Moved out, still named on tenancy, council tax?

investme

00ec25 wrote: »

yes that is poorly worded as it is unsurprisingly somewhat more complex than that

there is a fixed "hierarchy of liability" laid out in law which lists who is liable in what order, with no 1 being the first person liable and no 6 being the last person liable. The person with the lowest number (ie nearest to 1) is the person who legally has to pay the tax. As has already been mentioned, the relationship between LL and tenant over "who pays" is a totally separate issue around cash movements to ensure the LL is not out of pocket if they are liable in law

the hierarchy
1. A resident freeholder (so for owner-occupied property the owner is liable, and not, for example, any lodger that the resident owner may have)
2. A resident leaseholder (this includes assured tenants under the housing act 1988)
3. A resident statutory or secure tenant
4. A resident licensee
5. A resident (eg a squatter)
6. The owner (eg LL of a property during a void period)

Note however that there are specific rules about tenants v owner in relation to residents physically moving out before the end of their tenancy or having given notice under a periodic tenancy

there are also other, very specific rules, where the hierarchy does not apply, the obvious one being in respect of HMO where the landlord is liable, not the tenant

This is what i was referring to - obviously worded better than i could have put it!

In summary, what I have gathered from this thread is that...

1. If a tenant moves out before the rental agreement ends and is still liable for rent, provided they are not a resident in the property any longer and the other tenants are still living there, the tenants remaining are liable for council tax. Not the tenant leaving.

2. If however all tenants were to leave the rental property before the rental agreement had finished, they would ALL still be liable.

Am i correct? appreciate that there are more scenarios and they may play out differently elsewhere, but in the context of this specific situation?

CIS

For this specific outlined case then yes and yes*.


*(within the circumstances of the link I gave earlier to Leeds CC v Broadley)

G_M

For context.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74206090#Comment_74206090

This is the trouble with multiple threads with overlapping issues.

investme

All - thanks, you've all been really helpful.