Landlord wants to take over council tax payments

fed_up_and_stressed

BobQ wrote: »

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

There are various comments regards her arrangements on here ..why pick out out mine ?

Also I have responded in one post ..not "posts" as others have to reply to her comment which was about her insurance when the OP's question wasn't about insurance it was about council tax so its hardly me hijacking a thread is it :rotfl:

booksurr

elverson wrote: »

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

rubbish,

council tax is not a charge for services used or services available, it is simply tax on the occupation (or in respect of HMOs the ownership) of property. Liability is clearly set out in law under the hierarchy of liability and has nothing to do with "use"

how it is spent is a completely different concept since that is based on political manifestos and election outcomes

getmore4less

prosaver wrote: »

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

Why for a laugh ,

next time the LL calls about it ask again "why" and say "I will check with the council and get back to you".

then check with the council what they think asking about if you can off load your liabity if you have it it writing from the LL and get the answer in writing from the council.

seven-day-weekend

Even when I rented my house out to my son and he had some lodgers, and we also occupied it for a couple of months each year, the council tax was in my son's and his housemates' names. This was the Council's decision afte they had been informed of the arrangements.

The above scenario seems very odd; the only thing I can think of is that he wants it for id purposes at that address.

Rain_Shadow

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 over!

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.

How is it insurance fraud to do something with the insurer's permission, as stated by MrsP in the post you, yourself quote?

getmore4less

Rain_Shadow wrote: »

How is it insurance fraud to do something with the insurer's permission, as stated by MrsP in the post you, yourself quote?

Insurance occupancy rules don't usualy stipulate it has to be the person with the insurable interest/owner, just someone.

Can't anyone can let a place on terms agreed with an occupier and it not be a holiday let? MrsP might come unstuck if the tenant decides to stay claiming AST but thats a different issue.

Guest101

getmore4less wrote: »

Insurance occupancy rules don't usualy stipulate it has to be the person with the insurable interest/owner, just someone.

Can't anyone can let a place on terms agreed with an occupier and it not be a holiday let? MrsP might come unstuck if the tenant decides to stay claiming AST but thats a different issue.

An AST can be any length.
1 day if she wishes.


But she cant use s.21 for the first 6 months.

Mrs_pbradley936

Guest101 wrote: »

Oh totally.


I just mean that it's possible that as she is absent at a certain time each year, it's possible to have someone who rents a property for a week or two over the winter period.


For example my friends siblings visit regularly around Christmas, so in theory they could have a standing agreement to rent the same property at a preferred rate every year.


It far more likely this tenant is a full time tenant and MrsP is dodgy as owt. - having been called out on it, disappears into the internet ether.

Well I am back now and unlike some my life is not dominated by this forum!

I have an accountant that prepares my details for the tax people. I mentioned in my very first post that the Council and the insurance company are aware of my arrangements.

I actually checked this arrangement via landlord zone and it was there that I discovered that an AST was not what was required.
However, the present arrangement suits both me and my renter who may or may not be a tenant. I am really not concerned if it does not suit anyone on here!

Mrs_pbradley936

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.

What? I have someone in the house precisely to stop it being classified as unoccupied!

Mrs_pbradley936

My arrangement is similar to those home owners that live in Wimbledon and have tennis players live in and the home owners go away for the tennis tournament.