Profile incomplete
13:41 PM, 7th December 2016, About 7 years ago 44
Text Size
MR WHIP OFF by Disgruntled Landlord
Councils flaunting and breaking Statutory Laws collecting council tax
I have copied my letter I am sending to Norwich City council regarding the way they view the landlord’s liability. The letter is un-edited so it shows more than you need, the bit you can skip to is the last part on the 2nd page, you should get the gist. You might see there’s a touch of light humour in the earlier parts.
Whatever the legal boffins amounts us might say, don’t be put off by using some of the words as a challenge you never know, it might help you achieve a small victory with similar claims, from my past experience with Norwich I won’t hold my breath. I expect to pay the bill even though I believe it is wrong. Currently it’s not worth going to an unnecessary cost to challenge this. I have been to court many times for other issues, one thing I have learnt is to not take anything for granted, in my opinion it is far less of a risk challenging a small amount, as it helps to keep things in prospective and out of court or there is likely to be far less costs to pay if you do go to court and lose.
I take them up on two issues.
Firstly:- non occupation and liability.
Secondly:-Discounting one person then passing the charge to another.
The problems are many, the crouch of the matter is, the rules of hierarchy that governs who is liable for the council tax, it basically goes to the tenant in occupation, if they are not in occupation the liability falls to the owner. I make the stand that the tenant whether they occupy or not are legal owners and have legal control for the property until such point the tenancy has officially ended by both parties.
Norwich city council told me they class a tenant in a fixed period liable if they did not occupy the property but not tenants in a periodic tenancy liable instead making the landlord liable. they say their solicitors say the statutory laws I quote are just guides! Ha.
I would like to hear how Tessa and other legal boffins view the points I make, and the whether they are of the same opinion in regards to councils solicitor about them not needing to comply to statutory law’s.
Norwich City Council
City hall
Norwich
NR2 1NH
Complaints and Head of Council Tax
Ref: Mr WHIP OFF
5.12.16
Council Tax Bill raised and closed Date of issue 24.11.16 Property ref: 37610000400006
Your actions are out of order, despite the bill you have raised.
As well as other legal rights, a tenant by law holds legal rights of ownership to the property of their contract, rights which are above the landlords, Laws prevent any landlord from attempting to take back ownership or control of a property while a tenancy is in force.
Until any tenancy has been formally mutually surrendered, or ended by the terms of the agreement be they fixed or periodic, or by legal eviction of the tenant or any other persons in the property, control and ownership does not revert back to the landlord.
The control of the property still remains with the tenants, even if they have moved out it does not change the position of the law. Returning the keys to a landlord still does not end a tenant’s legal rights or obligations of contract until the landlord agrees or conditions are met. Until such a point that the tenancy has clearly mutually ended tenants are legally responsible for the council tax.
On this occasion the leaving tenants last day of contract ended on the 4th September, the new tenants contract overlapped the same day commencing on the 4th September. The property was furnished at the time.
You have raised a bill to me to cover the 3rd. the tenant leaving still had a tenancy in force up to and including the 4th. The new tenancy commenced on the 4th there was a continuation of “tenants owners” at no point did I regain my status as owner.
Even with the information you show on your bill, you state that the last day of the leaving tenant ended on and included the 3rd and the new tenant commenced, on and included the 4th . So you know there was no day in-between tenancies, yet you saw fit to bill me in full knowledge that I was not liable and in full knowledge of what parties were liable. Your adoption of the application of billing is not only wrong, your actions are illegal.
In previous correspondence with the council you have said you choose not to apply a charge to the person liable for the last day, That’s nice of you. It does not does not give you any right to make that charge to anyone else.
This is like an ice-cream man I will call him Mr WHIP OFF, he lets the last customer of the day have an ice-cream for free, hurray lovely ice-cream man. Bear with me!
The next day Mr WHIP OFF opens up for business, scribbles out a bill for the ice-cream he gave away the day before, then gives it the first person that walks close enough for him to give it to. What’s this for? Say the passer-by, it’s for the ice-cream I gave away yesterday, say Mr WHIP OFF, “F-OFF”! rightly say the passer-by, No “WHIPP OFF” say MR WHIP OFF, now pay up or I’ll take you to court.
1 of 2
This bill has been issued falsely I do not have any liability to council tax on this occasion. If you had followed the ACTs of Parliament statutory laws of procedure as set out, you would have found this out.
I have made you aware that the actions of your billing is contrary to the STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 1992 No. 613 PART II Regulation.
