Landlord wants to take over council tax payments

theartfullodger

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

In itself, this still does not make the tenancy an assured tenancy, though.

No, it would be a Judge making a decision: Based on cases such as

Court of Appeal Buchmann v May 1978, Courts should be ‘astute to detect a sham’ but for tenant to establish this
or
R v Rent Officer for Camden LBC ex p Plant, 1980, Holiday let agreement did not reflect reality....

Miss_Samantha

Why always assume nefarious intents? Can't people agree to something and both be happy about it?

As said, it can be a tenancy not for holiday purposes without being an assured tenancy. In this case it would even be easier not to grant a tenancy at all but simply a lodger agreement.

theartfullodger

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

....As said, it can be a tenancy not for holiday purposes without being an assured tenancy.

Perhaps: In this case, how, please???

This is a serious genuine question: G3 wouldn't apply & even if it did it would be an AST (therefore also AT) anyway.

How could such a tenancy be valid and not an AT or AST, please?? I'd love to know!

prosaver

say (for a laugh)..
I phone the council tax office and see what they have to say ?
(in a nice friendly voice)
and see what he says

ScoobyZ

He is trying to prove that he lives there either for mortgage reasons or when he sells to avoid capital gains tax.

fed_up_and_stressed

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

I do this for a legitimate reason in that every winter I spend a few months somewhere sunny and my house insurance says they place cannot be unoccupied for more than 28 days. My solution OK with Council and insurance ( I expect also ok for electric, gas, internet and phone but nothing in writing) is to keep all standing orders in my name because I am returning to my own residential property and the move is temporary.

I cannot do an Assured Shorthold Tenancy because that entitles the renters to be there for 6 months. It has to be a date to date tenancy but so far it has worked out fine. It is usually for about 3 months or just under - just enough for the spiteful cold to be ovecr!

So you are doing it to avoid paying for empty unnoccupied home insurance - breaching the terms of your insurance is hardly a "legitimate". It is insurance fraud.

If you did need to claim on your insurance i wouldn't hold my breath if I was you waiting for the loss adjuster to agree it.

BobQ

fed_up_and_stressed wrote: »

So you are doing it to avoid paying for empty unnoccupied home insurance - breaching the terms of your insurance is hardly a "legitimate". It is insurance fraud.

If you did need to claim on your insurance i wouldn't hold my breath if I was you waiting for the loss adjuster to agree it.

It is very discourteous to hijack this thread with posts about Mrs Bradley's arrangements.!

BobQ

ScoobyZ wrote: »

He is trying to prove that he lives there either for mortgage reasons or when he sells to avoid capital gains tax.

OP, this would be my guess as well.

A related possibility if your rent increases and he does as he says and pays your Council Tax, the extra rent will appear to be income which might help him justify another loan by inflating his income.

Either way it seems iffy.

booksurr

he needs "proof" he still lives there - why he requires that is pointless speculation and will not alter the situation

in law he is not liable for the CT and if he gets it put in his name and the council find out the tenant remains the only person in occupation they will refund all monies paid to the LL and come after the tenant for the by then overdue bill. The tenant would then either have to pay the money again this time to the council not the LL or sue the LL for return of the refund he got from the council and use that cash to fund the payment to the council - assuming the LL does not willingly pass back the refund to the tenant

very messy - best avoided

elverson

Council tax is for the services provided by the council, which is why the tenant is generally liable as they use the services!