Anyone got time to review a tenancy agreement?

tbs624

may_fair wrote: »

How would you know what the source of the LL's funds were (and whether it was from a deposit or not)?

As I understand it, the council may pursue the owner OR the occupier for unpaid council tax, so a provision allowing LL to make deductions from the deposit in respect of unpaid council tax (assuming the contract says T is liable) seems to me entirely fair and sensible.

It may "seem entirely fair and sensible" IYO but you may like to check out the "Hierarchy of liability" for CT. Standard info from Wandsworth Council, for example:

This hierarchy is set down below; look down the list and as soon as you reach a description that applies to a person in your home, they will be the person liable for the Council Tax.

• A resident freeholder (so for owner-occupied property the owner is liable)
• A resident leaseholder (this includes assured tenants under the housing act 1988)
• A resident statutory or secure tenant
• A resident licensee
• A resident
• The owner (this applies where the dwelling has no residents)

A resident is a person of 18 years or over and lives in the dwelling as their only or main home.

There are of course specific situations in which the LL *would* have the liability for CT, for example, where :

(a) the property is an HMO
(b)the residents/Ts are all under 18 or are all asylum seekers
(c)those occupying the property are there temporarily and have their main homes elsewhere
(d)the property is operated as a care home, hospital, hostel or women's refuge.

However, for a bog standard tenancy which does not fall into those categories, under which the T is required to register in their own name to pay CT bills ( or arrange own exemption, as with students) and/or utility bills, the LL may *not* use the T's deposit to discharge what are clearly third party debts.

Any T who finds that their LL/LA is seeking to do so should challenge them immediately.

may_fair

tbs624 wrote: »

It may "seem entirely fair and sensible" IYO but you may like to check out the "Hierarchy of liability" for CT. Standard info from Wandsworth Council, for example:

This hierarchy is set down below; look down the list and as soon as you reach a description that applies to a person in your home, they will be the person liable for the Council Tax.

• A resident freeholder (so for owner-occupied property the owner is liable)
• A resident leaseholder (this includes assured tenants under the housing act 1988)
• A resident statutory or secure tenant
• A resident licensee
• A resident
• The owner (this applies where the dwelling has no residents)

Note the use of the term 'resident'. If a T vacates a property before the end of the fixed term (or otherwise before the tenancy has legally ended), LL may well find himself liable for council tax (and there may be very little discount if the property is furnished) even while the tenancy is still in place.

CIS

Council Tax law isn't always as straight forward as the 'Hierarchy of Liability' (section 6 of the LGFA 1992) would show as it doesn't outline what happens in cases like this.

The general interpretation in respect of the courses I have undertaken is that if the tenant has a valid tenancy but is no longer resident (e.g they have moved elsewhere) then the tenant would remain liable and the property would be a second home as they still have the legal right of occupancy. I'm pretty sure their is supporting case law but I don't have it to hand however the vast majority of councils interpret it this way.

It would be handy if there was a tribunal case to establish the exact situation outlined above as it would assist in clarifying the issue.

How would you know what the source of the LL's funds were (and whether it was from a deposit or not)?

It's an extremely rare case where the landlord provides any money for a tenants account ( I could quite easily count on one hand the number of times I've seen this in the last 5 years).

As I understand it, the council may pursue the owner OR the occupier for unpaid council tax, so a provision allowing LL to make deductions from the deposit in respect of unpaid council tax (assuming the contract says T is liable) seems to me entirely fair and sensible.

That's not the case - we can only pursue the person(s) with the legal liability.

may_fair

Thanks for the further clarification CIS.

CIS wrote: »

That's not the case - we can only pursue the person(s) with the legal liability.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that it's not always the case. Three example posts (of many) from LLs being pursued for their T's council tax [from the landlordzone forum]:

....Having telephoned the council tax office this morning to update them on the status of the house, they tried te tell me that I was liable for the council tax now that the tenant has left. I find it hard to believe that simply because the tenant may not be present in the house, but still legally resides there that I am liable. If I don't legally possess the house until the court order has been issued how can I be liable?

I don't dispute that once the tenant has been served with the court order and evicted by law that I would then be liable. However, as the property is still furnished with her belongings and I have not recieved the keys back or recieved notice in writing from her that she has left the property, then how can I be liable for council tax?

The council tax operative on the phone (and his manager) said that I could and (they could) consider the property as abandoned, and I was adamant that this is not the case, as she could still return (because she has the keys) and collect the furniture / possessions and/or live there until the end of the section 21 / court order.

Hi everyone

I've just heard from Barnet Council, who have sent me three orders (Notice to Comply with Liability Order) for me to pay council tax on a rental property I own. It seems that my former tenant, who has now fled the country, never paid a penny of council tax. I had written to the council when he moved in, but they claim not to have received the letter.

I let a property to a tenant. His name is on the AST. The AST states he is not allowed to sub let and he is responsible for paying the council tax. My tenant appears to have sub let the property.

The council have inspected the property and have discovered that there are occupants other than his immediate family at the property. these occupants are not on the AST. The premises have now been designated as a HMO for Council Tax Purposes and I am considered liable as owner for the Council Tax. Is this correct? They have also accused me of not putting these people on the AST.

What is the procedure when a landlord finds himself being pursued for council tax which is in fact a tenant's liability? (and avoid it getting to the Magistrates' Court stage)?

CIS

What is the procedure when a landlord finds himself being pursued for council tax which is in fact a tenant's liability? (and avoid it getting to the Magistrates' Court stage)?

Challenge the council and produce tenancy agreements.

There are problems with the examples from landlordzone and their not really respresentative:

1)
This one does look the council have acted incorrectly but this could be down to an inexperienced/incompetent person (they do exist in local authorities :whistle: ) rather than council policy.

2)
The council had not received (for one reason or another) the T/A's and would therefore chase the landlord until sufficient proof was provided that a tenant was resident - many,many landlords only come up with T/A's once a Liability Order has been granted and therefore this has to be looked at carefully by the council.

3)
The council obviously believe there was fraud involved in declaring who was resident so they have acted for that reason.

Benji

Eton_Rifle wrote: »

Just interested to know how this works in practice?
You'd think it would be a recipe for disaster for a landlord. There must be more to it that's in the link (which I haven't read obviously!)

If only it were true:

The tenant gets the opportunity to either refuse inspections or if he does allow them, he can cunningly conceal damage with furnishings.

He gets at least 10 days grace when he can be as careless as he pleases including a big moving out party and on the removal day itself he gets to bump his furniture on every wall and scratch every floor on the way out?

Where's this lease, I'm signing it myself! :rotfl:

The checkout inspection is done at the end of the tenancy when all the furniture is gone - the tenant can not refuse the inspection because his/her tenancy is over. What the OP wants is some reassurance that not only will she get to know what (if any) charges are due in good time, but also in writing (presumably in case the landlord changes his mind).

Eton_Rifle

But how can the landlord issue a list of charges at least 10 days before the end of the tenancy when the inspection is at the end of the tenancy?

Oh I get it, I've misread it! It's ten days after the end of the tenancy and all makes sense now - thanks!

I think I was just doing some wishful thinking there!