Council Tax Class F cancelled before probate, long after "Executors' Year" [Merged]

harpee

Lincroft is right, previous VT decisions aren't binding on any other cases. That said, they don't operate in a vacuum and I would expect the council and a VT panel to be aware of the Lewisham case and consider the reasoning given when they consider the facts of a similar case.

If a property has no resident the owner is liable for the council tax. When a property is unoccupied following a death, if the owner is someone other than the deceased the class F exemption does not apply and the probate date becomes irrelevant.

 'Owner' for council tax purposes is the person with a 'material interest' - a freehold interest, or a leasehold interest granted for 6 months or more (s6 LGFA 1992).

Rightly or wrongly, the council has decided you as a residuary beneficiary of the estate are the liable owner. Under s16 of LGFA 1992 you are entitled to appeal. If you appeal to the council they could change their mind and amend the bill, or confirm their decision that you are liable for the tax. If the latter (or if they don't reply) you can appeal to the tribunal and the council will then need to satisfy the panel that you are the owner. If either party disagrees with the tribunal decision on a point of law it could then be appealed at the high court and then we would all then benefit from the judge's view and have some interesting new case law to refer to

An exempt property cannot attract a premium (it is exempt!). If a council has opted to charge a premium for empty properties in its area, the premium can follow an exempt period once tax becomes chargeable if the vacant property has been unoccupied AND substantially unfurnished for over 24 months, counting from the day it first became empty, not the day when it ceased to be exempt. A premium does not apply to furnished properties in England (not yet, anyway).

The billing authority (council) is required to determine who is liable for the tax and whether it falls into an exempt class as prescribed in the relevant law. It's not really for them to dictate to you how quickly you obtain probate, even if they don't like how long a property has been exempt. Class F exemption lasts as long as the property meets the criteria and does not have a time limit until probate is granted. 

poppystar

harpee said:

Lincroft is right, previous VT decisions aren't binding on any other cases. That said, they don't operate in a vacuum and I would expect the council and a VT panel to be aware of the Lewisham case and consider the reasoning given when they consider the facts of a similar case.

If a property has no resident the owner is liable for the council tax. When a property is unoccupied following a death, if the owner is someone other than the deceased the class F exemption does not apply and the probate date becomes irrelevant.

 'Owner' for council tax purposes is the person with a 'material interest' - a freehold interest, or a leasehold interest granted for 6 months or more (s6 LGFA 1992).

Rightly or wrongly, the council has decided you as a residuary beneficiary of the estate are the liable owner. Under s16 of LGFA 1992 you are entitled to appeal. If you appeal to the council they could change their mind and amend the bill, or confirm their decision that you are liable for the tax. If the latter (or if they don't reply) you can appeal to the tribunal and the council will then need to satisfy the panel that you are the owner. If either party disagrees with the tribunal decision on a point of law it could then be appealed at the high court and then we would all then benefit from the judge's view and have some interesting new case law to refer to

An exempt property cannot attract a premium (it is exempt!). If a council has opted to charge a premium for empty properties in its area, the premium can follow an exempt period once tax becomes chargeable if the vacant property has been unoccupied AND substantially unfurnished for over 24 months, counting from the day it first became empty, not the day when it ceased to be exempt. A premium does not apply to furnished properties in England (not yet, anyway).

The billing authority (council) is required to determine who is liable for the tax and whether it falls into an exempt class as prescribed in the relevant law. It's not really for them to dictate to you how quickly you obtain probate, even if they don't like how long a property has been exempt. Class F exemption lasts as long as the property meets the criteria and does not have a time limit until probate is granted. 

Are you absolutely sure about that as I know someone who is being charged a premium on their late parents property which is still unoccupied and definitely furnished?

harpee

Yes indeed, if the property is in England. See: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/17/section/12

"For the purposes of this section, a dwelling is a “long-term empty dwelling” on any day if for a continuous period of at least 2 years ending with that day—

(a)it has been unoccupied, and

(b)it has been substantially unfurnished.

