Cooparenting - council tax

CryptoPrincess

Hello dear MSE Community, 
I was wondering if someone would be able to help me. Basically I am in a relationship but don't live permanently with my partner. He owns his place outside London and I rent mine in London. I wont get into why etc but mostly for work related reasons i need a base in London. Of course we 'share' both places, I stay at his amd he uses mine, however we are individually responsible for our own places financially and bills wise etc. When we have a child, we have agreed they will of course need one address and that would be his address in his place outside London as the place is larger and better suited etc. I will still be keeping my rental in London. So now, do I need to pay council tax for staying at his place? Will the fact there is a baby take away his council tax discount? Will this situation create child benefit issues? I can imagine what some people might be thinking, that it is some weird arrangement and all I cam say it's not. I simply need a place in London to be close to work and not travel 30h in public transport a week. I'm sure there are a lot of people woth 2 properties in relationships. Thank you for any help 🙂

lincroft1710

1. You are not responsible for paying CT unless you are named on the CT bill. If you were living there permanently your partner would lose his 25% discount.

2. Under 18s are disregarded for CT purposes.

 

theartfullodger

lincroft1710 said:

1. You are not responsible for paying CT unless you are named on the CT bill. ..

 

No.. You are responsible if you are responsible.  (If you name to council that the Archbishop of Canterbury is living there for CT in your home that doesn't mean he's got to pay, does it..)

see
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/housing/council-tax/paying-council-tax/

"" The hierarchy of liability is:

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.

 ""

lincroft1710

theartfullodger said:

lincroft1710 said:

1. You are not responsible for paying CT unless you are named on the CT bill. ..

 

No.. You are responsible if you are responsible.  (If you name to council that the Archbishop of Canterbury is living there for CT in your home that doesn't mean he's got to pay, does it..)

see
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/housing/council-tax/paying-council-tax/

"" The hierarchy of liability is:

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.

 ""

My reply was specific to the OP's situation. She is not responsible for paying CT as there is already a resident owner-occupier. I am well aware of the hierarchy of liability. 

Your comment about the Archbishop of Canterbury does not make sense 

Bookworm105

depends on the attitude of his council if they find out your domestic arrangements.

you do not have to be an owner to become liable for CT, you simply have to be "resident" (point 4 in post above)

the situation for unmarried partners who each retain a property in their sole name but live as a couple is subject to interpretation of what is meant by "main home"
As you imply your London pad is for work purposes one assumes you are resident there for Monday - Thursday nights? If you work from home, where do you do that? London, or his pad?

However, where you spend most of your time is not the single deciding factor. Bottom line is will the council become aware of you and bother to investigate? Will someone dob you in? 
There is a lot of case law which examines many aspects of the usage of a property to establish it is the "main" home or a "secondary" home.
Ultimately, unmarried with a child in tow would be a huge factor since home is where the kid is.