Council Tax following death

Savvy_Sue

CIS wrote: »

Unless she was SMI and had a Class U exemption then there is no exemption based on age (unless a person is under 18). She may have been paid 100% Council Tax Reduction but that would not have been an exemption.

Just to unpack this a little for the OP, SMI is Seriously Mentally Impaired.

If living alone, she would have been entitled to a 25% discount. If she was receiving means tested benefits, then the CT might have been covered this way, as CIS says.

petgri

Thanks; I'll look it up. Cheers Jesper

petgri

Just wanted to update you!!


Succes!! the Appeal won!!

This means that instead of being liable form 9 July date of death, it will be date of probate followed by 6 months class f exemption. 9 months council tax!!

This is how they argued it:


[FONT=&quot]The Will has confirmed that the beneficiaries of the estate are xx and the executors are named as xx also.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Our initial interpretation was that as beneficiaries of the Will you were liable for the property as a qualifying individual with a freehold interest which is not simply a legal interest in the property, but a beneficial and equitable interest and therefore there was no requirement to be the legal owner for council tax purposes. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Following this appeal and a review of our procedures, we have revised this approach and the decision to hold you liable. It is now accepted that the property was in the hands of the personal representatives to deal with the estate and apply for probate. You (xx) are qualifying persons in respect of the dwelling and are acting in the capacity as executor, in accordance with the legislation quoted above, a Class F exemption does apply.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I understand that probate has now been granted on the 10th October 2018 and from this point a six months exemption applies, after which, the full empty property charge will apply if the property has not been sold or occupied during before the six months expires.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So there you go. Many thanks to all on this Forum who helped and encouraged me, which led to the appeal. As they have revised their procedures as a result, hopefully others will benefit allso.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Cheers Jesper
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

CIS

[FONT=&quot]

You (xx) are qualifying persons in respect of the dwelling and are acting in the capacity as executor, in accordance with the legislation quoted above, a Class F exemption does apply.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What is a note of caution here is that they haven't, based on this point, accepted you weren't a qualifying person, they have accepted that you were both a qualifying person and an executor - enough to allow the Class F post probate but not necessarily a solution to anyone else in a similar position regarding the Class F with that council.

They have given the post probate exemption under part 2(a)(ii) - (ii) a person is a qualifying person in respect of the dwelling acting in his capacity as executor or administrator, and no person is a qualifying person in any other capacity. A 'qualifying person" means a person who would, but for the provisions of this Order, be liable for the council tax in respect of a dwelling on a particular day as the owner, whether or not jointly with any other person'.

There is (potentially) a very large hole in the council's logic here - by granting the post probate Class F under 2a(ii) they have to have accepted you were the liable person (and the executor) however the exemption in this case requires that [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]'and no person is a qualifying person in any other capacity' . If they accept the will made you the owner by virtue of inheritance them they have to accept your two siblings are the owners as well as they are joint beneficiaries. Unless the other two siblings were also executors then the council have ignored the second part of the qualifying requirement and shouldn't have applied the Class F.
[/FONT][/FONT]

petgri

Thanks CIS


To answer the query first. Of the 3 beneficiaries (me+2 sisters), only 2 of us were executors.



Not entirely sure I follow all of what you said, but they they did quote a lot of it in their response to me. They started off their email with all this, and then the bit I had quoted above


[FONT=&quot]Premises left unoccupied following the death of the Council Taxpayer [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) an unoccupied dwelling—[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (a) which has been unoccupied since the date of death of a person ("the deceased"); and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (b) in relation to which one of the conditions set out in paragraph (2) below is satisfied;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) the conditions referred to in paragraph (1) above are, subject to paragraph (3) below, that—[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (a) the deceased had, at the date of his death, a freehold interest in the dwelling, or a leasehold interest in the dwelling which was granted for a term of six months or more, and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (i) no person a qualifying person in respect of the dwelling; or[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (ii) a person is a qualifying person in respect of the dwelling acting in his capacity as executor or administrator, and no person is a qualifying person in any other capacity;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]or[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (b) the deceased was a tenant of the dwelling at the date of his death, and an executor or administrator acting in his capacity as such is liable for rent or, as the case may be, a licence fee, for the day;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](3) sub-paragraph (a)(ii) and (b) of paragraph (2) above shall only apply, in a case where a grant of probate or letters of administration has been made, if less than six months have elapsed since the date of the grant;"[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Cheers, Jesper
[/FONT]

CIS

What they have quoted is the full piece of the Class F legislation that I quoted part of earlier.

They've shot in themselves in the foot with their own logic - although you win from it.

The council have (although this can be argued) made the determination that you all inherited the property - on this basis you are all found to be 'qualifying people' for the Class F. Whilst there are qualifying people for a property the Class F, post probate, cannot apply unless all the 'qualifying people' are also the executors.

This is the case for you and one of your siblings so that would be OK but for the fact that the third sibling isn't an executor but also is shown as a joint inheritor of the property in the council's determination. Because the third sibling is a 'qualifying person' but not an executor then the exemption criteria could not apply.

Flugelhorn

Curiously the same LA as Petgri was dealing with gave me exemption from date of death of householder to 6 months after probate. I was sole exec and beneficiary ... maybe I was just lucky??

petgri

Oh dear, we always wondered why my mother had dropped one of my sisters as executor when re-writing her will. Glad that hasn't in this case caused us more trouble. It does all seem fairly nebulous, to quote a topical word. I'm just glad that I had the nous to appeal, but feel sorry for those that might have just accepted it. It's interesting though that all 3 or just 2 as executors could have made a (negative) difference. I wonder in that case if they would have made us liable for a third of the bill or whether its a case of all or nothing.



Cheers Jesper

CIS

Flugelhorn wrote: »

Curiously the same LA as Petgri was dealing with gave me exemption from date of death of householder to 6 months after probate. I was sole exec and beneficiary ... maybe I was just lucky??

As the sole exec and qualifying person* then the Class F would apply in your case- using the council's logic in the OP's case only applies it to 2 out 3 of the parties so the 3rd party should stop the Class F applying.

* if we accept the council's logic that a beneficiary is the legal owner.

CIS

petgri wrote: »

Oh dear, we always wondered why my mother had dropped one of my sisters as executor when re-writing her will. Glad that hasn't in this case caused us more trouble. It does all seem fairly nebulous, to quote a topical word. I'm just glad that I had the nous to appeal, but feel sorry for those that might have just accepted it. It's interesting though that all 3 or just 2 as executors could have made a (negative) difference. I wonder in that case if they would have made us liable for a third of the bill or whether its a case of all or nothing.
Cheers Jesper

All the parties would be joint liable as owners where the Class F doesn't apply.

Glad that hasn't in this case caused us more trouble

It should have by virtue of stopping the Class F applying but as the council don't seen to appreciate the actual effect of the legislation they've granted you it. By applying the exemption they seem to have actually reversed what would have been the correct decision.

It's interesting though that all 3 or just 2 as executors could have made a (negative) difference

All 3 as executors would be fine - it's the fact that 1 isn't that makes the issue.