lodger in my Annexe

Guest101

dariune wrote: »

Thankyou.

1) I will do that this afternoon. - excellent
2) I was under the impression that under a certain amount you don't pay tax? It's only £600 a month - For a lodger yes, but not for a tenant. the current lodger limit is £7500, which is why you probably think that. But you are receiving £7200 in income and that needs to be declared and tax paid
3) On it
4) No. But I will do.

make sure you document the right to rent check, it's not good enough to say 'I saw her passport', you need some documentary proof.

00ec25

dariune wrote: »

Thats an odd conclusion to come to. .

nothing "odd" about it at all, I think you misunderstood what was going on in the tribunal. To start with tax avoidance is not illegal, tax evasion is the illegal one.
The judge cannot stop you from seeking to get the separate banding removed. The changes required are the ones which (based on case law - see links below) mean it is no longer a self contained annex that must be separately banded. There is an ex VOA poster (Lincroft) on here who has dealt with annex issues many times in his real life and he has posted about this many times.

the VOA manual even explains what has to be removed to no longer make it a kitchen. The phrase used is "aggregation" and "disaggregation"

http://manuals.voa.gov.uk/corporate/publications/Manuals/CouncilTaxManual/council_tax_man_pn/o-ct-man-pn6.html


in terms of CT liability it will remain with the occupant if the annex. In legal terms it should not be put back to your name just because you ask for it

look at appendix 2 for the details of "disaggregation" in respect of council tax
http://manuals.voa.gov.uk/corporate/publications/Manuals/CouncilTaxManual/council_tax_man_pn/m-ct-man-pn5.html#TopOfPage

00ec25

dariune wrote: »

2) I was under the impression that under a certain amount you don't pay tax? It's only £600 a month

the tax free rent a room allowance is £625

but the whole point of this thread is, as mentioned in my earlier post, you cannot claim that if you have a tenant. You can only claim it if you have a lodger - and the whole point of this thread is that you do not have a lodger, you have a tenant living in self contained accommodation.

If (big if of course) HMRC ever decide to investigate you, they would disallow your claim and charge you for back tax (+ penalties & interest) because you should have been paying tax on your profit calculated under the "normal method" where there is no tax free element to it.
ie rent - allowable costs = taxable profit.

Jenniefour

dariune wrote: »

It is not an informal tenancy. We have an official lisence agreement signed and witnessed and I made the Council aware of the details when I got her in. One issue now is that it's clear your friend is a tenant, not a lodger so your lodger agreement is efffectively defunct. So you started with a lodger agreement but subsequent events have now rendered it void.

Why seek legal aid? I have been upfront and honest about what I am doing to all of the authorities as far as I know. Certainly if I have done anything illegally it was unintensional. Legal advice. I didn't say you've done anything illegal. Neither am I suggesting you haven't been upfront and honest, quite the contrary, your posts show that you have been upfront with various authorities and here. But this is a situation where ,in retrospect, some appropriate legal advice at the outset would have perhaps helped to consider the eventual/desired/realistic outcome and in a better position to know the implications of discussions with the various authorities and how to manage your part of these discussions. However, you are where you are, and the bigger issue is how to sort all this out going forwards.

The separate banding was only conclusive from 8 weeks ago when the result from the tribunal came through and if I was supposed to change my lodger to a tenant (Contractually) at that stage I wasn't made aware. Yes, I get that, and there's no particular reason why you should have known without asking someone beforehand/doing some research about the possible implications of the possible outcomes.

Hoping this will turn out fine for you, OP.

dariune

Thank you all. Seems I have a great deal to learn.

Hopefully when they investigate on Tuesday they will be leniant. I am not out to swindle anyone, avoid paying tax or do things under incorrectly but it does seem I may have got some things wrong.

I will look at all of your posts this evening and go about setting things right.

Guest101

dariune wrote: »

Thank you all. Seems I have a great deal to learn.

Hopefully when they investigate on Tuesday they will be leniant. I am not out to swindle anyone, avoid paying tax or do things under incorrectly but it does seem I may have got some things wrong.

I will look at all of your posts this evening and go about setting things right.

You realise they aren't investigating any of that though right?


These are planning officers, just tell them to do one if you want.

dariune

No they are investigating if I can have someone in there at all. Because if my tenant isn't a lodger then technically I am not allowed her in there at all. And as you have all pointed out, my tenant isn't a lodger.

While the District Council have previously said I can have a lodger in there it doesn't mean they wont change their mind

Guest101

dariune wrote: »

No they are investigating if I can have someone in there at all. Because if my tenant isn't a lodger then technically I am not allowed her in there at all. And as you have all pointed out, my tenant isn't a lodger.

While the District Council have previously said I can have a lodger in there it doesn't mean they wont change their mind

for goodness sake - here's an idea. stop talking to them.


do you really think they have nothing better to do than investigate is someone has moved a tenant or a lodger into an annex?!


This whole situation has happened because for some reason you have involved the District Council.... So how about this.


when they arrive you say: not today thanks. and then they'll go away.

dariune

No it happened because someone made a complaint to the District Council stating I was using the Annexe as a seperate dwelling the the Council have to follow up on that.

Surely if I don't cooperate that will make life harder?

Guest101

dariune wrote: »

No it happened because someone made a complaint to the District Council stating I was using the Annexe as a seperate dwelling the the Council have to follow up on that.

Surely if I don't cooperate that will make life harder?

Well to be technical you contacting them to ask about a lodger. Which is how this started.


But that's by the by now. What do you mean harder?


They'll think you're doing something wrong if you don't cooperate? Well they already think that.