Because you ignore your duty to ensure the bills are made out to the correct people, and more to the point you are creating and sending bills to people knowing they are NOT liable, you are in breach of fraud and other serious laws too.
I have written to you several times now, your continued ignorance to comply is wearing very thin, while the bills I have received from you are, as in the case here, are often valued little to nothing, this is not really the issue. It is the fact that you raise any bill, or implied false liability before you have gone through the proper procedures, make you guilty of maladministration, you knowingly generate bills to people without knowing that they are liable. Worst still is that you know they are NOT liable. THIS IS MISUSE OF YOUR OFFICE.
Your actions of billing are without due process of proper enquiry your actions are reckless and time wasting, I have kept records to show my dealings with Norwich City Council and this very matter goes back decades, you cannot claim to be unaware of the duty to follow the laws that have been put in place by parliament, for you to follow to ensure bills are not falsely addressed.
If you come back insisting I am liable; I will pay it, only because of the hassle it will cause me to fight this, but take heed, this will not always be the case. Your actions will be recorded, if the LGO get involved evidence of a much wider maladministration and potentially evidence of breach of serious law such as fraud will involve all the staff who have knowingly been part of the process of actioning bill’s to people that they knew could not be liable.
This Mr WHIP OFF rubbish that you discount a person then charge another person who you clearly know is not liable, is absolutely wrong this needs to be addressed forthwith.
For your future records
• A Tenant is by law is the “Owner” whilst their tenancy is if force, whether they choose to occupy the property or not, the tenant has control of the property whilst their tenancy exists. Any tenants’ legal status as an owner with control supersedes their landlord’s liability of council tax.
• My new AST’s. are written to commence at; and end at; 11am on a Sunday at the beginning and end of each tenancy term. Each tenants are legally the owners up to and from those times. Under Council tax law I do not fall liable for council tax in such cases.
• A council is at liberty to discount a person for the last day of their council tax liability, a council acts illegally if it then makes a charge to another person for the same day, fully aware there could be No liability.
• No landlord has control of a property while an AST tenancy is in existence, be it fixed or periodic, no council has any legal right to claim otherwise.
• Just because a tenant moves out, does not end a tenants ownership or control over the property.
• Any landlord that attempts to take back ownership or control of the property without the tenant’s consent or legal judgement, faces serious criminal charges of illegal eviction and harassment, laws governing this are well established, you should already know this.
Chris
Previous Article
How to interpret one clear calendar month's notice?
15:37 PM, 9th December 2016, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Michael Barnes" at "09/12/2016 - 11:43":
I didn't seen any major issues either (other than one I mentioned in my second post)
S6 of the LGFA92, the 'hierarchy of liability' - is laid out slightly different to your example in the regulations but it doesn't alter the basic principals (as long as you remember to take regard to residency)
I would however add that in your example point 4) If the fixed term was granted for more than 6 months the tenants fall as the 'owner' for Council Tax purposes on vacation and remain liable for Council Tax until the end of their fixed period (otherwise the actual owner will fall liable for the period). If the fixed period then defaulted to a periodic at the end of the fixed term the tenants would cease being liable for that period, if it continued as a contractual period they'd remain liable as the 'owners' during that period until the actual end of tenancy.
Craig
15:44 PM, 9th December 2016, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Clint " at "09/12/2016 - 13:49":
In respect of it continuing as a contractual tenancy the original tenancy needs to make it clear as to the fact that is the intention rather than to default to a periodic.
There's no specific phrasing that needs used. (Take a look at the post by Giles Peake (who provided advice for the Broadley case) where he clarified the point after I double checked with him - http://www.propertytribes.com/showthread.php?tid=127627293&action=lastpost&type=user&lid=270872)
Michael Barnes
9:52 AM, 10th December 2016, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "CouncilTaxGuy " at "09/12/2016 - 15:37":
1. I was trying to put it in simpler terms than the Act, so that it reflected peoples experience.
2. Point 4 was about a fixed term less than 6 months.
A. I guess that during the fixed term if the tenant vacated, then the landlord would become liable to the council.
B. If the term continued as a Contractual Periodic so that more than 6 months occupancy occurred and the tenant vacated before the tenancy was ended, I do not know who would be responsible for paying the council (does it count as an interest of the total duration of the tenancy or just of the fixed term?).
Can you advise on the two points in 2 above?
Michael Barnes
9:56 AM, 10th December 2016, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Clint " at "09/12/2016 - 13:49":
You do not need the word Contractual in the clause.
