Council tax query

paul2louise

My mother in-law has bought a bungalow in October. It had been unoccupied for over 2 years. It needed work doing to it before it was suitable for her to move in. She is due to move in next month. When we queried the council tax we were told she couldn't claim for unoccupied discount or single person discount but actually she has to pay an extra surcharge as the property has been unoccupied for such a long time. It seems a bit unfair as she has only owned it since October. Previous owners bought it in 2016 and never moved into it.

I would ring to to speak for her but they won't speak to me. Can anyone offer any advice

Pixie5740

paul2louise wrote: »

My mother in-law has bought a bungalow in October. It had been unoccupied for over 2 years. It needed work doing to it before it was suitable for her to move in. She is due to move in next month. When we queried the council tax we were told she couldn't claim for unoccupied discount or single person discount but actually she has to pay an extra surcharge as the property has been unoccupied for such a long time. It seems a bit unfair as she has only owned it since October. Previous owners bought it in 2016 and never moved into it.

I would ring to to speak for her but they won't speak to me. Can anyone offer any advice

It might seem unfair but that's how many council operate. It doesn't matter that your MIL hasn't owned the property for the entire time that it's been unoccupied that counts, it's the total length of time the property has been unoccupied that's taken into consideration. Most councils have their council tax policies online.

anselld

That is correct. The timing of any unoccupied period of discount or surcharge doesn't change on sale. She can claim single person discount as soon as she moves in.

paul2louise

Pixie5740 wrote: »

It might seem unfair but that's how many council operate. It doesn't matter that your MIL hasn't owned the property for the entire time that it's been unoccupied that counts, it's the total length of time the property has been unoccupied that's taken into consideration. Most councils have their council tax policies online.

So she would have been better to say she was living in the bungalow. She would have moved in sooner but the lease management of the retirement complex had to repair the roof that had been leaking for X number of months\years

Pixie5740

paul2louise wrote: »

So she would have been better to say she was living in the bungalow

If she is occupying the bungalow then yes, that would be the better thing to tell the council because it would be true.

paul2louise

Pixie5740 wrote: »

If she is occupying the bungalow then yes, that would be the better thing to tell the council because it would be true.

But she couldn't occupy the bungalow as the roof was leaking . So she has to pay more for the fact that bungalow was unlivable.

Pixie5740

paul2louise wrote: »

But she couldn't occupy the bungalow as the roof was leaking . So she has to pay more for the fact that bungalow was unlivable.

Then her options are to pay the council tax plus the surcharge or commit council tax evasion.

Slithery

paul2louise wrote: »

So she would have been better to say she was living in the bungalow.

Only if that was true. Otherwise it's fraud.

00ec25

paul2louise wrote: »

But she couldn't occupy the bungalow as the roof was leaking . So she has to pay more for the fact that bungalow was unlivable.

in a word: yes

as already stated, council tax relief is based on passage of time. The clock is not reset to zero on change of ownership, it carries on ticking for the entire time the property is unoccupied.

The only way to reset the clock is to move in, but even then, once occupied, the council has the right in law to ignore any occupation period of less than 6 weeks if you subsequently move out and claim the property is again unoccupied.
The law is written that way to prevent people gaming the system.

HampshireH

paul2louise wrote: »

But she couldn't occupy the bungalow as the roof was leaking . So she has to pay more for the fact that bungalow was unlivable.

She is liable regardless, however, this could be of benefit to her and she could try and claim it back from the Leasehold Management Company. But only if the property was genuinely uninhabitable due to the roof leak.

Most people wouldn't complete on a purchase before it was habitable if they needed to live in it and works were imminent. So if purchase was completed without her knowing of the issue and then it became apparent she may be able to seek some form of compensation. If she bought it knowing then she should have looked into the consequences of doing so which in this case would be extra council tax.

Is she currently in arrears due to non-payment so far? If so it's in her best interest to catch up with those payments from October.

paul2louise

HampshireH wrote: »

She is liable regardless, however, this could be of benefit to her and she could try and claim it back from the Leasehold Management Company. But only if the property was genuinely uninhabitable due to the roof leak.

Most people wouldn't complete on a purchase before it was habitable if they needed to live in it and works were imminent. So if purchase was completed without her knowing of the issue and then it became apparent she may be able to seek some form of compensation. If she bought it knowing then she should have looked into the consequences of doing so which in this case would be extra council tax.

Is she currently in arrears due to non-payment so far? If so it's in her best interest to catch up with those payments from October.

The bathroom we knew needed coverting into a wet room as the bath was not suitable for her mobility. But the leak was in the roof wasnt obvious until the plumber who fitted our bathroom found it was raining in. So we were just waiting for the bathroom, our choice to wait but then it became delayed because of the roof. Its going to be hard to prove that they held up her moving in as noone knew until work was being done. We never met the owners and they had never lived in the property so noone to ask those sorts of questions