Council tax - single occupier discount, interview under caution

OhWow

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. 

Have I understood this correctly?

You have repairs to carry out on your Buy to Let to be able to let it again and therefore you are now liable for the bills on your Buy to Let: Council Tax, Water, gas, electric etc.

You have been living in your main residence with a friend for 12 years but are spending the odd night in your Buy to Let.

Your friend is now claiming single person discount and you are too on your Buy to Let (instead of having to pay the landlords empty property CT)?

What about the lender of your Buy to Let mortgage?

Do they know you are stating that you live in your Buy to Let?

"No you can’t live in a property with a buy to let mortgage on it, and if you do you’ll be in breach of your mortgage terms and conditions and will be committing a fraud."

https://www.bowfin.co.uk/can-you-live-in-a-property-with-a-buy-to-let-mortgage/

"A common question asked by landlords is, can I live in my buy-to-let property? The short answer is that, if there is a mortgage on the property, taken out on a buy-to-let basis, then this will prohibit borrowers from taking residence. Let’s take a closer look at the finer detail of how the rules on living in buy-to-let property actually work.

Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) rules usually prevent buy-to-let borrowers from taking residence within their rental properties. This is because the FCA draws a line between residential and landlord mortgages." 

...

"Therefore, if you live in your rental property whilst it is financed by a buy-to-let mortgage, then the mortgage agreement will be invalidated. If the lender finds out, then they could well ask that you repay the loan in full." https://homes-2let.com/can-i-live-in-my-buy-to-let-property/

What about your insurers of your Buy to Let? Do they know you are stating that you live in your Buy to Let?

WhiskersTheWonderCat

It's just more than a little suspect. You have been living in one place (with your friend) for 12 years. You are going to continue to live there (after you have finished renovating your other place). You haven't moved any of your property. Yet you conveniently claim to be living at your rental property while it is being renovated. Imagine how this looks to the council. 

Jyana

HillStreetBlues said:

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. 

Oh totally. I was coming from the point of view that it's a shame that it's got to this stage as from my limited dealing with these kind of things they much prefer to clear things up, rather than escalate them and then have to do further investigation or then prosecution.

From what I could see on my trawl of council sites the other day, other councils would have already sent out letters asking for further info in suspected single occupier discount cases and have already either got a reply back that disagrees with evidence they already have, or that letter has been ignored. This seems to be an area they are cracking down on hard more recently too, with bringing in third party companies to do some of the work for them. But the again, they reckon either £43 or £90 million (depends on whether you believe Civica or Capita figures) can be recovered each year this way, which would be very helpful for things like Adult Services! 

Altior

Supposition on my part, the OP thought of a way into obtaining the single person discount on the CT liability, while it was being prepped to go back on the market, and contacting the council beforehand saying 'he would be living there' while it was being done up was a theoretical alibi should it be questioned down the line. This arrangement has probably gone on longer than originally anticipated. Now it has gotten quite serious...

HillStreetBlues

Jyana said:

Oh totally. I was coming from the point of view that it's a shame that it's got to this stage as from my limited dealing with these kind of things they much prefer to clear things up, rather than escalate them and then have to do further investigation or then prosecution.

From what I could see on my trawl of council sites the other day, other councils would have already sent out letters asking for further info in suspected single occupier discount cases and have already either got a reply back that disagrees with evidence they already have, or that letter has been ignored. This seems to be an area they are cracking down on hard more recently too, with bringing in third party companies to do some of the work for them. But the again, they reckon either £43 or £90 million (depends on whether you believe Civica or Capita figures) can be recovered each year this way, which would be very helpful for things like Adult Services! 

It will depend on what their view is from the outset.
I agree they do want to clear it up as soon as possible if they believe it's a simple mistake.
But if they believe it could be fraud from the outset, then there will be no warning as they do not want to tip someone off before their investigation has concluded.

EDIT
I would always attend  an CI
I would never attend an IUC

michael8626

Altior said:

Supposition on my part, the OP thought of a way into obtaining the single person discount on the CT liability, while it was being prepped to go back on the market, and contacting the council beforehand saying 'he would be living there' while it was being done up was a theoretical alibi should it be questioned down the line. This arrangement has probably gone on longer than originally anticipated. Now it has gotten quite serious...

I told them it would be for a year, it’s been 10 months to date and it’s ready to let again. I have permission from my lender to stay in the property while it has been renovated. It doesn’t currently have landlord insurance. 

I have been truthful throughout about my intentions. My friend is paying full council tax on the other property.

After briefly reviewing all evidence my solicitor has told be not to attend the interview. He said to save costs to ask if there is any specific item that they would like to ask me about over the phone or email? 

Other than that, if they feel they have a case and are minded to, then prosecute. That way I can be legally represented, present everything in front of a judge instead of before a local authority who seem they have already formed a strong opinion. 

The amount involved is just under £800, it’s up to the local authority if they want to take a punt. Most court cases I’ve seen for benefit fraud involve four figure amounts and over so the ball is in their court. 

michael8626

WhiskersTheWonderCat said:

It's just more than a little suspect. You have been living in one place (with your friend) for 12 years. You are going to continue to live there (after you have finished renovating your other place). You haven't moved any of your property. Yet you conveniently claim to be living at your rental property while it is being renovated. Imagine how this looks to the council. 

With all due respect is that such a radical proposal? To temporarily split your time between two dwellings? 

The Electoral Commission have a section on their website regarding being registered at two properties, for work purposes, second homes etc. so as much as you think these scenarios are ‘suspect’ it seems apparently that it’s not? 

p00hsticks

My friend is paying full council tax on the other property.

Which I suspect, perhaps bizarrely, may not be helping your case, as it would appear to suggest that in your friends opinion you are also living there and so they are not eligible for the single person discount.

p00hsticks

michael8626 said:

WhiskersTheWonderCat said:

It's just more than a little suspect. You have been living in one place (with your friend) for 12 years. You are going to continue to live there (after you have finished renovating your other place). You haven't moved any of your property. Yet you conveniently claim to be living at your rental property while it is being renovated. Imagine how this looks to the council. 

With all due respect is that such a radical proposal? To temporarily split your time between two dwellings? 

The Electoral Commission have a section on their website regarding being registered at two properties, for work purposes, second homes etc. so as much as you think these scenarios are ‘suspect’ it seems apparently that it’s not? 

It's not at all suspect - loads of people have second homes and split their time between them, and it's perfectly ok to be on the elctoral register in both (as long as you only vote in one for each election). But, round our way at least, they'll be paying double council tax on that second home, not claiming a single person discount on it.

DE_612183

I'm getting confused - what are you not paying that the council think you should be paying?