Council Tax - Dwellings occupied periodically: England (second homes)

Another_Name

I am aware that this topic has been raised in many other threads and I don't know if I'm missing something, but...

As far as I can see, in the actual text of the 'Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023' there is absolutely no mention of 'second home' or the concept of primary residence versus other residence etc.. The only two conditions for testing the applicability of an increased rate of Council Tax are stated as:

 "(2) The conditions are—

(a) there is no resident of the dwelling, and

(b) the dwelling is substantially furnished."

See chapter 80 on page 77 of the legislation.

Why do local authorities keep using the term 'second home', when the Act specifically uses 'Dwellings occupied periodically'? - there is a difference.

Anyway, given the above conditions, what are the opinions regarding the two following scenarios?

Scenario 1:

Married couple have a primary residence inland and a secondary residence on the coast. For the past few months their daughter (who does not have her own house) has been living at the coastal property rent free. For the foreseeable future this situation is more than likely to remain unchanged. i.e. there is a degree of permanence.

So, as condition 2a is not met (i.e. there is a resident), the 100% Council Tax premium cannot be imposed even though it is a 'second home'. Agreed?

Scenario 2:

A couple who have each owned their own homes for many years get married, but carry on living separately and have no intention to do otherwise. Now, I am aware that from a Capital Gains Tax perspective, only one of the houses can be declared as a primary residence even if they live apart, but how would this be treated from a Council Tax viewpoint? Condition 2a is still not met as both houses have a resident.

Both of the above scenarios are genuine; one applies to me the other to my brother.

p00hsticks

In case 1, is daughter paying the council tax ?

lincroft1710

Scenario 1, the daughter would be responsible for CT, so "2nd home" doesn't come into it.


Scenario 2, as far as I am aware, the marriage makes no difference from a payment point of view. Each party still lives in their own property and providing there are no other adult occupants is due the 25% Single Person Discount. If there was co-habitation, then that would change the situation

Another_Name

lincroft1710 said:

Scenario 1, the daughter would be responsible for CT, so "2nd home" doesn't come into it.

Even though she is living there free of charge with no rental payment?

p00hsticks

Another_Name said:

lincroft1710 said:

Scenario 1, the daughter would be responsible for CT, so "2nd home" doesn't come into it.

Even though she is living there free of charge with no rental payment?

If she's living there as her main residence and not registered for council tax elsewhere then s far as I'm aware whether she pays rent or not is immaterial.... 

lincroft1710

p00hsticks said:

Another_Name said:

lincroft1710 said:

Scenario 1, the daughter would be responsible for CT, so "2nd home" doesn't come into it.

Even though she is living there free of charge with no rental payment?

If she's living there as her main residence and not registered for council tax elsewhere then s far as I'm aware whether she pays rent or not is immaterial.... 

Even if she was registered for CT elsewhere. as a permitted occupier and there being no other occupier, she would be responsible for the CT. No rent passing is irrelevant as you say

BarelySentientAI

Another_Name said:

lincroft1710 said:

Scenario 1, the daughter would be responsible for CT, so "2nd home" doesn't come into it.

Even though she is living there free of charge with no rental payment?

The order of who is liable:

1. A resident owner-occupier who owns either the leasehold or freehold of all or part of the property.

2. A resident tenant.

3. A resident who lives in the property and who is a licensee - this means that they’re not a tenant, but have permission to stay there.

4. Any resident living in the property, for example, a squatter.

5. An owner of the property where no one is resident.

There is no 1 or 2, so whether her situation is 3 or 4 (and it's 3, because she has permission), the daughter still "wins" and is liable for the CT.