(9)In determining whether a dwelling is a long-term empty dwelling, no account is to be taken of any one or more periods of not more than 6 weeks during which either of the conditions in subsection (8)(a) and (b) is not met (or neither of them is met)."

p00hsticks

poppystar said:

harpee said:

Lincroft is right, previous VT decisions aren't binding on any other cases. That said, they don't operate in a vacuum and I would expect the council and a VT panel to be aware of the Lewisham case and consider the reasoning given when they consider the facts of a similar case.

If a property has no resident the owner is liable for the council tax. When a property is unoccupied following a death, if the owner is someone other than the deceased the class F exemption does not apply and the probate date becomes irrelevant.

 'Owner' for council tax purposes is the person with a 'material interest' - a freehold interest, or a leasehold interest granted for 6 months or more (s6 LGFA 1992).

Rightly or wrongly, the council has decided you as a residuary beneficiary of the estate are the liable owner. Under s16 of LGFA 1992 you are entitled to appeal. If you appeal to the council they could change their mind and amend the bill, or confirm their decision that you are liable for the tax. If the latter (or if they don't reply) you can appeal to the tribunal and the council will then need to satisfy the panel that you are the owner. If either party disagrees with the tribunal decision on a point of law it could then be appealed at the high court and then we would all then benefit from the judge's view and have some interesting new case law to refer to

An exempt property cannot attract a premium (it is exempt!). If a council has opted to charge a premium for empty properties in its area, the premium can follow an exempt period once tax becomes chargeable if the vacant property has been unoccupied AND substantially unfurnished for over 24 months, counting from the day it first became empty, not the day when it ceased to be exempt. A premium does not apply to furnished properties in England (not yet, anyway).

The billing authority (council) is required to determine who is liable for the tax and whether it falls into an exempt class as prescribed in the relevant law. It's not really for them to dictate to you how quickly you obtain probate, even if they don't like how long a property has been exempt. Class F exemption lasts as long as the property meets the criteria and does not have a time limit until probate is granted. 

Are you absolutely sure about that as I know someone who is being charged a premium on their late parents property which is still unoccupied and definitely furnished?

Are you sure that they are being charged a premium over and above the normal rate of council tax due ?

poppystar

p00hsticks said:

poppystar said:

harpee said:

Lincroft is right, previous VT decisions aren't binding on any other cases. That said, they don't operate in a vacuum and I would expect the council and a VT panel to be aware of the Lewisham case and consider the reasoning given when they consider the facts of a similar case.

If a property has no resident the owner is liable for the council tax. When a property is unoccupied following a death, if the owner is someone other than the deceased the class F exemption does not apply and the probate date becomes irrelevant.

 'Owner' for council tax purposes is the person with a 'material interest' - a freehold interest, or a leasehold interest granted for 6 months or more (s6 LGFA 1992).

Rightly or wrongly, the council has decided you as a residuary beneficiary of the estate are the liable owner. Under s16 of LGFA 1992 you are entitled to appeal. If you appeal to the council they could change their mind and amend the bill, or confirm their decision that you are liable for the tax. If the latter (or if they don't reply) you can appeal to the tribunal and the council will then need to satisfy the panel that you are the owner. If either party disagrees with the tribunal decision on a point of law it could then be appealed at the high court and then we would all then benefit from the judge's view and have some interesting new case law to refer to

An exempt property cannot attract a premium (it is exempt!). If a council has opted to charge a premium for empty properties in its area, the premium can follow an exempt period once tax becomes chargeable if the vacant property has been unoccupied AND substantially unfurnished for over 24 months, counting from the day it first became empty, not the day when it ceased to be exempt. A premium does not apply to furnished properties in England (not yet, anyway).

The billing authority (council) is required to determine who is liable for the tax and whether it falls into an exempt class as prescribed in the relevant law. It's not really for them to dictate to you how quickly you obtain probate, even if they don't like how long a property has been exempt. Class F exemption lasts as long as the property meets the criteria and does not have a time limit until probate is granted. 

Are you absolutely sure about that as I know someone who is being charged a premium on their late parents property which is still unoccupied and definitely furnished?

Are you sure that they are being charged a premium over and above the normal rate of council tax due ?

