I tend to agree with you, but if this were not the case the letting agent would be far more disposed to try and find tenants who were not likely to stay beyond the set term so he could then get a relet. At least this way it is in the agent's interest as well as yours to find a good tenant who will stay for a decent time.
Get your newsreader sorted out you troll.
Someone number his fecked up posts so we don't have to read them if we don't have the luxury of killfiles. It's simple enough, if you feel the need to reply to one of his posts just put his name and a number to it in the title.
I was thinking that. Most things are. I've even heard there are chip shops down south that cook pizza in an
*oven*But a Google search on council tax liability shows the hierachy of liability as:
The hierarchy of liability in England is: a resident who lives in the property and who owns the freehold a resident who lives in the property and who has a lease or who is an assured or an assured shorthold tenant a resident who lives in the property and who is a protected, statutory or a secure tenant a resident who lives in the property and who is a licensee. This means that they are not a tenant, but have permission to stay there any resident living in the property, for example, a squatter an owner of the property who does not live there.
The hierarchy of liability in Scotland is: a resident who owns all or part of the dwelling a resident who is a tenant of all or part of the dwelling a resident who is a statutory, statutory assured, or secure tenant of all or part of the dwelling a resident who is a sub-tenant of all or part of the dwelling a resident with no security of tenure a non-resident owner of any part of the dwelling unless there is a non- resident tenant or sub-tenant who has a lease (or sub-lease) of six months or more.
The owner will be liable if:- the property is in multiple occupation, for example, a house lived in by a number of people who all pay rent, but no-one is responsible for paying the whole of the rent; or the people who live in the property are all under the age of 18; or the people who live in the property are all asylum seekers who are not entitled to claim benefits including council tax benefit; or the people who are staying in the property have their main homes somewhere else; or the property is a care home.
For the 3rd time in living history I quite agree with you.
I forgot to add one more thing: a percentage of tenants have personality problems that cause assorted horrors for landlords. I know one that was hauled off by the police because a tenant was involved in drugs, and its a criminal offence to permit a property to be used for drugs, even when he had no way of knowing, no powers to enter and search, no evidence, and it isnt his job to police his tenants anyway.
Letting rooms is always the last resort, except for prostitution.
NT
For the 3rd time in living history I quite agree with you.
I forgot to add one more thing: a percentage of tenants have personality problems that cause assorted horrors for landlords. I know one that was hauled off by the police because a tenant was involved in drugs, and its a criminal offence to permit a property to be used for drugs, even when he had no way of knowing, no powers to enter and search, no evidence, and it isnt his job to police his tenants anyway.
What a ridiculous thing to say. Of course it is still the Landlords property, he/she still owns it! They are just allowing somebody else to rent it and live there. If it's no longer the landlords property as you say why then is he responsible for the buildings insurance, gas checks, repairs, etc. etc. What about the 1000's of Council and Housing Association properties out there are you then saying every council tenant is a home owner?
Now that sounds better, the property is not in the landlords possession, whilst the tenant lives there.
Cheers
John
determine who is liable to pay the CT on a property. Having used those rules to decide that it's the resident tenant who needs to pay it, that doesn't mean that if (s)he buggers off without coughing up, then the liability automatically passes on to someone else. Look at the last section above - "the owner will be liable if..." it doesn't say "if the council are unable to wring the cash out of the sitting tenant"!
I agree the situation is different and more complex for a House of Multiple Occupation, but that will presuambly not be the case for the OP's flat.
Incidentally, there are moves afoot (bloody Two-Jags again, I think) to make landlords liable for council tax on any property they rent out, and pass on the cost within the rent, precisely for this reason - then if the tenant does a bunk, the council won't lose out or need to chase up unpaid CT. Bless. This change to the law wouldn't be necessary if what you say about passing on liability was true.
David
All land is owned by the Crown. Landowners only have title. You may so-called own the house/flat, but the tenant has so to say, has a sort of title. The "owner" can't enter. The tenant doesn't want the owner near the place the owner will never go inside for any reason whatsoever. In effect ownership has been handed over on a temporary basis.
A part of the temporary ownership contract,
Yes, for the time they are within the law and in occupancy.
But the landlord is excluded for the property 100%
In message , Lobster writes
This doesnt seem to be the case at present - I have only ever been held liable for Council Tax once I have taken possession of a property after a tenant has done a bunk.
This will make even fewer landlords let to people on low incomes, or on Housing benefit, or both.
Labour seem to have a habit of shooting their own principles in the foot.
In message , at 11:08:43 on Wed, 22 Mar 2006, Lobster remarked:
I've not heard of this, but it would have another advantage: it doesn't mean the council has to issue several different bills a year, one for the landlord while he's waiting for a tenant, one for the tenant (may be only a 6 month let), and back to the landlord again while waiting for the next tenant. When I was renting (as tenant) last year it became apparent that the landlord was billed for the two days over the weekend when the property was between tenants!
On the other hand, if the tenant qualifies for CT Benefit, it would get very messy.
The message from Richard Faulkner contains these words:
They do seem to be the masters of the unintended consequence, don't they? I suspect it's 'cos they're in too much of a hurry and don't listen to people who will actually be affected by their ideas - just to "specialists" who frequently know bugger all.
The message from Andy Hall contains these words:
You filthy swine! (sorry, old Goons joke)
When did we start talking about LAND. We are talking about ownership of property, for the hard of thinking, thats the bricks and mortar! You really do not know what you are talking about or you're making a damb good stab at making it look that way. A landlord has rights of access as long as long he gives the tenant at least 48 hours notice that he would like to come and inspect HIS PROPERTY. The tenant cannot unjustifiably refuse.
Bollocks!! So while they are in occupancy they can sell it can they?
Bollocks again!! See my above point and also a Landlord can go into the property unannouced in an emergency i.e. gas leak, flood, etc. To say 100% is just a general sweeping statement you have heard somewhere and are repeating without any knowledge of the subject!
I can see why you are called Dr Drivel!
Cheers
John
Oh no......
You've uttered the magic words. Now the genie will burst forth from the lamp and start babbling about Land Value Tax, Henry George, Stalinist Planning, Jeremy Paxman and Kevin Cahill.
Please don't be tempted to ask it what these are all about. It doesn't really know and just cuts and pastes from random articles.
With luck, it should be possible to get the cork back into the bottle, if handled carefully.
Sounds like every government that's ever been in power.
Nope. Land is regarded as property. Only in Land Value Tax do they separate them.
Oh no, not another idiotic fool. We proceed....
WRONG!! The landlord can request, but has no legal right to enter at all. The tenant dies not have to let him in at all for any reason whatsoever. The tenant can even refuse the CORGI engineer, the police and Tom, Dick and Harry, but takes the can if there is an explosion. The gas people may cut them off if they think the place is unsafe.
No. They can't sell. Bit they have total right over the place. NO ONE can enter at all for any reason whatsoever.
The landlord CANNOT. The only way is when danger is apparent, gas, and then the police have to be present. The police will usually say cut the place off from outside. If this cannot be done then they will break in. The landlord cannot enter at all, only emergency services under police supervision. If the landlord attempts entry, and the tenant tells the police to eject him, they will.
It is plainly obvious you are very hard of thinking and require professional attention. The NHS do it free.
LOL Funny enough that's the only time I have had Real trouble as a absentee landlord When the police raided the establishment, they asked who the owner was. I was arrested and was to be charged with living on immoral earnings Try explaining that one to SWMBO, and I never even got a freebie.
I did warn you...... too late.....
Drivel, back in yer bottle, there's a good genie....
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.