Jump to content

Council tax liabilly


Grampa

Recommended Posts

You may not be aware that if a tenancy becomes statuary periodic and if the tenant vacates without correct notice the landlord  becomes liable for the council tax from the day the tenant vacates. This unfair ruling comes from a fairly recent court case at the high court CT V Horsham District Council.

Now some of you may remember that I changed my AST by adding a clause sometime back to avoid having to re-serve the PI on every renewal which was a knock on effect of the High court Superstike ruling. This clause (which I sent to some of you to use if you chose to) basically stated the AST would not end after the fixed term and would continue as a contractual  periodic tenancy. Well the knock effect of this also means the CT v Horsham District Council case doesn't apply as long as the original fixed term was more than 6 months.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

If the tenancy was less than 6 months and the tenant then abandoned/ended  the (periodic) tenancy without correct notice the council tax liability then transferred to the landlord but if it was originally 6 months or longer it didn't,and liability stayed with the (ex)tenant until that tenancy was ended correctly.. Then CT V Horsham District Council came into play and knocked that on the head. But as previously mentioned if the tenancy becomes contractually periodic and not  statuary periodic the landlord can still have that safety net.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My AST's clarify with a statement

"Should Tenancy continue beyond the term of 6 months the terms and conditions shall continue as a ‘Statutory Periodic Tenancy’"

Am I correct in thinking that all I need to do is replace the word 'Statutory' for the word 'Contractual' and that covers it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having done some research on 'contractual periodic tenancy'  there appears to be another advantage that can be gained from using it instead of the normal 'statutory periodic tenancy'.

The landlord can vary the notice period that the tenant must serve from 1 month to 2 months without it being deemed an unfair contract term.

In a tough market where the Gov' are trying to screw landlords it's comforting to know we can gain a small advantage for ourselves occasionally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes RL I had read similar.

Some time ago I noticed the Shelter website states the 4week / 1 month rule, unless the contract says a T must give more.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/private_renting/ending_a_tenancy/ending_a_periodic_agreement

A bit of a surprise and useful for court I would have thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why wouldn't it be ?

If you feel a need to question what is written by large or professional organisations then surely there is little point in you reading it or seeking the information in the first place.

I suspect they have published incorrect info in the past......as has virtually everyone but that shouldn't result in anyone questioning the validity of what's printed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Shelter, or more accurately their representatives get it wrong, and often in my experience.

As above I've manipulated my tenancies to default in a 'periodic' for each period to be any calander month. Shelter first advised a departed T that the period commenced on rent payment day (the 20th), the 2nd time it was the anniversary of the 1st day of contract (the 7th). You can imagine the same T insisted they were correct but I could never understand which was supposed to be correct.

Often Shelter tell my T's they only need serve 4 weeks notice.

Really these clowns aside from understanding the legislation need to read their own web site. Wannbee Solicitors that just make life more difficult for everyone.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not everyone.

They are a major/ significant organisation providing help and assistance to many so I expect them to get things wrong just occasionally. No doubt like me you have been wrong a few times in the past as well.

They have never given me or any of my tenants wrong advice and even if they had I wouldn't automatically assume that their later info was wrong. But I do find having a dislike for someone or something leads to mistrust.....which can often be misplaced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't realise you could be wrong RL.

And you are correct I have a severe dislike of an organisation that purports to be righteous as defender of the ill treated.

They will advise and act in a T's favour even when the just action would be to tell them of their wrongs, from experience.

Don't know if this is still on offer but I used to get so many applicants offering  the Shelter bond. As Shelter will take a T's word as gospel it would have no value.

Shelter have no credibility with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Shelter have no credibility with me.

I don't disagree with the above after seeing their behaviour at eviction hearings and touting for "work" in the court waiting rooms to give help to anyone (tenants only) who wants it,  to try to get an eviction order struck out.

This is even if you show them photos of a trashed property or huge rent arrears which has no effect on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Shelter's advice correct though Grampa? 

I have no reason to disbelieve it but I will try to do some research into it.

