Council Tax While Travelling

wizzfizz

Hi! Sorry if this has been asked/answered before. I did have a good look through posts and couldn't find anything.

I'm about to head off travelling round the world. My intention is to be gone for at least 18 months, but may not actually return at all - I'm basically keeping my options completely open. I own my properly, but my partner (not on the mortgage) is going to stay behind and essentially be my lodger. The council are telling me that he is not eligible for a single occupancy discount because I have an 'intent to return' to the property, so he will have to keep paying full price council tax despite being the only adult occupier. We have no children, and he will literally be the only person in the property other than a dog!

I am absolutely staggered that they are refusing the reduction. Does anyone have any experience in this? I can't find a definition of 'intent to return' anywhere so don't know how to challenge it, or if I even can. Feels like daylight robbery!

Thanks in advance!

CIS

Assuming it's England or Wales;

The council are correct as the situation currently stands as the property remains your 'sole or main residence' for council tax purposes - there is well established case law on the matter (the council have no option but to follow the court's decisions and legislation).

For council tax purposes your partner is jointly liable with yourself (unless they are a full time student or severely mentally impaired for council tax purposes) and would remain so whilst you are away.

wizzfizz

Wow - that is really really crappy. I understand that these things are in place to prevent people taking advantage, but that really does seem extraordinarily unfair! Thanks for you quick response.

agrinnall

I really don't think your partner can be viewed as your lodger. For one thing, you need to be living there in order to have a lodger (as in actually in residence rather than the CT definition), and for another he's your partner so could be seen to have a right to occupy the property anyway.

00ec25

wizzfizz wrote: »

and essentially be my lodger.

why do you use that word?

yes you won't be sleeping together any more, but he isn't a lodger if you think you can pay tax on any rent he pays you under the lodger rent a room rules.

Cook_County

Why not sell the property to him, or at least granting him a long lease that specifically forbids you from entering the property or having any other occupants at all?

CIS

Cook_County wrote: »

Why not sell the property to him, or at least granting him a long lease that specifically forbids you from entering the property or having any other occupants at all?

That clause nor selling the property would alter the factual position that it still remains his 'sole or main residence' for council tax purposes - other 'clever' attempts have been tried before to get around liability and they've been rejected as far up as the High Court in at least one case.