Annexe consumer unit - must it be in annexe?

[ericmark]

Fwiw if I was asked to inspect the electrical installation of said annex, I would give the cu location a C2 on the basis it’s not accessible.

This is in keeping with the electrical regulations

Interesting, what electrical regulations as that might help me. Also have a garage converted, and I get charged £1000 a year council tax on it as they consider since no internal stairs that it is a separate abode. But it has the central heating boiler, electric meters, solar inverters, batteries, etc. So there is no way we could let it out, as we need 24/7 access to reset any RCBO etc.

It is handy for visitors, they have their own bedroom, living room, kitchen and bathroom, although have to use the shower, my wife e-bike is in the bath. We could maybe do the reverse and let out house and live in the converted garage, but it would be near impossible to meter the heating or electric used.

Our daughter at moment is living in the flat, but the rules for family are different.

I have often felt if we arranged our houses like a caravan we would need a lot less space, but watched a TV program where they visited this house

claimed to be the smallest house, but it said it is no longer lived in, as it is too small to be considered inhabitable. It seems a bedroom must be 6.51 m² or bigger,

The other test is based on floor areas of each room:

• less than 50 square feet = no one
• 50 to less than 70 square feet = half a person
• 70 to less than 90 square feet = one person
• 90 to less than 110 square feet = one and a half persons
• 110 square feet or larger = two persons.

I wonder from the description if renting out the room for accommodation is strictly legal? OK it suits you, we fitted a instant gas boiler for DHW and my daughter used the airing cupboard as a bed room, with a window put in, but at that time under 10 years old so counts as half a person.

My worry is all this work is done, then one of the lawyers realises it's not legal and kicks up out, so the young chap does not even get any rent from you after all that work, one can either turn a blind eye to it all, or to non, going half measures does not work.

So smallest house details:- The minuscule home was built in the 16th century and remained in use until 1900, when the tenant was a 6-foot-3-inch (1.91 m) fisherman named Robert Jones. The rooms were too small for him to stand up in fully and he was eventually forced to move out when the council declared the house unfit for human habitation, along with a number of properties. The house has a floor area of 3.05 by 1.8 m (10.0 by 5.9 ft).

This seems about right for a garage, although garage does not have two floors, so likely as far as the young lad goes, likely best for him if you move out then the law firm can't spend money trying to force you out. But for you then you need some where to call home, it is a problem being of no fixed abode, as no where for mail to be sent, my son had that problem living in a narrow boat, PO box does not work for any letter needing proof of delivery.

The rules do change when one has two homes, we saw that with local railway, they have an accommodation block for volunteers, but when two guys arrived and to be fair worked very hard, but had no other home, the railway had to kick them out before they were there over a set time as otherwise it would fall foul of tenancy laws. But others who had there own home, could stop for months, as to if your boats are considered as a home I don't know?

However there is a lot more involved than the electrics question. I don't think any rules broken with the electrics, as clearly we are not permitted to renew the DNO fuse, so can't see how there can be any rules as to you having access to trips or fuses.

 

[EFLImpudence]

claimed to be the smallest house, but it said it is no longer lived in, as it is too small to be considered inhabitable. It seems a bedroom must be 6.51 m² or bigger,

So what happens?

Does the person have to leave and go and sleep in a shop doorway?

 

[ericmark]

The two guys from the railway, started in a tent, I took pity on them so they came and lived in my flat for a week, then daughter wanted it, so moved to railway accommodation, told they could not remain there, so the bought a caravan which was on railway land, a bit sneaky of the owner selling it them, as she knew railway wanted it gone, railway told them must be gone by Christmas, so given loads of time, and they felt the dirty had been done selling them the caravan so railway bought it off them so they lost no money, although railway will now just scrap it. And they moved I think to Welshpool, but lost touch.

I think they were ex-fair ground workers, and it seems had lived in caravans most of their life, and had been in Spain, but the Spanish it seems after brexit do not like the British and it was getting more and more unpleasant being in Spain.

I suppose one would call them travellers, and I suppose I was also one, however I also had a home, so when I finished working in Algeria, Falklands, Hong Kong and the many British jobs, Sizewell, Seven Bridge, Harland and Wolff, Heathrow etc. I always had a home to go back to.

It was the life my wife selected for me, she always found me the jobs, I phone call at work, better tell them your leaving I have got you a job in Algeria, we looked it up on the map, thought it was a French colony, after that we got up to date maps.

Around this area we are seeing mobile home sites galore, so 10 x 24 foot for whole home seems to be becoming the norm, I think the static caravan is fine for a holiday, but would not want one as my only home, but did live in a 14 foot touring caravan for 5 years at Sizewell and Seven bridge jobs, so have done it.

