Starting council tax, house not finished!

[joe90]

We just had a visit from the council tax people to see how far we had got, I told her that we had just moved from a parkhome up the road ( paid council tax there) and were now living in our caravan next to the build and been told I could transfer the council tax from one caravan to another, I had done this by Email on Saturday when we moved. She asked me what needed to be completed and I said fitted kitchen, sewage treatment plant, heating for a minimum to make it habitable. She noticed that we had furniture in the lounge and even though it was obviously stored ( everything piled up) I explained it was only  stored furniture but she said they classed furniture in a house showed it was used and only gave me four weeks before a valuation officer would be sent to assess our build and bill us council tax. I explained that I was struggling to do the work myself and could not complete the work in four weeks.

 

I know Jeremy had problems and I plan to not get the treatment plant signed off till it suits me. My understanding is that without a treatment plant or kitchen or heating a build could not be “ fit for habitation”.

 

any advise would be welcome as frankly we don’t mind taking our time over completion and living in the caravan for the summer.

Edited May 14, 2018 by joe90

[Gone West]

We had similar problems but I thought @JSHarris Jeremy said it was the water supply that was the critical requirement for council tax purposes.

[Jeremy Harris]

Yes, lack of a potable water supply definitely makes the house a non-rateable hereditament, there's case law that defines this.  Not at all sure that not having the treatment plant connected would count, as there's nothing I can find about any cases where this has been used.  It's tricky, as it all depends on the interpretation of the 1969 Rating Act, as updated and also clarified by case law. 

 

Fitness for habitation is not the legal criterion used, as such, the criterion is whether or not the building can be legitimately defined as a rateable hereditament, which is different.  Lack of electricity, for example, doesn't make a building ineligible for Council Tax, nor does the lack of a kitchen.

 

You may well have to talk directly to the VOA and see if they can advise, as they almost certainly know the law better than the council.

[nod]

13 minutes ago, PeterStarck said:

We had similar problems but I thought @JSHarris Jeremy said it was the water supply that was the critical requirement for council tax purposes.

There actually using a law that was brought in to stop mainstream builders stock piling houses

Told us the water and power on is irelivent Once the plastering is finished we will have to go on 50%

[Gone West]

1 minute ago, nod said:

 

Told us the water and power on is irelivent Once the plastering is finished we will have to go on 50%

How can they overrule precedent set by legal judgement.

[ProDave]

This is why I have been starting the internal fit out upstairs first, so that when (not if) the nosey valuation officer comes for a look through the windows, he will see a less finished house.

[Jeremy Harris]

56 minutes ago, PeterStarck said:

How can they overrule precedent set by legal judgement.

 

They can't.  The judgement regarding a building not being a rateable hereditament, and so unable to be valued for Council Tax, is clear - if there's no potable water supply then the building is not a rateable hereditament.  Here is a quote from an earlier post that has links to the case law:

 

Quote

"There are two ways a dwelling can be shown in a list. Firstly, by coming into existence as a dwelling, and secondly, where the building is not quite completed, by the BA serving a completion notice. If a LO is in doubt as to whether the building is sufficiently complete to constitute a dwelling, the BA should be asked to issue a completion notice before the list is altered. The law in this regard was examined in the case of RGM Properties v Speight LO 2011."


I have quickly read this case and it provides the very helpful opinion at Paragraphs 17 and 18, essentially defining "completion"

 

• In the more recent case, before the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber, of Porter v The Trustees of Gladman Sipps [2011] UKUT 204 (LC) the judgment examined the authorities and considered Ravenseft v Nottingham City Council. At paragraph 66 the judgment says:

   

• "The authorities, in our judgment, establish the following. A building is only a hereditament if it is ready for occupation, and whether it is ready for occupation is to be assessed in the light of the purpose for which it is designed to be occupied. If the building lacks features which will have to be provided before it can be occupied for that purpose and when provided will form part of the occupied hereditament and form the basis of its valuation it does not constitute a hereditament and so does not fall to be shown in the rating list. There is in consequence no scope for including in the list a building which is nearly, even very nearly, ready for occupation unless the completion notice procedure has been followed

   

• ."It should be noted that the wording there replaces "capable of occupation" with the words "ready for" occupation. If anything turns upon that distinction, I prefer the expression "capable of" which has the support of the Court of Appeal. Otherwise, this seems an uncontroversial summary of that which the cases showed.

