after a short period of time I knew I could not return, which is why I did not pursue the claim. Equally, I requested a claim form for where I did live, but due to the advice given re my daughter not being able to have a tenancy and claim benefit (contrived), my house then became capital and I could not claim there either. That did not stop me requesting and I have the claim form in the envelope still with the date on it! Also, I have another claim form which they sent me for the appeal property dated 07/07/06, had I intended to move back I would have completed it and requested backdating due to my low income. I did not and I still have the claim form, unopened, ie, not even considered.
15) My son had a good group of friends and enjoyed school, I was not going to move schools for a 10 min car journey. He had been through enough with the break up of his mum and dad, moving to where he couldn't see his mates after school, it was the only thing left he had continuity in, I wasn't going to destroy that too.
10) This was the council trying to say that if I had a sewage flood I couldn't live in the property;
12) This was the council saying that I had been at the property speaking to these people, when it was my daughter. That was why it was important that she was there as my witness, because they even quoted her conversation and asked me what she meant by what she had said, which not being there I could not say. She had called me on one occasion when a particularly obnoxious person who would not go away and after being quite rude to her sat outside in his car. She was intimidated and asked me to come to the house, which I did, but still they quoted me wrongly in their log!
13)This I do not know, but she was disregarded by submitting the c tax exemptions certs as the only occupier until the Tribunal, which completely went against me!

As for the security of tenure issue, see point 2). It was quoted in the council's submission also. More confusion is raised because they have called me "Miss" throughout the submission, and my daughter is a Miss. Perhaps the Tribunal, whilst perusing for their summing up did not remember when questioning me that I stated I was not present and could not say what my daughter meant by her comments, which in the submission was quoted as "A young lady advised him that Miss .... was not at home".

It doesn't matter what was actually said, because I know from what I have said that only part of the conversation has been logged and the rest made up! For example, I said I was living at the guest house, the two au pairs had the main owner's bedroom and I shared a letting room with my son, which was not ideal, nor financially sound, but it is what I had to do. This was quoted in their tel log as "The guest house accommodation is occupied by an au pair who works for her. She has 11 yr old son and 16 yr old daughter living at home with her. No other adult." This became "The guest house living accommodation was occupied by an au pair who she had employed. She confirmed that the appeal property was her main residence with her son and daughter and that as they were both underage she was entitled to a single person's discount." I did not say that, nor had I returned the single person's discount form they quoted that they had granted the single person's discount because there was no evidence of a change in ongoing entitlement.

It all seems so long and complicated, and as you will probably see by the time of my post, I am so stressed I can't sleep, I have been awake for hours! It is all spinning around in my head! What hope have I of organising a Judicial Review, if I can't even get my head around a post?

EM

educatingmyself

Hello again CIS

I was reading above the Clayton v Watford Borough Council & Hertfordshire Valuation Tribunal HC [RA 1997] case and I wondered how the sole/main dwelling would apply in my case if one applies the splitting of the definition, giving me one main dwelling, but no partner to argue over the other dwelling? Clearly I cannot request a reduction from where I was living, because I was there and utilising the services for which I was paying, but what should I be deemed at the second property, whichever one it is deemed is second? At the residential property, my daughter was living alone, albeit they do not accept it. By definition of this being my sole/main residence, I could not have been resident in the residential portion of the guest house? Well the sleeping portion, because the main living/dining areas are in the basement and are not separate? Legally I cannot say I was not there, who would've been responsible for the guests or care placements? Who would take the calls in the night to provide accommodation in an emergency? The list is endless!

I am so confused! Can they split my sole and main; and if so what does that mean? Does it mean I can only have one main residence at a time and therefore only be charged for the full amount for the one in which I am living? Then how do they charge the second, my daughter was the only resident in one, but what would they say about the guest house not being occupied if that is deemed second? I cannot lie, although the council can say what they like and it is "deemed".

If I am in court for committal for non-payment of this council tax and I'm still trying to pursue a Judical Review, but goodness knows how without legal advice, how does this affect the court hearing? Imagine the worst case scenario, I am imprisoned for culpable neglect, (or made bankrupt or a charge put on my house) and then it goes to the High Court and is overturned, what would happen then? Is it to late? Or can they take a view based on the evidence I supply at court?

:-( EM

CIS

Sole or Main residence can be split - you can have one sole residence or many residences with one being your main residence.

At the gueshouse there will be part of the property banded for council tax - its the residence of this part which would have been looked at.

If they decide that you were resident at the property with your daughter then your sole or main residence cannot be at the guest house and you would be due a reduction on that as a second home (they cannot deny you were splitting your time between the two) - this discount varies between 50% and 10% based on the local authority (as of 1apr2008).

How much is owed ?