council tax responsibility

custardy

does your address show on the Royal Mail site,or just your LLs?

neeny444

custardy wrote: »

does your address show on the Royal Mail site,or just your LLs?

just the LL's address...

am I worrying over nothing here?... is it an above board situation? as I said I just don't want to be landed with extra council tax on top of what we are already paying as this is our limit already...

thank you very much for all your replies

N

theartfullodger

G_M wrote: »

This may/may not be true. My understanding (though I'm making assumptions) is that the OP has a self-contained flat. My annexe is similar, and I have a friend who lives in his brother's basement flat.

Whether this is an AST/tenant set up, or a shared property/lodger set up depends on various factors as yet unknown to us.

Does the OP have their own front door/access? - tenant.
Does the OP share any accomodation/space with the LL? - lodger.
Are utilities shared? - lodger.
Does LL have right of access to OP's space or is it 'exclusive use'? - tenant.

etc. As can be seen it is a difficult area of law. How it is described in the contract is irrelevant, it is the actual set-up that determines if it's an AST or not.

If the OP can clarify the set up we may be able to advise, but if it is ambiguous then only a court could decide.

Think it's simpler than that - see Shelter's "Tenancy Checker"
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/downloads_and_tools/tenancy_checker

- Where if you are in same building as LL but not sharing facilities you are a "Occupier with basic protection" (normal description "lodger")...

Result

You are an occupier with basic protection
You are likely to be an occupier with basic protection. This means that you have few rights, which may make it difficult for you to enforce any other tenancy rights, such as getting repairs done. However, your landlord has to follow the correct procedure if they want to evict you.

That many Landlords & agents don't understand this (which if they did underztand would be to their advantage ..) is hardly surprising given the lack of education/training taken by LLs & agents...

Cheers!


Artful

neeny444

theartfullodger wrote: »

- Where if you are in same building as LL but not sharing facilities you are a "Occupier with basic protection" (normal description "lodger")...

thanks for this...

surely the AST agreement would override this and provide our rights?

N

jennifernil

I remember reading about somewhere where a company had bought up a load of townhouses and (secretly) converted them into flats/bedsits.

Could this be something similar?

theartfullodger

neeny444 wrote: »

thanks for this...

surely the AST agreement would override this and provide our rights?

N

Nope: But chances are Landlord wouln't realise and nor may the local judge (or your solicitor..).

Murky area..

These things are only ever certain as & when you get to court - bit late??

G_M

neeny444 wrote: »

thanks for this...

surely the AST agreement would override this and provide our rights?

N

How it is described in the contract is irrelevant, it is the actual set-up that determines if it's an AST or not.

I believe the Shelter tenancy checker is too simplistic. The fact there is a separate front door is pretty critical.
As for the 'exclusive use' well, is the internal communicating door locked? Do you expect the LL to be coming in? Would you be surprised/shocked if he did (without invitation)? ie is this flat considered by you, and the landlord, to be 'your' space?

I suspect you would have a strong case to argue this is an AST, and you have the rights/protections of a tenant.

However it is a muddy area, and the only way to be sure would be if/when you have a dispute and go to court. Then a judge would look at all this and decide.

Personally I would not worry too much, esp if relations wih the LL are friendly. Get yourself a refund for your TV licence; contact the elctoral Registration Office and add yourself to the register at the (shared) address; pay the rent (if you're happy with it) and bill requested (which seems reasonable);

You could ask to see council tax receipts if you're worried.

Of course, whether the LL has permission from his mortgage lender if any, is paying income tax, and has sorted his insurance - these are separate Qs you might want to check.....

may_fair

G_M wrote: »

I believe the Shelter tenancy checker is too simplistic. The fact there is a separate front door is pretty critical.
As for the 'exclusive use' well, is the internal communicating door locked? Do you expect the LL to be coming in? Would you be surprised/shocked if he did (without invitation)? ie is this flat considered by you, and the landlord, to be 'your' space?

I suspect you would have a strong case to argue this is an AST, and you have the rights/protections of a tenant.

See Schedule 1 Housing Act 1988 - Tenancies which cannot be assured tenancies - paragraph 10:

10(1) A tenancy in respect of which the following conditions are fulfilled—
(a) that the dwelling-house forms part only of a building and, except in a case where the dwelling-house also forms part of a flat, the building is not a purpose-built block of flats; and
(b) that, subject to Part III of this Schedule, the tenancy was granted by an individual who, at the time when the tenancy was granted, occupied as his only or principal home another dwelling-house which,—
(i)in the case mentioned in paragraph (a) above, also forms part of the flat; or
(ii)in any other case, also forms part of the building... etc

In other words, if a building is a conversion (not purpose-built), with the landlord living in one part of the building and the tenant in another part, then the tenancy cannot be an assured tenancy.

It's perfectly possible for OP to have a tenancy, with exclusive possession, but not be an AST tenant, and not have the same rights or security of tenure; for example, a lodger may be granted a tenancy with exclusive possession of his room (by an unwary LL), but he could still be evicted without a court order. In OP's case, the LL *would* need a court order to evict, however.

neeny444

thanks for these last few pieces of info.

The house was built like this on purpose it is not a conversion. The landlord and family are obviously very well off and seem very approachable even though we will be dealing with the agency going forward. I will speak to them as soon as I can but will cancel the license in the meantime and use the main house address for all other correspondence.

It surprises me that they are happy to be associated with their tenants in this way as I would imagine for credit checks etc we will be linked to them in future.. not that we have any negative credit now but it seems a little risky on their part too..

anyway thank you very much for all the advise I feel a lot more comfortable about the situation now.

N

princeofpounds

Yes it's not quite so simple... There are several angles unfortunately, and all of them probably have a different definition of a separate dwelling

- AST
- Council tax
- TV Licensing.

The AST I'm out of my depth to comment on. However, the council tax is somewhat worrying. By the sounds of it this clearly should be a separate dwelling with a separate address for council tax purposes. The LL should have told the council about it a long time ago (maybe he never got planning permission to subdivide the house).

The problem is that if you protect yourself by breaking the pretence that it is the same dwelling the council will be on his and your case for some time.