Exemption or 2nd home?

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #20638
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Because of large debt and outstanding property repairs, a couple sell their home to their daughter and son-in-law as they could not afford to stay there otherwise. A couple of years later, the man dies and the wife goes temporarily into a home. The daughter has never charged a rent because she incorrectly thought that HB would be refused as they were closely related. The LA is refusing to regard the wife as a tenant and, therefore, grant exemption and wants to charge the owners as the property is still furnished. The owners maintain that the lady is and always has been a tenant, even though no rent has been charged and there is no formal tenancy agreement. They did apply for CTB in the past and quoted on the claim form that they were tenants but paying no rent. I believe that a tenancy has been created as they have been allowed right of occupancy and there only needs to be a verbal agreement anyway.

    Any thoughts??

    #3293
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I’ll have a stab at this.

    One of the elements of a contract is that there needs to be an element of “consideration”, i.e both parties are giving something up. In a tenancy this is usually the fact that the landlord is giving up the rights to occupy the property and the tenant is giving up the rent.

    From what you have said, it does not appear that there is a tenancy.

    However, the hierachy of liability runs all the way down to “resident” so that even in a case such as this, the mother would still be liable whilst resident even though she had no title to the property either through ownership or tenancy.

    If that is the case, and you consider her to be “temporarily absent”, surely her sole or main would remain as this property?

    #3294
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I agree with Phil.
    If the Mother is only temporarily in the care home, then the property would still remain her sole/main residence and therefore she would still be liable for the Council Tax.
    Hierarchy of liability puts ‘resident’ above ‘non-resident owner’.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.