Error in Council Tax Information Form

moneysavingchicken

Regarding the Council Tax information form that is submitted after new residents take possession of a property, our friends' family innocently submitted an erroneous form and the Council is refusing to correct it. The family was to be there only short term and the spouse who signed the form ignorantly indicated that it is their main residence when it clearly is not. Also, although the husband and wife are both named on the lease and the Council Tax Bill, but only one spouse signed the form and the other in fact did not see or know about it. Clearly one spouse's (mistake and) signature should not be held to bind the other spouse without their knowlege. The Council never queried why only one spouse signed or whether the declared information was known to the other spouse even though two names were printed on the information form.
If the Council persists on refusing, then what can be done to enforce a correction? They have insisted that based on the form the property is the family's main home but they do not give any other reasons or justifications for their decision.

dmg24

So where is the family's main home?

CIS

The family was to be there only short term and the spouse who signed the form ignorantly indicated that it is their main residence when it clearly is not. Also, although the husband and wife are both named on the lease and the Council Tax Bill, but only one spouse signed the form and the other in fact did not see or know about it. Clearly one spouse's (mistake and) signature should not be held to bind the other spouse without their knowlege. The Council never queried why only one spouse signed or whether the declared information was known to the other spouse even though two names were printed on the information form.

Council tax rests on whether the property is the 'sole or main residence'. Even if this was a second home then some Council Tax is still payable but as DMG states you need to provide further info regarding why they deem this not to be their main home.

The fact that only one of the two informed the council of living in the house is neither here nor there , Council Tax legislation states that a partner of a person is jointly liable for all council tax due on the property if they are also resident in the property.

moneysavingchicken

The main home of the family is far outside the jurisdiction of the particular council.

CIS, you probably know that there is no statutory definition of sole and main residence in relation to council tax; rather, criteria and considerations arise out of judgements of various cases, and to that end the family can show strong reasons why that particular property wouldn't be the sole or main residence.

With regard to the liability, it makes sense that a partner is jointly liable for council tax but only if the council tax is correctly determined and if based on a declaration that was accurately and appropriately submitted. It is quite creepy to think that the Council needn't bother to check that people it will hold liable and who are named on the bill have seen (if not also signed) forms submitted literally in their name.

Clearly the forms and form drafters cannot predict every situation; but when mistakes or new information comes to light the Council should either make the corrections or explain in sufficiently understandable detail the logic of why they don't agree and here the Council does not even take the courtesy of doing that. That Council's approach seems to be 'just say no'. Even judges who are infinately more wise and experienced than Council decision-makers (no offense to Council employees) take the effort of explaining their judgements to demonstrate that proper consideration has been given and to explain why a decision was taken.

CIS

CIS, you probably know that there is no statutory definition of sole and main residence in relation to council tax; rather, criteria and considerations arise out of judgements of various cases, and to that end the family can show strong reasons why that particular property wouldn't be the sole or main residence.

I'm curious as to what basis they are basing their argument that this property was not their sole/main residence .

moneysavingchicken

Privacy and other specific considerations limit how much detail can be provided here, but the following are among the reasons:
They came to the area specifically and only for a short and distinct training program at their own expense and did not work or recieve wages while here; but their employment opportunities, personal cherished belongings, relatives, mail, banking and everything related to their life management was/is (before, during and after their stay in this area) continuously based at another location in question which has been their home for more than twenty years and has been so without disruption. They had no reason or opportunity to stay on in the area of the 'disputed' property even if they would have wanted to do so and due to their specific circumstances and very much over-riding obligations certainly couldn't have planned to do so.

CIS

Under the circs you state I would agree that the property wouldn't come under the sole or main residence rules but it would be classed as a second home which depending on the council can be between 50% and 10% discount.

Have the couple in question provided a bill from their home council showing that they retained it as their main home and paid the relevant charge ?.

If the council refuse to change the charge to that of a second home then there is the option of going back to their 'home' council with the bill and using the argument that you cannot have two main residences to get them to adjust the bill at that end.

moneysavingchicken

Thanks CIS. Would you agree that if the Council chooses to refuse they should be expected (if not required) to explain the basis for their decision, and that simply stating the refusal does not show that they gave any reasonable consideration of the matter?

Regarding alternate council tax bills, the couple's main home is technically not in the United Kingdom where in fact there is no Council Tax; and they are from a culture where extended families often live in the same home (yes, they tend to be large) so the title to the home itself is in the grandparents name. But they have been resident and registerred there for a very long time and have abundant historical documentation to prove so (although precedent judgments have indicated that duration of physical presence at the main home property is not necessarily a key or requisite criterion in determining the main home).

CIS

In any case I would expect that the Council would justify its decision as to why it has regraded it as a main home when requested to do so - it would be best to contact them and ask to speak to either a senior or principal officer as these would usually make the decision as they are the ones who have the IRRV training .

moneysavingchicken

Thanks CIS
If they don't want to discuss it further or will not provide any explanation beyond the outcome of their decision, would you think that the only recourse is to request a hearing at the valuation tribunal or is there any other way to solve it?

CIS

If they wont or can't justify the decision on a direct basis then the local councillor is probably the first step but I'm not familiar with the full appeals process after that stage as I don't directly deal with it - the information should be on here - http://www.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/index.html or be provided by the council upon request.