Council tax split property / personal

I've never heard that before. That doesn't mean it's false, but I'd be surprised if it were true.

It has a grain of plausibility because it also explains why there is a 50% discount on vacant properties, but it fails to explain the 100% temporary (6 month) discount for vacant properties.

It would be extraordinarily generous of the absent co-owner to volunteer to pay *any* share of the 75% bill, but the usual assumption is that in the first instance the occupier pays it all. It may be that if the occupier fails to pay, the council can come after the owners. The joint and several bit then means that the absent co-owner would be stung for the full 75%.

I've since found it on a few local govt sites, a typical statement is " The basic Council Tax bill is made up of two parts, 50% property and

google.co.uk for "council tax 50% property liability" if you're interested - Birmingham, East Devon, Forest of Dean, Warwick, Falkirk to name a few say this.

mind it could still be an urban legend. Off to read the law :-(

that's where we sit too. The fuzzy issue is the original agrement between the two parties about sharing costs equally. As you say, the council tax manual seems fairly black and white - if a resident is the owner then they are the liable party. The "joint and several" bit may have gone away as after moving out the absent party is no longer named on the revised council tax bill, they did a recalc up to and from the date of leaving.

Phil

Yes, I see. I think it's likely to be a misguided way of expressing it. It seems that it is indeed just a way of explaining why the one-person discount is only 25% and not 50%, and why the vacant rate discount is not 100% (except temporarily) but 50% (but this is poised to go up to perhaps even 100% in areas which want to clamp down on "second homes").

There is a difference, however, between using the property/personal "elements" in calculating the amount due, and using it in determining who is liable to pay each element. The idea seems to be squarely that liability is tied to occupation. After all, if you rent a property it is normal for the tenants to pay the full CT bill themselves, and sometimes for the landlord to pay it all but on behalf of the tenants, and to inflate the rent to compensate, but it would be distinctly odd to have the landlord pay 50% (and half inflate the rent) and the tenants to pay 50% or 25% as the case may be. It would comlicate things if sometimes the tenants are all students and the dwelling is therefore exempt.

In your original message you imply that council tax was specifically mentioned as one of the (presumably various) costs which were to be split

If council tax was, on the other hand, not explicily mentioned, and if the agreement sought to distinguish in some vague way between costs of ownership (such as rent or mortgage payments, repairs, and buildings insurance) and costs of occupation (such as gas, phone, electricity, and contents insurance (this last one is difficult and could be in part moved to the ownership bit if co-owned contents remain)), and if the agreement was to split the costs of ownership but not of occupation, then there is a case for saying the resident should pay the whole bill and the non-resident none of it because council tax is usually deemed to be a cost of occupation. Only if there was mutual awareness and agreement that the council tax bill itself is partly a cost of ownership and partly of occupation, would there be a case for saying the resident should pay 50% and the non-resident 25% of what would have been the undiscounted bill.

You're basically quibbling over 12.5% of the undiscounted (and hence over 9.375% of the actual) bill. Put your heads together and try to agree over what you thought you agreed to.

you're quite right, if the 50/50 were held to apply then its either

Say 1000 original tax - paid 500 & 500 in joint occupation Tax now 750 - pay 375 / 375 each Hypothecated - resident pays 500 (250 "personal" + half of 500 "property"), non-resident 250

so it is indeed 12.5% of the original or 16.67% of the discounted bill (a rare slip there, I think Mr Raygun).

Sadly they are at the point where you could have pistols at dawn over a towel, let alone £125 :-(

The law contains no reference to this 50/50 hypothecation, it refers to a 25% discount for one person occupancy and that discount can be changed by the relevant Secretary of State.

The liability rules are pretty clear to, going down a list until you hit a description that applies - in this case "resident with interest in title of property" which is step 1, so the resident is wholly liable according to the council.

Thanks for the input. It helps to air these things and clear the mind.

Phil

Oops. Still, you noticed it before Tim did. Ace!

"They"? I was suspecting you were one of them!

no, I'm advising a relative. Your suspicion was reasonable, given the number of posts "I have a friend with this and that and the other financial problem" where the poster clearly knows far too much !

Phil