£5000 bill for 5 – 6 years of outstanding council tax bill!, Landlords fault !!!

CIS

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Even that isn't a good idea because, if I remember from one of your posts, the landlord will still have the right to demand a refund (also forgot the statute).

If a person pays the council and then claims oops it's not for me to do so then it causes issues - in those cases there can be a fight over whether to refund the landlord who paid or not. That can cause a problem if the landlord falls out with the tenant.

The other big issue is if the landlord pays late or forgets to pay, the occupier is the one who will get the bill, reminder, summons etc.

Craig

TBagpuss

CIS wrote: »

That would be for the courts to fully determine but to me it reads as if the landlord has told you that, as part of the contract, he will deal with the charge. There's nothing to say you will refund him for any charges.

The clarification from the agents of “The property has electric heating, no gas but yes, council tax & water are Included in the rent. You only need to pay for electricity and telephone.” should be sufficient as a term under the contract to find in your favour in my opinion.

Craig

I agree.

You also need to then come to an agreement wit hthe ladlord about what happnens going forwrd.

The simplest might be to agree a lower rent and for you to pay the council tax direct, so you pay the same amount over all, but have the reassurance of knowing that the tax is being paid. Hpwever, from the LL point of view, that means that they will get less rent, and if that is on top of you having sucessfully sued them for £5,000 for the arrears, they may not feel in the mood to agree.

The landlord may well want to terminate the current tenancy and (possibly) issue a new one, in which they will no doubt remove their liability to pay the council tax and put the rent up as well.

So in your position I think I would be starting to look about me for a new property (or decide whether paying half the arrears and paing tax going forward is worth it to stay put)

Miss_Samantha

CIS wrote: »

If a person pays the council and then claims oops it's not for me to do so then it causes issues - in those cases there can be a fight over whether to refund the landlord who paid or not.

I believe that the right to a refund for council tax paid when not legally liable is statutory (I believe you posted the statute once).

CIS

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

I believe that the right to a refund for council tax paid when not legally liable is statutory (I believe you posted the statute once).

There's a difference between being made liable for a charge that's not yours and paying one voluntarily on behalf of someone else (and then trying to get the money back) - the former they've no choice to refund as you're not liable, the later (as could be the case here) the council can argue the point.

Craig

Miss_Samantha

CIS wrote: »

There's a difference between being made liable for a charge that's not yours and paying one voluntarily on behalf of someone else (and then trying to get the money back) - the former they've no choice to refund as you're not liable, the later (as could be the case here) the council can argue the point.

Would you mind quoting the relevant statute again, please?

the former they've no choice to refund as you're not liable

Which would also be the case here. Liability is only decided by statute.

lincroft1710

justwondering25 wrote: »

Thank you once again for your reply .

I have a couple of questions and a bit more insight...

I was wondering Is this the correct document for Annex reference if so what does "Date of schedule" imply ? is that the part which would imply the property can only be valued from the date the council first became aware of the property ?

http://manuals.voa.gov.uk/corporate/publications/Manuals/CouncilTaxManual/council_tax_man_s2/z-ct-man-sect2-app2.3.html

Disaggregation Issue (3): Any other case

e.g. Where a post compilation list annex to an existing dwelling has been created or discovered that is not shown in the list.
NB This is not a Compiled List error, nor a correction of a previous alteration.

Wales:
Date of coming into existence of annex.
England:
DOS

Date of Schedule is the date the VOA send the letter to inform you of the CT band.

Disaggregation is where one property contains 2 or more self contained units of living accommodation (which I would suggest for practical purposes would usually remain in the same ownership).

This is a complex issue. Cases about disaggregation have gone to the High Court. My advice would be to wait and see what the VOA decide regarding the effective date. If their decision is not favourable you can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and then we could see if we could construct a good case.

Under no circumstances try to discuss effective dates with the person who comes to visit your home as you may prejudice the outcome and it probably will not be their decision. But answer any questions truthfully.

lincroft1710

GDB2222 wrote: »

The court will interpret the contract in the way that it thinks was intended by the parties. Whilst the wording in the contract is open to different interpretations, one of them makes most sense, ie the LL will pay any council tax. The clarification from the agents puts that beyond any doubt, in my opinion.

I would quit worrying about whether you are liable for council tax and put it to the LL that he needs to pay all of it. If he refuses, I think you'll have no choice but to withhold rent and use it to pay the tax. Either way, relations with the LL will be strained.

The contract was made in the belief that the existing CT band (and payment thereon) reflected both the main house and the annex. Now it is clear that the annex is not reflected in the band, is not the contract flawed?

CIS

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Would you mind quoting the relevant statute again, please?

Liability is determined under the LGFA 1992 (anything else flows out from that)

Which would also be the case here. Liability is only decided by statute.

The monies have not yet been paid by anybody as there was no council tax liability to pay against. The dispute is over what date the liability will start and whether the OP has a contractual claim against the landlord to recover any monies.

In theory the landlord could pay the council and then state they've wrongly paid but the council in that case could easily refuse to refund and fight it - where liability is wrong and the account has to be deleted (which is not relevant in this case) the council have no argument on retaining the monies as the council tax charge ceases to exist up deletion of the account. The OP again would then have the contractual argument for trying to recover the monies.

Craig

CIS

lincroft1710 wrote: »

The contract was made in the belief that the existing CT band (and payment thereon) reflected both the main house and the annex. Now it is clear that the annex is not reflected in the band, is not the contract flawed?

In my opinion the argument to that would be that the contract applies to the property the OP is resident in - that in itself hasn't changed, only the council tax status has changed. That part likely falls under a dispute over 'certainty' but you can argue that the landlord was certain that any council tax charges would be covered.

The only way to tell for certain would be to try the courts and see what the outcome was.

Craig

Miss_Samantha

CIS wrote: »

Liability is determined under the LGFA 1992 (anything else flows out from that)

I meant the statute entitling a person to get a refund if they paid council tax they were not liable for. I'm sure you, or perhaps someone else, once quoted a statute or regulations on this. I remember reading the post once that I was researching the issue but I can't remember. the details.

CIS wrote: »

In theory the landlord could pay the council and then state they've wrongly paid but the council in that case could easily refuse to refund and fight it

Well, that depends on exactly what the right to refund is.