I think first house was around 1976, and we were very close to loosing it, with a mortgage rate I think of around 16%, we moved to get out of the fixed interest mortgage, I would not say it was easy owning your own house, had we been renting whole family would have moved around the country with me, but today I am sitting pretty, but would not recommend the away workers life. But nice to have seen places like Hong Kong and not have to pay to go there.

 

[JohnW2]

Paul, I would imagine there must be somebody in this day and age that you could take your concerns too, I`m not sure who but some of the others might be able to offer suggestions. Citizens Advice might be a start, I don`t know.

Indeed. I said essentially that a good few pages back.

As I said, if Paul really believes that those administering the affairs on behalf of the landlord (who is of 'limited capacity') are abusing that role, possibly for their own financial gain, then, as I understand it, the Court of Protection exists to intervene (and maybe even prosecute any wrong-doers) - and, as we have both said, a good starting place for advice would be the CAB.

I haven't yet had a chance to discuss this with my daughter who, as I said, is a barrister working in this very field, but I will do so when I have an opportunity, and will let Paul know if she has anything useful to say/advise.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

The other test is based on floor areas of each room:

• less than 50 square feet = no one
• 50 to less than 70 square feet = half a person
• 70 to less than 90 square feet = one person
• 90 to less than 110 square feet = one and a half persons
• 110 square feet or larger = two persons.

Reminds one thing a landlord told me a few years back.

He had a home that was deemed unfit to live in (he agreed with that as he was doing it up to rent out) but the same council, yet although another department, deemed he must pay poll tax on it because he could rent it out.
He said it was like banging his head against a brick wall - all he wanted the council two differing departments to do was agree, is it fit to inhabit or not?
Simple question but as the two departments had different measuring sticks so to speak that it was doing his head in.
I don't know what he resolved in the end but all he wanted was to get it into a fit state to rent out but not pay polltax until it was in a fit state, whether he actually was physically able to rent it out immediately it was refurbished it was not his point, it was just the differing rules by the different departments at the same council.

 

[ericmark]

@ebee same here, seems some where in North Wales there is a department that decides what the council tax rating is, but Powis charges the tax and gives any relief for single occupancy etc.

 

[ebee]

Yeah. How can they not both/all "sing from the same song sheet". .


Whoops reminds me of a few years back I had to book a NHS consultation appt by telephone. The receptionist told me I could see Dr Singh at hosptital A or Dr Singh at hospital B (she added that Dr Singh at hospital A was actually the father of Dr Singh at hospital B ) , several miles apart. Which hospital would I like to book with?
I replied, "I do not mind which Dr Singh I see as long as they both are singing from the same songsheet".
Of course my humour was lost (or she had heard it one thousand times before) .
It`s actually a true story. I just came straight out with it.
PS - I saw the father because he was at a nearer hospital and he was absolutely brill. Great chap.

 

[JohnW2]

I haven't yet had a chance to discuss this with my daughter who, as I said, is a barrister working in this very field, but I will do so when I have an opportunity, and will let Paul know if she has anything useful to say/advise.

@Paul-in-Sussex .... it's been a while, so might be too late to be useful, but I've eventually had a chance to discuss your situation with my daughter - who, as I mentioned, is a barrister who spends an appreciable part of her time working in the Court of Protection.

She said that if you continue to believe that those ('solicitors') administering the house owner's affairs are abusing that role (acting other than in the person's interests, and maybe for their own financial gain) then, in the first instance, you should raise the issue with the "Office of the Public Guardian" ("OPG"), which would cost you nothing. They would then investigate the matter and, if they feel it appropriate/necessary, would refer the matter to the Court of Protection for resolution.

However, she also said that, when the person handling the affairs of a person 'without capacity' (probably a Court-appointed "Deputy") is a solicitor (or firm of solicitors), rather than an 'ordinary individual', it would be very unusual for them to abuse the role in the manner you have suggested, not the least because such behaviour would put their livelihoods at risk.

She said that, in her experience, if they can satisfactorily argue that the work they have done, or propose to have down, on the house is likely to increase the value of the house by more than the cost of the work, then both the OPG and Court of Protection would be likely to take the view that such was "in the interests of the owner", and therefore a legitimate exercising of their role (even if they derived some financial gain from having the work done.

I hope that may help a bit.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Murdochcat]

@Paul-in-Sussex .... it's been a while, so might be too late to be useful, but I've eventually had a chance to discuss your situation with my daughter - who, as I mentioned, is a barrister who spends an appreciable part of her time working in the Court of Protection.

She said that if you continue to believe that those ('solicitors') administering the house owner's affairs are abusing that role (acting other than in the person's interests, and maybe for their own financial gain) then, in the first instance, you should raise the issue with the "Office of the Public Guardian" ("OPG"), which would cost you nothing. They would then investigate the matter and, if they feel it appropriate/necessary, would refer the matter to the Court of Protection for resolution.

