Council tax after death - what's normal practice?

kfsimpson

Following my mother’s death in November I completed the government online portal details to notify DWP, council etc. Birmingham City Council, her local council, then sent me a £400+ demand for council tax on her house. She had been paying a single person discounted rate in ten monthly instalments, as normal.

When I queried this with BCC they replied that her house is now deemed an unoccupied property and is therefore liable for the full rate from the date of her death. This seems completely unjustifiable and unfair. Had we deliberately left the property unoccupied, I can see some justification for charging a higher rate as we would potentially be adding to the housing problem in Birmingham by leaving it empty. In these circumstances it is harsh and distressing to the family that we are suddenly hit with a large tax demand, and seems completely unreasonable in view of the fact that we are no longer using any council services.

I see that government regulations require councils to grant six months exemption after grant of probate. A quick search of other local councils (including mine) suggests that Birmingham’s attitude in demanding full tax until probate is granted is very rare, as most grant exemption from the date of death until probate is granted and then the six months thereafter.

Do other forumites have experience of this situation? What is normal? I can’t see that we have any choice but to pay, but BCC’s attitude seems to exploit the letter of the law to rake in more money and can only be judged harsh and distressing to the family of the deceased, and could potentially cause financial problems to families.

Thanks for your feedback. I think this is one for the local councillors, the MP, BBC consumer progs, and the newspaper money columns. What do others think?

Keep_pedalling

They are wrong, there should be no CT to pay while it is unoccupied and probate has not been granted. Once you have probate, CT should kick in once the house is occupied or in 6 months if it remains unoccupied.

http://www.northampton.gov.uk/info/200028/council-tax/1003/council-tax-what-to-do-in-the-event-of-a-death

I would contact your local councilor.

kfsimpson

Thanks, I too found other council websites, all of which seem to take this line. However, BCC's website states :

A property unoccupied because the owner or tenant has died

The property is exempt until probate is granted or letters of administration are obtained. Exemption then continues for up to six months afterwards if the property remains unoccupied. It doesn’t matter whether the unoccupied property is furnished or unfurnished.
This exemption does not apply if the deceased left the property to a beneficiary in their will. In this case the beneficiary becomes liable for council tax at the date of death as they are deemed to become the owner on that date.
It is important that you let us know if you sell the house or if some moves in.



I think this must be the basis on which they are trying to charge me a full rate. Seems wholly unfair - who's not going to leave his/her property to a beneficiary? Does BCC want us to leave our houses to the council?

littlehobbit

My relative died just before Christmas and when I contacted the local council last week they even said a refund was due as it had been paid for the whole year until end of March. They said the house was exempt from date of death until grant of probate (however long it took to do) and then a full 6 months from date probate is granted.
So it sounds like they have misinformed you, unless the exemption between date of death and probate is a discretionary power which most councils allow but your council doesnt. I would certainly question it before paying, sounds like they have dealt with this very insensitively too

littlehobbit

kfsimpson wrote: »

Thanks, I too found other council websites, all of which seem to take this line. However, BCC's website states :

A property unoccupied because the owner or tenant has died

The property is exempt until probate is granted or letters of administration are obtained. Exemption then continues for up to six months afterwards if the property remains unoccupied. It doesn’t matter whether the unoccupied property is furnished or unfurnished.
This exemption does not apply if the deceased left the property to a beneficiary in their will. In this case the beneficiary becomes liable for council tax at the date of death as they are deemed to become the owner on that date.
It is important that you let us know if you sell the house or if some moves in.



I think this must be the basis on which they are trying to charge me a full rate. Seems wholly unfair - who's not going to leave his/her property to a beneficiary? Does BCC want us to leave our houses to the council?

Im not sure that makes sense for them to say tbh its a bit contradictory, the beneficiary can not own the property until after grant of probate, as the grant is needed in order to change the deeds to the name of a beneficiary, or for the house to be sold on by or on behalf of them.

I have had a steep learning curve since December about these things, although I confess I'm no expert (mainly getting knowledge and good advice from her)

I dont think they really understand it themselves, if there were no beneficiaries, then probate wouldnt be needed, it would be papers of administration wouldnt it? So their wording is quite poor.

I believe the 6 months exemption post grant of probate is a government rule, so they have to adhere to that, but it seems strange that they are attempting to charge for the interim time. It appears that BCC and other city councils are under pressure to reduce their level of 'unoccupied properties' so charging for unoccupied properties in this way can almost be seen as a 'fine' in an attempt to speed things up.

getmore4less

The beneficial interest starts from DOD(not the transfer after probate) if the property is left to someone in a will.

Now that making someone liable for council tax is what is what needs to be determined.

Yorkshireman99

littlehobbit wrote: »

Im not sure that makes sense for them to say tbh its a bit contradictory, the beneficiary can not own the property until after grant of probate, as the grant is needed in order to change the deeds to the name of a beneficiary, or for the house to be sold on by or on behalf of them.

I have had a steep learning curve since December about these things, although I confess I'm no expert (mainly getting knowledge and good advice from her)

I dont think they really understand it themselves, if there were no beneficiaries, then probate wouldnt be needed, it would be papers of administration wouldnt it? So their wording is quite poor.

I believe the 6 months exemption post grant of probate is a government rule, so they have to adhere to that, but it seems strange that they are attempting to charge for the interim time. It appears that BCC and other city councils are under pressure to reduce their level of 'unoccupied properties' so charging for unoccupied properties in this way can almost be seen as a 'fine' in an attempt to speed things up.

The exemption only applies if the property is just part of the estate. Where the property is willed specifically to an individual they become the beneficial owner immediately. The council should never bill the estate until six months are up. It seems they have been far too eager to bill and need to be corrected.

ferger

My sister and I were left my father's house as joint beneficiaries of his residual estate. LB of Sutton council exempted council tax for 6 months from DoD, then charged it in full (less 10%, because I argued that it was furnished) thereafter. Bizarre that 'empty' costs more than one resident, but most councils seem to have moved in that direction. They haven't seen a will, to my recollection, so have no idea who is the beneficial owner.

Mostly, council tax rules seem to be locally discretionary. But Birmingham's stance seems very harsh - smacks of maximising revenue, whether reasonable or not.

konark

Yes I would surmise that Birmingham council's decision to charge if the house is specifically left to someone in the will is borne of financial need than any concern for the homeless. Expect more councils to do the same as the cuts bite.

Where a person on MTB inherits a house , if the house is specifically bequested they ar deemed to become owners from the date of death, but if it is part of estate they only become owner on settlement, 9-12 months on.

kfsimpson

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

The exemption only applies if the property is just part of the estate. Where the property is willed specifically to an individual they become the beneficial owner immediately. The council should never bill the estate until six months are up. It seems they have been far too eager to bill and need to be corrected.

Thanks, that was my thinking also. Will email BCC. The forms they sent asked about who was living in the property and whether it was furnished, nothing about beneficiaries as far as I recall. Seems an excuse to bill and hope that they aren't challenged. Their email reply to my initial challenge didn't ask about beneficiaries and only mentioned unoccupied.

kfsimpson

konark wrote: »

Yes I would surmise that Birmingham council's decision to charge if the house is specifically left to someone in the will is borne of financial need than any concern for the homeless. Expect more councils to do the same as the cuts bite.

Where a person on MTB inherits a house , if the house is specifically bequested they ar deemed to become owners from the date of death, but if it is part of estate they only become owner on settlement, 9-12 months on.

Thanks again, all helps to convince me to fight the bu****s!