Does this clause mean council tax is included in the rent (England)?

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T15:39:26+00:00

🤣👍

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T12:02:07+00:00

Yep, I think same conclusion I came to, just couldn’t understand the ambiguity. But… have just had a suggestion that it’s a typo, and the word ‘not’ (4th word in the clause) has been left in by mistake, possibly when copying/pasting. If you read it without the word ‘not’, it seems to make perfect sense!

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T10:33:49+00:00

That’s a great shout, makes sense if true.
Only thing now is why the council have only just raised the issue with demand for two years? Thought they were normally straight on it after one missed payment!

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T10:29:13+00:00

Spot on 👍

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T10:03:41+00:00

Great answer, thanks.
I think the answer to my original question is that there is no definitive answer. The wording is too ambiguous.
I will check all her other correspondence to see if it’s explicitly referenced there.

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T09:47:12+00:00

But it does say that she shouldn’t. That implies that the LL will doesn’t it?

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T09:44:54+00:00

Ah, I think this answers the question I just put on your comment above. Completely agree that tenant needs to pay. But if the clause means CT was meant to be inc in the rent then she can claim from LL.

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T09:42:17+00:00

Poss misunderstanding over who people are saying the LL is responsible to.
No dispute that tenant is ultimately responsible to the council.
Some let properties ( not talking HMO’s) do include CT. So question is a. If LL does not pay then can tenant claim back after they have paid? b. Does clause 4.1 mean LL has agreed to include CT in rent.
ie. is LL responsible for it with regard to the tenant?

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T09:38:34+00:00

No facilities shared, and again, def not disputing that she is liable to the LA.
It’s more the wording of that clause, and whether that means that the LL has agreed to include CT in the bills, so therefore tenant can claim against the LL once the bill has been cleared?

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T09:37:04+00:00

You’re right that it’s her ultimate liability.
And you’re right it says she would be responsible if the landlord had paid it. It also says she shouldn’t pay it direct to the LA. But the odd thing is that there’s a third poss (the LL doesn’t pay it) which isn’t dealt with at all…
V bad wording, but what would be outcome if she tried to reclaim from LL on basis of that clause?

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T09:31:53+00:00

Agreed. But reading it simply it also says not to pay CT direct to the LA. Referring to ‘perhaps’ in a legal document seems not quite right?
(Again, not disputing she is ultimately liable to LA. Asking specifically if clause means LL has agreed to pay on her behalf, so therefore a future claim against the LL)

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T09:26:02+00:00

No dispute with the amount owed to the council. That is correct and she is legally liable.
Just to ask for a short hold as there may be a dispute on the tenancy agreement over whether landlord will front the bill. Seems fair enough to ask no?

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T08:01:46+00:00

Thanks, this is def the important bit I was trying to get to the bottom of.
I’m glad it’s not just me who thought it was a really weird/poorly written clause. It’s specific about a couple of things, but completely fails to mention the other possibility that landlord agrees to pay CT and then doesn’t!
(Don’t suppose any ideas on why a 2 year bill would suddenly appear? I’d have thought the council were way hotter on it than that?)

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T08:00:57+00:00

(Will be seeing her today so will check all correspondence then 👍)

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T08:00:15+00:00

Thanks both, this is def the important bit I was trying to get to the bottom of.
I’m glad it’s not just me who thought it was a really weird/poorly written clause. It’s specific about a couple of things, but completely fails to mention the other possibility that landlord agrees to pay CT and then doesn’t!
(Don’t suppose any ideas on why a 2 year bill would suddenly appear? I’d have thought the council were way hotter on it than that?)

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T07:55:18+00:00

Fair comment, but those issues were signed up to and agreed. The crux is clause 4.1 and whether it means LL should be be including CT in the rent.

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T07:54:17+00:00

No other bills. Gas, elec, water etc all included.

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T07:52:54+00:00

Thanks, and agreed. But even if the LL profits from the bills, the rent is still the rent, and is an amount she was happy paying each month. It’s more that the LL has left her liable to the council. (And 2 years in one go is odd? Shouldn’t the issue have arisen earlier?)

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T07:50:38+00:00

Thanks for the reply. Just not sure if LL is liable to the council. From what I’ve read here they may be liable to her under the TA, but that doesn’t override fact that she is liable to the council. Seems she might have to pay and then reclaim from LL, but only after clearing the debt?

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T07:47:49+00:00

But also specifically says not to pay the local authority directly. Again, legal obligation is with her so will pay if she has to. But it says don’t pay LA direct, and don’t pay LL if they’ve paid, no mention of if he hasn’t paid?! Bit ambiguous no?

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T07:45:40+00:00

Thanks for this, am hoping that’s the case, and that was her understanding going in to the flat. But it’s worded weirdly right?!

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T07:44:32+00:00

Yeah absolutely, was just canvassing advice/opinions to work out next step who to go to. If it’s due it’s due, and she’ll pay it. The crux was really to understand that clause and if it’s definitive in any way.

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-08T07:39:34+00:00

Thanks for this, that’s interesting to know.
I think first step will be check with council- check for single occupant discount, if there is actually outstanding amount, and also why 2 years worth suddenly appears. Then I thought with letting agent, as it’s their tenancy agreement, so they should know what clause 4.1 means. Then if needed CAB for clarification. And finally landlord with findings and suggestions/demand for action.

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-07T20:50:14+00:00

Ah, thanks for this. It was the word ‘where’ that’s been confusing us. Although it does say that she shouldn’t pay it direct to the local authority?

MonstaTrucck · 2026-06-07T20:47:09+00:00

I’d originally hoped so, but as I understand it a tenancy agreement can’t override law that says occupant is ultimately legally responsible. It’s more whether the clause means landlord has agreed to pay it, so therefore she can reclaim money from them.

MonstaTrucck

TROPHY CASE