 

 

[ProDave]

There is in consequence no scope for including in the list a building which is nearly, even very nearly, ready for occupation unless the completion notice procedure has been followed

Does that not mean it can't be valued until building control have deemed it "finished" by way of a completion certificate, or at least a certificate of temporary habitation?

[Jeremy Harris]

14 minutes ago, ProDave said:

 

 

Does that not mean it can't be valued until building control have deemed it "finished" by way of a completion certificate, or at least a certificate of temporary habitation?

 

No, as completion in the sense of being a hereditament is not the same as completion in the sense of compliance with all building regulations.  A Notice of Intended Completion can be issued by a rating authority which gives three months notice of their intention to declare the building as being completed, in terms of becoming an hereditament, and to avoid being valued for Council Tax after this three month notice period you would have to go to a tribunal and argue your case.  The second case quoted in the link above, this one: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/LC/2011/RA_63_2008_Dec.html has some useful examples from previous case law that you may use to argue a point at a tribunal.  A lot hinges on judgement as to whether or not a specific building could be considered to be an hereditament or not, and the chances are that council officers may well not be well-versed in the law, and almost certainly seek to apply the law incorrectly (as they did with us initially).

 

My experience was that when challenged, and presented with examples of case law that showed their assumptions were unlawful, the council just backed away as fast as they could.  In fact they stopped contacting me and just requested that I inform them when I felt that the house complied with the legal definition of a rateable hereditament.  I got the distinct impression that the council staff concerned felt way out of their depth in trying to counter my argument and decided that for a single dwelling it was a lot easier for them to just back off, rather than spend money on lawyers.

[richi]

Council officers, be they Planning, BC or Revenue, are generally not lawyers. I had a similar issue with Planning about what it meant to "start."

 

It's probably best if you gently prompt them to consult with the council's legal team. Perhaps a simple letter to the officer along the lines of:
 

Dear XXX,

Thank you for your visit on Mary 14th, when we discussed the liability to Council Tax of our unfinished house.

For the avoidance of doubt, our position is that the property is not yet a rateable hereditament, for the following reasons:

a)

b)

c)

We are confident that your legal department will be familiar with and will agree with this justification. However, if they have further questions, they are welcome to contact us.

Yours sincerely,

Joseph McClaine.

[joe90]

Thanks guys for your comments, ref building control, she did point out completion in the eyes of building control was not the same which I already knew, she has given me 6 weeks notice and I will read and re read the above see what I can do. ( Pisttttt, Dave, we are actually sleeping upstairs as it is virtually finished and carpeted ?).

[Jeremy Harris]

The law allows you three months notice, so I'd argue that one straight away.  It's quoted in one, perhaps both, of those links somewhere.

[Mr Punter]

What if the property is completed, occupied and not on the valuation list?  Can they add it to the list and reclaim from when occupied?

[Onoff]

9 minutes ago, joe90 said:

Thanks guys for your comments, ref building control, she did point out completion in the eyes of building control was not the same which I already knew, she has given me 6 weeks notice and I will read and re read the above see what I can do. ( Pisttttt, Dave, we are actually sleeping upstairs as it is virtually finished and carpeted ?).

 

Erm.....putting that end comment up on a public forum and you're asking for it really!

[Jeremy Harris]

11 minutes ago, Mr Punter said:

What if the property is completed, occupied and not on the valuation list?  Can they add it to the list and reclaim from when occupied?

 

They can only go back as far as the valuation date, I think, but I may be wrong.  I doubt that it would be lawful to go back to a date before the completion date, as in the absence of a declaration that the building is habitable and a hereditament by the owner, or a dated completion notice, I don't think they would have any authority to try and just make up some earlier data to charge the tax from.

 

If they try to do this, then they usually seem to provide evidence of occupation, or at least evidence of the readiness for occupation, most commonly in the form of photographs taken by council staff.  There is mention of this tactic being used in the case law above, and certainly the council lady who broke into our site (with no PPE...) did take photos that the council were going to try to use to substantiate their claim, I believe.