However, she also said that, when the person handling the affairs of a person 'without capacity' (probably a Court-appointed "Deputy") is a solicitor (or firm of solicitors), rather than an 'ordinary individual', it would be very unusual for them to abuse the role in the manner you have suggested, not the least because such behaviour would put their livelihoods at risk.

She said that, in her experience, if they can satisfactorily argue that the work they have done, or propose to have down, on the house is likely to increase the value of the house by more than the cost of the work, then both the OPG and Court of Protection would be likely to take the view that such was "in the interests of the owner", and therefore a legitimate exercising of their role (even if they derived some financial gain from having the work done.

I hope that may help a bit.

Kind Regards, John

I doubt we’ll ever know as the information by the OP has been vague at best and contradictory at worst.

 

[JohnW2]

I doubt we’ll ever know as the information by the OP has been vague at best and contradictory at worst.

So you have repeatedly suggested

 

[morqthana]

The council do not agree, so as it stands I pay two council taxes, and have two sets of bins, but it seems it is not the council who decided if two independent units or one.

Well, seek proper legal advice of course, but if you stopped paying one tax, and started putting all the rubbish in one set of bins, then when the council take you to court surely they would have to divulge who made the decree on which they are relying that it's two properties?

 

[JohnW2]

..... I have since moving into this house claimed the annex is not a independent property, and at the moment I am fighting a claim by the local authority that the annex has it's own council tax fee. ... I have since moving in claimed that the annex is not a separate unit, and it should be on one council tax, .... The council do not agree, so as it stands I pay two council taxes, and have two sets of bins, but it seems it is not the council who decided if two independent units or one. ... So the battle continues ....

I am pretty sure that the situation is the same in Wales as it is in England and, if it is, then what the council are telling you is correct.

In England, although LA's ('councils') collect Council Tax, they have nothing to do with determining what that should be. That is determined by the "Valuation Office Agency" ("VOA"), which is an executive agency of HMRC. Since a lot of VOA material is available in the Welsh language, this would seem to strongly suggest that they have this role for properties in Wales as well as in England.

The VOA are the only people to who one can turn to 'challenge' a decision about Council Tax banding, and there is a statutory appeals process available (to the "Valuation Tribunal", which is independent of the VOA) if you disagree with the VOA's decision. One of the reasons one can challenge the banding is if the property has been "demolished, split into multiple properties or merged into one" - the latter I would have thought correspinded with your situation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Well, seek proper legal advice of course, but if you stopped paying one tax, and started putting all the rubbish in one set of bins, then when the council take you to court surely they would have to divulge who made the decree on which they are relying that it's two properties?

No need to let them take you to court to ascertain that - as I've just written, the 'decree' will have been made by the Valuation Office Agency, whose decision one can challenge, and further appeal against if one disagrees.

One does not have to be a lawyer to know that stopping paying one of the Council Tax bills would be very unwise The rules make it very clear that one must continue paying the assessed Council Tax even whilst it is being 'challenged' and LAs are generally very quick in taking non-payers to court. If that happened, the non-payment would not be in dispute (or defensible), so the court would inevitably issue a CCJ against the person concerned, with all the consequences in terms of Credit Rating etc.

I can also tell you (and eric), from experience, that is would also be very unwise to claim that the annexe were 'unoccupied', should he think of that approach. That would result, after a period (varying from 2 to 5 years between LAs), in the property being classified as 'long-term unoccupied', in which case the owner of the property (e.g. eric) would be asked to pay large Council Tax 'surcharges'. Not too long ago I found myself paying double Council Tax on a property which had been unoccupied for 2 years, which then rose to treble Council Tax after 5 years of inoccupancy.

 

[Murdochcat]

So you have repeatedly suggested

Because that’s all that can be concluded

 

[SUNRAY]

, but today I am sitting pretty, but would not recommend the away workers life. But nice to have seen places like Hong Kong and not have to pay to go there.

I fairly recently caught up with a school mate, he left in 1971, I stayed an extra year before deciding Alevels were too hard. He went into apprenticship at chatham dockyard, as what I dont know, then at conclusion went to Malta dockyard and we lost contact around 1977. Covid closed down the site but he started meandering around the world working and taking the family with him and knocking out six children over a lot of years.

He purchased a house in Norfolk quite early on as a 'return home one day' and rented it out. Places he worked; UAE, Yugoslavia (when the conflict started), India, HK, Thailand, Fawlklands, Argentina, Brazil, Ghana, SA, Sudan, Germany, Spain, Poland and more I can't recall. He says no regrets whatsoever and is happy his son (with wife and children) is doing the same.