Contractual Periodic Tenancies - Council tax liability

[ss002d6252]

What is the distinction here? I've got a feeling I'm going to have another council tax liability tussle soon so be good to be in possession of the updated facts. Is it any different for statutory periodic tenancies?

Where the fixed term period passes in to a statutory periodic tenancy then the periodic tenancy is a new tenancy.

As the periodic tenancy is not for a period of 6 months or more the tenant is no longer the 'owner' for council tax purposes (section 6 of the LGFA92). This means that they cease being liable for council tax as soon as they vacate the property and the landlord would be liable from that date.

Craig

[ss002d6252]

By arguing that all such tenancy agreement has uncertainty of term. Never mind any authorities on such point, I wonder whether they thought through the consequence if their arguments held...

I was thinking the same - it would have had wide ranging effects.

Craig

[jjlandlord]

Yes. You are saying precisely the same as I (in different words), while purporting to contradict me.

Yes a clause in the tenancy agreement is irrelevant in terms of the direct line of chasing by the council, but is not irrelevant in terms of who is ultimately liable to pay (ie. fork out the cash ultimately - whether to the council or otherwise, directly or indirectly)

I am not 'purporting to contradict you'. I am trying to be clear.

It is unclear to simply say that someone is responsible or liable to pay: Responsible to whom?

For example, the clause in the tenancy agreement is indeed irrelevant in terms of who is ultimately liable to pay the council.
It only makes the tenant responsible to the landlord, i.e. it can only be used by the landlord to seek a refund from the tenant, and not to avoid paying the council.

[KTC]

I agree - I was surprised by how much Leeds decided to push the case. I wonder how much it cost the tax payers of Leeds ?

By arguing that all such tenancy agreement has uncertainty of term. Never mind any authorities on such point, I wonder whether they thought through the consequence if their arguments held...

[AndrewDod]

It is a total farce that there is this much confusion/debate over something that should be so simple.

It is simple. Everyone is saying the same thing.

[AndrewDod]

This case is about who has to pay council tax (i.e. pay the council), tenant or landlord. Any clause in the tenancy agreement is irrelevant.
A tenancy term will allow the landlord to seek a refund from the tenant for any council tax he has has to pay to the council.

Yes. You are saying precisely the same as I (in different words), while purporting to contradict me.

Yes a clause in the tenancy agreement is irrelevant in terms of the direct line of chasing by the council, but is not irrelevant in terms of who is ultimately liable to pay (ie. fork out the cash ultimately - whether to the council or otherwise, directly or indirectly)

[jackboy]

You should be very careful, this applies to the case whereby a single tenancy is created, not when a periodic tenancy follows a fixed term tenancy.

What is the distinction here? I've got a feeling I'm going to have another council tax liability tussle soon so be good to be in possession of the updated facts. Is it any different for statutory periodic tenancies?

[section21]

Thanks for the help everyone.

It is a total farce that there is this much confusion/debate over something that should be so simple.

[jjlandlord]

Yes of course it would. Which is why this whole case is a nonsense.

This case is about who has to pay council tax (i.e. pay the council), tenant or landlord. Any clause in the tenancy agreement is irrelevant.

A tenancy term will allow the landlord to seek a refund from the tenant for any council tax he has has to pay to the council.

[AndrewDod]

Yes, but you think such a clause would be enforceable in a small claims court?

Yes of course it would. Which is why this whole case is a nonsense.

[ss002d6252]

The situation was already quite clear. Once again someone wasted time and money on a case that they were near-certain to lose.

You should be very careful, this applies to the case whereby a single tenancy is created, not when a periodic tenancy follows a fixed term tenancy.

I agree - I was surprised by how much Leeds decided to push the case. I wonder how much it cost the tax payers of Leeds ?

Craig

[ss002d6252]

Yes, but you think such a clause would be enforceable in a small claims court?

Any extra clauses like that could be - they'd be part of a personal agreement with the landlord that is potentially enforceable by the landlord.

I've had to deal in the past in cases where tenants had paid on what should have been a Council Tax HMO (landlord had told the tenants they were liable and to pay). It was £3K ( 2 years worth of charges) that went back to the tenants by the time I'd finished correcting the Council Tax account and the landlord then got a backdated demand notice.

Craig

[section21]

The liability to pay council tax to the council is defined by law. The council can only chase the person liable by law.

A clause in the tenancy agreement will not change that. It is useful to make the tenant liable to the landlord: If the landlord becomes liable by law to pay council tax to the council he can then demand that the tenant refund him.

Yes, but you think such a clause would be enforceable in a small claims court?

[jjlandlord]

The liability to pay council tax to the council is defined by law. The council can only chase the person liable by law.

A clause in the tenancy agreement will not change that. It is useful to make the tenant liable to the landlord: If the landlord becomes liable by law to pay council tax to the council he can then demand that the tenant refund him.

[AndrewDod]

Whatever this legal judgement if the AST says CT is tenants responsibility until the tenancy is ended it is their responsibility.

The judgement has to do with who the council can chase, but either way tenant is responsible (whether chased by landlord OR council). It is all an utter nonsense.