As a rule statute overrides contract so you couldn't put in your AST that the tenant has to give 2 months notice if the contract implies the  periodic will be SPT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they are as bad as you say I find it quite amazing that the media......particularly the Sunday press ....haven't latched onto that fact and investigated/ reported their poor performance. After all, the press have no hesitation in going after anyone else who doesn't perform as expected.

Never seen another complaint about Shelter anywhere except on this web site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They aren't doing anything wrong other than morally in my eyes and my experience is with one court only but I have seen it going on for years.

Their aim is to stop people being made homeless no matter the reason and will jump on any mistake or angle to get the eviction to be struck out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why wouldn't it be ?

If you feel a need to question what is written by large or professional organisations then surely there is little point in you reading it or seeking the information in the first place.

I suspect they have published incorrect info in the past......as has virtually everyone but that shouldn't result in anyone questioning the validity of what's printed.

 

Grampa said:

That's what I like about this site you can always learn something new and I didn't know about the extra notice option with a contractual periodic tenancy. 

Why not question it?  Yes, I read what Shelter have to say and they do not always get it right and if  a professional letting agent like Grampa who by the very nature of the work he carries out every working day of his life was not aware of the 2 month rules then yes, is the information being being passed out by Shelter correct. There is absolutely no harm in double checking on information passed to you.

Many organisations pump out information out which is not quite right or has double meaning.  Legionaire's Disease Companies, as an example, are one such group that don't quite tell the real story of why they want to charge £60 for a 10 minute check that can be carried out by any competent person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may have a different view if you had seen them in action. I have no objection to people having legal representation or help from an organisation at a legal hearing.

But its their attitude no matter the conduct of the tenant..

If as a housing organisation they would work with landlords more it would be more pro active in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they are as bad as you say I find it quite amazing that the media......particularly the Sunday press ....haven't latched onto that fact and investigated/ reported their poor performance. After all, the press have no hesitation in going after anyone else who doesn't perform as expected.

Never seen another complaint about Shelter anywhere except on this web site.

Have you not RL? 

Here is one for you:     http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10391004/Shelter-facing-investigation-over-door-step-chugging.html

No doubt there are a few more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Grampa I have only experience in the 1 court, There they were actually decietful and used sly tricks to make their clients point.

I have much experience of the biased advice they give T' and ex T's, wrong advice and with no consideration to the business of the LL, me.

When this has the the effect of causing me more aggro and can cost me money you're bloody right it's personal. As for these comment's not being on a forum it is exactly the place they should be, so others might be fore warned when the name Shelter is mothed as a swear wordby a disgruntled T.

I will continue to state my negative opiions clearly. I will also defend my statements as factual. They encourage abuse. By their actions with one tenancy they will cuase further issues for the next.

One saving grace is that the applicants that have employed their services invariably want to tell me without realising this is as good as saying I am a future problem for you.

I like Grampa beleive that if Shelter were to work with LL's much better progress could be made. The better way for this would be to educate their clients that when they are gits they know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shelter ?

* Its a charity.

* Funded by donations and run by volunteers.

* Open 365 days a year.....even Christmas day.

* 100,000 children will be homeless this Christmas.

They are only as good as the people who volunteer to help out.......If you think it's so bad why not volunteer to help out this Christmas. I would imagine they would welcome your help.......by being there or by donation. It's easy to criticise, not so easy to be part of a solution to improve things though.

Charities are having a tough time during the recession and need all the help they can get. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well RL you seem to criticise most that come here for assistance, and your lists don't look like giving sympathy to the down trodden. It would seem that those remaining will not be requiring help.

Now as you will be aware of much of my history you may remember that I have given many thousands to charity, that charity being tenants, not voluntarily admitted but it is still a hell of a contribution. To offer more assistance to an organisation that I view as corrupt 'aint gonna' happen.

Actually that seems to be a trend with some charities. They don't have concern of if those that donate can afford and much goes to provide improved situations for those that are already doing ok by the standards of the people they pupport to be there for, the organisers.

It's unfortunate for the geniune charities that telling them apart takes effort.

My problem is that it is increasingly difficult to touch anything these days that isn't corrupt.

Fed down from above there is too much emphasis on revenues and not the quality of life, but that is a whole new debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...