See my post of 08/12/2016 at 23:39
Norfolkngood
7:33 AM, 11th December 2016, About 7 years ago
Woof Woof,
Woof Woof Woof.
Woof Woof Woof Woof I hope for ALL our sakes, that, that’s the sound of you all barking up the wrong tree.
Is it not glaringly obvious?
Before anyone “especially” thecounciltaxguy jumps on my back,
Just check the official judgement records made by MR JUSTICE EDIS
Case No: CO/933/2016 LEEDS CITY COUNCIL and STEPHEN BROADLEY
(Ms. Bretherton's acting for Leeds)
The Judge went into great depths.
Be careful not to get confused by other similar cases that he gives as case references, his ruling supersedes them.
Mr. Stephen (Hero) Broadley won his case, he had both fixed and periodic tenancies it seemed the tenants vacated them all, but were still not out of their contract. Mr Justice Edis ruled that Mr Broadley’s tenancy agreements created a single term which was a fixed period of 6 months, followed by a further period of time which was identical to a periodical monthly tenancy.
Just to make it clear Leeds Council were the Appellant's, they are also the party appealing the Valuation Tribunal, who not for the first time had found in favour of a landlord under similar circumstances.
Under is the final part of the official HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
The rule which was preserved was a rule which holds that a tenancy is invalid for uncertainty if it prevents a party from determining it except if an event occurs which may never happen.
The answer to Ms. Bretherton's submission is that this tenancy as granted by the plain words of the agreement does not offend against the rule against uncertainty as I have just expressed it. This tenancy agreement created a term which is neither simply a fixed term nor a periodic tenancy, nor one followed by the other. It is a term which has the characteristics of a fixed term followed by a periodic tenancy. Fixed terms and periodic tenancies are both capable of being created under the Law of Property Act 1925 and are not void for uncertainty at common law. Why should a term become uncertain because it is comprised of two successive periods of time each of which is sufficiently certain for the purposes of the relevant rule? There is no prospect of the term being perpetual because its termination depends on an event which may never happen. Alternative constructions would be that (1) the agreement creates a monthly tenancy with a fetter on the giving of notice in the first 6 months, or (2) the agreement creates two tenancies a fixed term followed by a periodic tenancy. If those are not bad for uncertainty I do not see why the formulation used in the agreement should be. All three formulations have the same practical effect and legal consequences so far as the termination of the tenant's holding is concerned. There is no basis for finding that one is repugnant and the other two not. They are all equally uncertain or, to put it another way, equally certain. For this reason I reject the appellant's argument that it is legally impossible to have a single tenancy comprised of both a fixed and periodic term. The only reason for wishing to define a term in this way appears to be to secure a benefit for the landlord in relation to his Council Tax liability. It is a modern contrivance. Such a term has not therefore received the attention of the courts over the centuries. The uncertainty rule, which was developed long before anyone considered granting a tenancy in these terms, should not be extended to invalidate it.
For these reasons I dismiss the appeal against the Valuation Tribunal's decisions.
So there you have. It seems very clear to me that Mr Justice Edis ruling gives us the clear definition that provided the initial tenancy can be ended, and is set for at least 6 months then it matters not whether it is fixed or periodic.
Thank you Mr Stephen Broadley
Now (provided I am not completely off the mark) I suggest we combined our efforts to select the minimum of relevant details and creative a template to send to all the councils you deal with before the next bill, and while we are at it devise a template demand for the council to tell us of all the bills they have demanded from us in the passes, and follow with our demand for the refund of our money illegally obtained and probably in many cases also disputed. Ive have been messed with by councils for years, if we were to action a mass request for our money back, it could well make those baskets think twice before charge us for the last day of the tenants liability.
If any of you know of anyone who publish guides on the internet or forums like this one, and you now think the information they print is wrong and not helpful to our common goal then let them know.
Regards to you all
Down but Not Out
Michael Barnes
17:31 PM, 11th December 2016, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Chris Baker" at "11/12/2016 - 07:33":
I'm not sure what tree you think we are barking up, but the judgement you are referring to went to appeal, and it is the judgement at appeal that CouncilTaxGuy and I have referred to.
The Appeal Court judgement argeed with everything in the previous judgement, apart from a contractual periodic tenancy after a fixed term being a "modern contrivance" (citing legal precedents going back centuries).
