Council tax - single occupier discount, interview under caution

gbhxu

It does seem like OP is being a little pig-headed about the council actually wanting to help him

p00hsticks

gbhxu said:

It does seem like OP is being a little pig-headed about the council actually wanting to help him

I' don't think the council actually is trying to help them at this point - an interview under caution means that they believe that the OP is claiming a benefit they are not entitled to and are potentially looking into taking action to prosecute them.  

Muttleythefrog

michael8626 said:

WhiskersTheWonderCat said:

You say that you are renovating your ex-rental, so is it even in a habitable state? Do you have a bed there? Sounds to me like you are living at your "friend's" place, the place you have lived at for the past 12 years, and are simply frequenting the ex-rental so you can renovate it and get it ready for renting out again. I'm guessing that's why you have no property there either, because you have never lived there yourself. 

It has always been in a habitable state. The property in the past year has had a new shower/bathroom, consumer unit, electrical work, lighting, conservatory roof, fencing etc. 
It has a bed and I have been staying there 3-4 days/nights per week. 

Is there a legal definition for possessions? What is the requisite amount deemed necessary that an individual ‘must’ have? 

Another farcical question from the local authority. A person is quite capable of living with the absolute minimum of materialistic things. 

Then you should just reiterate your circumstances to them. Ultimately they're going to need to determine where you can be considered to live. What you are claiming to be the reality they may not consider similarly since it would sound unusual for someone to claim to have moved from their accommodation of the last decade or so into a property requiring substantial renovation while still arranging much of their life from that former accommodation. I would attempt to avoid being argumentative with them (like you're sounding regarding 'possessions' here) but simply take a line that you appreciate it's a bit confusing but you're trying to present your reality to them as you try to be practical about renovating alongside living.... I would take a tone of wanting to help and being prepared to correct any financials should there be a decision on where you are considered to live that invites such correction.

I think though you need to appreciate their line of enquiry is legitimate as the circumstances are confused and not necessarily logical and that is precisely where fraud can lay. You're administrating your life from multiple addresses and I imagine that is the information they'll hold.... and personally I'd be asking you questions like what address is on driving licence (if you have one) since you're required by law to keep that correct and similarly with bank accounts. If you were to invoke a solicitor which might seem like overkill then as an entity expected to 'know their client' for anti-money laundering appraisal an inquisitive interviewer may ask where they consider you to live. What about lender... where do they consider you live and does that make sense given the product you have with them. I would put off thoughts about suing them, certainly for now, not least since it appears almost certain they will see and/or you'll divulge information that demonstrates their line of enquiry holds merit - you are for one registered to vote at an address you claim not to live and I suspect there will be other evidence of similar.

If you've not been dishonest and intend not to be dishonest then there's probably little to worry about.

Jyana

p00hsticks said:

gbhxu said:

It does seem like OP is being a little pig-headed about the council actually wanting to help him

I' don't think the council actually is trying to help them at this point - an interview under caution means that they believe that the OP is claiming a benefit they are not entitled to and are potentially looking into taking action to prosecute them.  

Co-operating with, and trying to come to an agreement on the way forward (if possible at this point), is the best plan of action at present, especially as there is a further household potentially at stake here depending on the outcome of this interview - His partner has also been claiming Single Occupancy Discount if I have been following the tread correctly, so that would be the next file they would be looking into if this one was to proceed.

diystarter7

Hi OP

You said you are telling the truth and IMHO you have nothing to fear.
no matter what evidence they get via pics etc etc - you can counter with the truth.

Good luck.

TELLIT01

Interview under caution is not a process a council or public body undertakes lightly. Gathering evidence to support their belief is both time consuming and expensive.  They will have strong reasons to suspect that false claims are being/have been made.  That doesn't mean that they are correct, but they are duty bound to investigate. 

Attending such an interview with the attitude that they stupid and the whole exercise if farcical will not be helpful.  If the OP can show that the council is wrong in what it believes to be the situation they have nothing to worry about.

Jyana

When I had my interview they were quite chatty, we went of on a tangent a few times and it felt quite friendly. Though like I say, mine wasn't under caution but was still told it was an official meeting at the time, and was surprised how relaxed it felt really. I think they do want to get things right, on the whole, and if you don't BS them then you'll be fine in my experience.

HillStreetBlues

diystarter7 said:

You said you are telling the truth and IMHO you have nothing to fear.
no matter what evidence they get via pics etc etc - you can counter with the truth.

The legal system doesn't work that way.

There are a few outcomes,  the council agrees  that the claim is genuine, the council thinks the  claim is reasonable mistaken one ,  the council thinks the claim amounts to fraud but not has the evidence to pursue, the council   amounts to fraud and believes has the evidence to pursue,

As it's a IUC the council will be looking at that latter two, The second one (of the four) dealt with a Compliance Interview.

So OP  can be totally convinced the claim is genuine and is totally truthful,  if that belief is unreasonable then it can be classed as fraud.

I'm not commenting on if the OP is right or wrong, but just relying on the "truth"  and thinking everything with be fine is not a way to approach an IUC

HillStreetBlues

Jyana said:

When I had my interview they were quite chatty, we went of on a tangent a few times and it felt quite friendly. Though like I say, mine wasn't under caution but was still told it was an official meeting at the time, and was surprised how relaxed it felt really. I think they do want to get things right, on the whole, and if you don't BS them then you'll be fine in my experience.

A ICU  and a CI   are like chalk and cheese.

I believe most CI  are either random or when someone or something is reported. They believe there could be a mistake and if there is one it's not criminal

With a IUC they believe there is a mistake and they have grounds to believe that it could be criminal. 

sevenhills

michael8626 said:

I live with a friend at the other property and the council actually wanted both properties to claim single occupancy, which would have left the tax payer even worse off. 

They also argued where my ‘possessions’ are? 

They actually said you cannot live from one room in a four bed house? 

The property is 95% empty, it’s been up for sale. 

It's quite clear from what the council are telling you, that you cannot legally live at this property.
You have even stated here, that you live with a friend. You have done that for a long time.
 But you have ignored the council's advice and you are now suffering the consequences.