Yes, as I understand it from them they are paying twice the pre death full rate because no one is living there. They haven’t felt up to emptying it or putting it up for sale yet after suffering two losses in a year. I think the premium started after two years - they certainly had the usual exemption, followed by normal rate, followed by the double charge. And yes, in England. My understanding was that different authorities take different approaches to charging premium rates. 

theoretica

I think there are two issues here - can the council tax be charged, but separately, can the council tax be retrospectively charged on a property that was confirmed as exempt at the time.  If the OP cannot find or did not keep that documentation, it might be worth demanding those records from the council.

harpee

 

Yes, as I understand it from them they are paying twice the pre death full rate because no one is living there. They haven’t felt up to emptying it or putting it up for sale yet after suffering two losses in a year. I think the premium started after two years - they certainly had the usual exemption, followed by normal rate, followed by the double charge. And yes, in England. My understanding was that different authorities take different approaches to charging premium rates. 

A premium can only be charged on a substantially unfurnished property. Local authorities in England cannot charge a premium on a property that is not a 'long term empty dwelling'. If the council has not been informed it's furnished then they have  made an assumption it's empty, or their billing software automatically billed it as empty when the exemption ended. 

The govt has a guide to CT for billpayers: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/paying-the-right-level-of-council-tax-a-plain-english-guide-to-council-tax or for more detail see https://valuationtribunal.gov.uk/app/uploads/2022/05/Council-Tax-Manual-January-2022-edition.pdf

Sarahspangles

A premium can only be charged on a substantially unfurnished property. Local authorities in England cannot charge a premium on a property that is not a 'long term empty dwelling'. If the council has not been informed it's furnished then they have  made an assumption it's empty, or their billing software automatically billed it as empty when the exemption ended. 

So is the position now:

• OP had Class F exemption confirmed (property empty awaiting probate) - at this point OP identified himself to the Council as the Executor
• Significant time passes in which the Council has patchily been kept updated by OP that the property is empty and probate has not yet been applied for
• Eventually Council decide to address the fact the property remains empty and have some recent case law which suggests OP can be treated as personally liable for the Council Tax as main beneficiary (presumably they haven’t seen the will and may assume he’s inherited the house by its terms)
• They bill at a premium level using the empty homes rates, backdating arrears (I’ve lost sight of the point they are charging this from, but it’s a lot of money)
• OP then becomes aware that because the property remains furnished it can’t be classed by the Council as an empty property.

However does this actually help OP?  If the house isn’t Class F, is it not treated as a second home?  In which case a premium may not be applied but at most there will be only a partial discount, and the OP would become liable from whatever point he is stating he decided to treat it as a second home.

Plus if the OP hasn’t been saying it’s a second home, can he do so retrospectively considering that in the meantime he’s returned forms contradicting that?

poppystar

One point that may be relevant here is that OP says in the original post that the house is unregistered. I wonder if when the council did the ‘audit of the address’ they were unable to establish the legal owner (no evidence it was the mother therefore) and so that is why they have now assumed OP as ‘sole owner’. I’m not suggesting that is the right thing for them to do but it might explain the council’s rationale. OP needs a dialogue with them over this. 

Sarahspangles

poppystar said:

One point that may be relevant here is that OP says in the original post that the house is unregistered. I wonder if when the council did the ‘audit of the address’ they were unable to establish the legal owner (no evidence it was the mother therefore) and so that is why they have now assumed OP as ‘sole owner’. I’m not suggesting that is the right thing for them to do but it might explain the council’s rationale. OP needs a dialogue with them over this. 

If the house is unregistered it implies OP’s mother lived there for a long time and was named on the rates and subsequently became CT payer.  If she lived alone she would have qualified for a single resident discount on CT.  So there would be lots of ‘paperwork’, in addition to which it sounds like OP has actually told the Council she owned it.

If OP’s father lived in the house at some point he may have been lead ratepayer/CT payer, and this then transferred to OP’s mother.  In fact thinking about it, if OP’s father died a few years before his mother, and his Will went through probate, then that’s a further source of information for the Council to go from, both on ownership and on what MIL’s Will may have said.