That (CoA) judgement applies ONLY to contractual periodic tenancies; for Statutory Periodic tenancies, the landlord is liable to pay the council if the tenant departs before the tenancy is ended.
Clint
20:22 PM, 11th December 2016, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Michael Barnes" at "09/12/2016 - 11:17":
Hi Michael
Just to let you know, I have sent an email to "MyDeposits" asking them what provision they are making for Tenancies that start with a fixed Term and continue as a contractual periodic tenancy as at present, if one protects their deposit initially for the fixed Term and thereafter does nothing after the fixed Term expires "MyDeposits" automatically unprotect the deposit after one month which leaves the Landlord in the situation where up to 3 months may be claimed by the Tenant even if they immediately protect it again as Statutory Periodic Tenancy (It is only possible to protect the deposit as a Statutory Periodic at present with "MyDeposits"). Will let you know and all those that protect their deposits with MyDeposits know what the response to my email is.
In light of the Court of Appeal ruling I believe "MyDeposits" will need to make an amendment to provide for a Tenancy with a continuing contractual periodic tenancy.
I wonder if you or anyone else can see any flaws in the wording below for termination of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy with a fixed Term and a Contractual Periodic Term.
The Tenant may terminate the Tenancy by giving the Landlord a notice as follows:
(a) a minimum of one month's notice in writing so as to take effect on the last day of the fixed term during the Fixed Term part of the Tenancy
(b) a minimum of one month's notice in writing so as to take effect on the last day of the periodic month during the Contractual Periodic part of the Tenancy
Norfolkngood
4:07 AM, 12th December 2016, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Michael Barnes" at "11/12/2016 - 17:31":
Hey Micheal, I am not getting access to the “official court records” of the facts of the appeal decision, however you seem to have access to them.
The only information I am finding is via third parties, some claiming to be solicitors, are all stating that Mr Justice Edis decision was up held in both FIXED and PERIODIC.
Check out a short snippet of RLA, whilst there are not the legal entity I seek, they were involved with backing Mr Broadley high court case, so should know what the details were.
https://www.residentiallandlord.co.uk/appeal-court-rules-on-landlord-council-tax/
21.11.6 "A recent appeal court ruling has clarified issues relating to council tax, ruling that landlords are not obliged to pay it if the tenant renting the property in question moves out before the tenancy agreement has expired.
In a decision that is set to have a wide ranging impact for the buy to let sector, an Appeal Court judgement in a case brought by Leeds City Council ruled that contractual periodic tenancies following a fixed term had the same effect as a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy."
If you have the official statement of the appeal court details, kindly post them, or the link to them here.
Regards
Chris
Down but Not Out
john lown
11:12 AM, 13th December 2016, About 7 years ago
Thank you to all who added to this thread. The City of Leeds V Broadley seem the most appropriate and I have email out local council with that info. I will advise their reply when I receive it.
Best wishes ,
John
Norfolkngood
14:20 PM, 13th December 2016, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "john lown" at "13/12/2016 - 11:12":
Hello John, Good luck if they insist on billing you keep good records as you will probably have a claim against them.
Mr Justice Edis high court ruling addressed the issue of tenant liability once and for all, upholding Mr Broadley claim that a Tenant is responsible be they under a fixed Ast or Periodic Ast.
The court of appeal up held his ruling. The full official info. Can be found here:
https://cases.legal/en/act-uk2-270223.html
You may have to copy paste it in your ulr.
If as Michael Barnes and the Counciltaxguy claims; the appeal reversed Mr Justice Edis ruling in regards to a periodic, the fact that Mr Broadley had some periodic tenancies who had vacated, then that would have mean Mr Broadley would have lost on some of his claims and Leeds would have won some.
But as far as I have seen so to date, that did not happen. I have written to Mr Broadley to ask him if he can site the legal documentation which will help clarify this issue. If he comes back I will show it here.
What is vital is that this site does not become the breeding ground for Chinesse whispers, interpretations from individuals or corporate even legal bodies, which end up muddling facts and setting us back.
I urge each one of you to hunt for the source of the information, given by the courts before we create a mess.
If the Counciltaxguy cannot back up his claim that a tenant who vacates is not responsible for council tax during a periodic following Mr Justice Edis high court ruling and court of appeal, then I ask him to correct or remove his statements and his charts as linked to from this site and better still from any sites on the internet.
If the Counciltaxguy can provide proof that his claims are correct, then his charts are not a problem, until then this kind of miss information only adds power to the councils in the confusion it creates.
Down but Not Out