Tenant in an annexe, council issues

Shreiber

Forgot to mention that he moves out for these 2 months.

G_M

lincroft1710 wrote: »

A contract between LL and tenant in a single household dwelling, which states the rent includes CT has absolutely no legal standing and the council will legitimately pursue the tenant for the CT.

Yes it does and yes they can.

The contract does have legal standing inasmuch as the council tax clause forms part of a valid contract between landlord and tenant.

Yes, the council might pursue the tenant for the CT, and the tenant might have to pay it (but see below), but if that happened the tenant could fall back on the contract and require the landlord to reimburse him for that cost - via the courts if necessary.

Whether the council can, or will, pursue the tenant for CT has been gone into by others, but largely depends whether the annexe has been banded separately for CT.

If it has not, the tenant will not be liable. If the council now re-bands the annexe separately, the tenant would still probably not be liable as a) the banding would not be back-dated and b) the tenant has now vacated the annexe.

So it is only if separate banding already is in place that the council could pursue the tenant (who could then pursue the landlord).

You do realise that if you have an AST (assured shorthold tenancy), your landlord cannot insist you vacate in a couple of days.

Indeed. It was entirely up to the tenant whether to agree to move out or not. Given the LLoffered alternative, acceptable, accomodation, the tenant might well have felt this was the right decision.

Cakeguts

It sounds to me as if the landlord has built a building on his land and the council think it is a garage or a shed because that is what he got planning permission for. He has now converted whatever it is into living accommodation which is against the planning rules and the rules for rented properties and the neighbour has reported him to the council.


Councils are getting very good at finding so called annexes and will issue enforcement notices. This is not your problem it is a problem for the landlord as he should not have been letting the building to you as somewhere to live.



When looking for a new property avoid anything that isn't a flat or house. Often these so called annexes/garages/sheds do not meet building regulations for places to live. They appear to be cheap accommodation but aren't really.

lincroft1710

That is actually a stupid move on his part as you could refuse to move out on his return and it would take a court order to get you out.

Even if you remained in the annex until the end of your contract, it could take months to have you legally evicted.

Shreiber

What is an enforcement notice? I am curious.

lincroft1710

G_M wrote: »

Yes it does and yes they can.

The contract does have legal standing inasmuch as the council tax clause forms part of a valid contract between landlord and tenant.

Yes, the council might pursue the tenant for the CT, and the tenant might have to pay it (but see below), but if that happened the tenant could fall back on the contract and require the landlord to reimburse him for that cost - via the courts if necessary.

Whether the council can, or will, pursue the tenant for CT has been gone into by others, but largely depends whether the annexe has been banded separately for CT.

If it has not, the tenant will not be liable. If the council now re-bands the annexe separately, the tenant would still probably not be liable as a) the banding would not be back-dated and b) the tenant has now vacated the annexe.

So it is only if separate banding already is in place that the council could pursue the tenant (who could then pursue the landlord).


Indeed. It was entirely up to the tenant whether to agree to move out or not. Given the LLoffered alternative, acceptable, accomodation, the tenant might well have felt this was the right decision.

As I said in the previous paragraph of the post you quoted,

If the annex is banded for CT, the effective date is unlikely to be backdated. However had there been an existing CT band, in law the tenant is responsible and in such circumstances, the OP could have been served a backdated CT bill.


My point was that a contract between LL and tenant cannot override legislation, in this case CT legislation as except in a CT HMO, a tenant is responsible for the CT.

CIS

Tarambor wrote: »

You didn't make a mistake. The council won't do anything to you especially if you've still got the contract saying council tax was included, if anything happens it will be to the landlord and that's none of your concern.

Wording of the tenancy like that makes no difference to whether or not a person is liable - any clause which tries to shift council tax liability is of no concern to the council, they will bill whoever falls legally liable for the council tax charge regardless.

CIS

1. Did we make a mistake not contacting the council to let them know we live here? 2. Should we have paid council tax? Despite of the fact that council tax is included in the rent?
3. What can the council do to our LL and to us?

1) Yes
2) Most likely it should be banded for council tax. You might get lucky but it depends on what date the VOA band it with effect from.

3) Pursue whoever is liable for the council tax charge but other than that they may take action against the landlord if there is no planning permission etc.

Cakeguts

Shreiber wrote: »

What is an enforcement notice? I am curious.

It is a notice from the council to tell the landlord that he must stop doing something that he is currently doing. In your case it will probably be a notice to tell him to stop letting the annexe and to return it to the use that he got planning permission for.

Shreiber

All my friends and my other half are telling me that we should not just leave the house (the annexe, I mean), but I could ask for some compensation.

Is that right? What is your opinion?

(We also have a toddler, I am pretty sure it is not going to be easy for her... if it matters.)