[ProDave]

They do seem a bit fairer up here. When we moved into the static caravan and contacted them, the valuation officer made reference to his file containing photographs of the 'van, and the 17 times he had visited our site.  A less scrupulous council might have decided that the 'van was perfectly habitable and started to charge council tax on it long before we moved in.

[newhome]

4 minutes ago, ProDave said:

They do seem a bit fairer up here. When we moved into the static caravan and contacted them, the valuation officer made reference to his file containing photographs of the 'van, and the 17 times he had visited our site.  A less scrupulous council might have decided that the 'van was perfectly habitable and started to charge council tax on it long before we moved in.

 

I think it was about 2 years after we moved in before we started being charged council tax. And that was after we invited building control round to see what else we needed to do to get the completion certificate, so a substantial amount was done by then and it was clear that we were living here. We may have got away with it for longer had we not done that. 

[nod]

5 hours ago, PeterStarck said:

How can they overrule precedent set by legal judgement.

They are saying that there is no legal precedent

The young lady that called down was better than the one I had spoken to on the phone

she explained that builders were leaving homes without kitchens till they were sold

and evading large amounts of Council tax

She said Council are not distinguishing between mainstream and self builders 

Once the plaster is on 

Then it is POSSIBLE to connect the services, and fit the kitchen and bathroom

The fact that you haven’t done these things are irrelevant

Her words 

 

I did point out that the house was not liveable with just plaster on the walls 

Her reply was that is why you will be allowed 50% reduction for the first three months 

[Jeremy Harris]

The legal precedents are in the links given earlier.  There have been a lot of cases where people have challenged the way councils try and abuse the law to get people to pay council tax.

[nod]

5 hours ago, PeterStarck said:

How can they overrule precedent set by legal judgement.

MY solicitor told me they are not over ruling a legal judgement 

They are using legislation brought in for a completely different purpose To charge you Council tax

 

As stayed above their stance rests on that all these things that make a house liveable Are possible to put in place The fact that most of us haven’t the funds to to employ a team to fit the house out 

Is irrelevant to them

But not to most of us

 

i can understand that services fire police street lighting schools doctors have to be paid for

But most of us are already paying Council tax So why should we pay more on a half built building That isn’t using any of the above services 

[Jeremy Harris]

Most solicitors won't have read all the specific case law around this.  There are many cases, and each has refined and clarified the law with regard to when a building becomes a hereditament. 

 

When I faced bullying from our council, after they had sent a snooper to break into our secure site, ignore the safety and keep out notices and then been pretty threatening in accusing me of avoiding the payment of Council Tax, I fought back with the law.  For me it wasn't hard at the point they decided to write and threaten me, as we genuinely didn't have a water supply to the house. 

 

Once I found the specific case law that made it clear that not having a potable water supply to the house meant that it could not be classed as a hereditament, I just quoted that to the lady at the council and suggested that she consult the council's legal department.  I offered to allow them to access the house to prove there was no water supply, but the daft woman just said she'd check with Wessex Water.  I almost gave things away by laughing at that point, as we have a borehole for water, not a mains connection.  I did leave a coil of left over 25mm MDPE out the front for a while, that looked as if it could be waiting to connected to the (non-existent) water main in the lane, just to keep the snoopers happy, but because I had control as to when the borehole was officially commissioned, I very deliberately delayed getting the Environmental Health water test done (I did a private one to make sure the water was safe) because the council had my back up, so I chose to delay paying them. 

 

I'd not have done this if they'd been reasonable, rather than threatening, when they first contacted me.

[PeterW]

I’m going to see how they manage to put anything on the VOA register as they can’t even sort the address out despite paying over 12 months ago ... 

[ProDave]

We have had another reprieve.

 

I was just doing some stuff at home this morning when a strange car drew up and a man in a suit got out.  It was the council tax valuer.

 

He came into the house and got as far as the hall, at which point he declared "it's not finished is it  See you again in about June. Thank you."

 

 

 

[joe90]

Lucky bugger, it’s not like that in Devon ?

[newhome]

24 minutes ago, joe90 said:

Lucky bugger, it’s not like that in Devon ?

 

I think I lived here for well over a year before they charged me council tax. Happy days!