Council tax AFTER bankruptcy and disclaimer?

[Woodstain Wally]

Hi
Rental property (not my home) was part of my bankruptcy estate and empty. Bankruptcy date was 2016. I was told property vested in TIB so I no longer had anything to do with it. TIB then disclaimed the property. I was discharged and assumed it would be sold to offset against outstanding mortgage. The property has only just been taken up by the mortgagee (‘taken possession’), having been sat empty all this time. My local council are taking me to court for all the council tax since bankruptcy up to date mortgagee took possession. I’m resisting but the rules around it look a bit open to interpretation. I can’t find anything in the rules about who is responsible for council tax AFTER a TIB has disclaimed it.

Any thoughts from you wise and wonderful people out there? Thanks in advance.

WW

 

[Shaun@M&H]

Have you spoken to the council to explain the situation?

I would imagine the council are pursuing you as you were the last one they have a record of being responsible for the council tax.

 

[Woodstain Wally]

Have you spoken to the council to explain the situation?

I would imagine the council are pursuing you as you were the last one they have a record of being responsible for the council tax.

Thanks. Yes, I have spoken at length with them.

 

[Shaun@M&H]

Thanks. Yes, I have spoken at length with them.

Well the general rule is that disclaimed assets leave the estate. So it would no longer have been something belonging to the trustee.

It should not revert to you. It would revert to a superior title, all the way up to the crown if necessary.

 

[UK Contractor Accountant]

1. What Happens to the Property (Ownership)

• The Property Does Not Vanish: The legal estate in the property does not cease to exist, but the trustee no longer has an interest in it.
• Reversion to Owner/Third Party: The property interest may revert to the former bankrupt owner, or if the property was leasehold, it may revert to the landlord.
• Joint Ownership: If the property was jointly owned, the disclaimer typically leaves the remaining joint owner as the sole owner.
• Bona Vacantia (The Crown): If no one else claims the property (e.g., a mortgagee), the disclaimed freehold property may pass to the Crown as bona vacantia (ownerless goods).

2. Council Tax Liability

• Before Disclaimer (While with Trustee): If the property is unoccupied and the title is vested in the trustee in bankruptcy, it is usually exempt from Council Tax.
• After Disclaimer:
  • Once the trustee disclaims the property, the exemption ends.
  • The Owner is Liable: The person who becomes the owner after the disclaimer (which could be the bankrupt individual, a joint owner, or the Crown) becomes responsible for Council Tax.
  • Unoccupied Property Charges: If the property remains empty, the new owner may be liable for full Council Tax and potentially additional premiums for empty homes.

 

[Woodstain Wally]

1. What Happens to the Property (Ownership)

• The Property Does Not Vanish: The legal estate in the property does not cease to exist, but the trustee no longer has an interest in it.
• Reversion to Owner/Third Party: The property interest may revert to the former bankrupt owner, or if the property was leasehold, it may revert to the landlord.
• Joint Ownership: If the property was jointly owned, the disclaimer typically leaves the remaining joint owner as the sole owner.
• Bona Vacantia (The Crown): If no one else claims the property (e.g., a mortgagee), the disclaimed freehold property may pass to the Crown as bona vacantia (ownerless goods).

2. Council Tax Liability

• Before Disclaimer (While with Trustee): If the property is unoccupied and the title is vested in the trustee in bankruptcy, it is usually exempt from Council Tax.
• After Disclaimer:
  • Once the trustee disclaims the property, the exemption ends.
  • The Owner is Liable: The person who becomes the owner after the disclaimer (which could be the bankrupt individual, a joint owner, or the Crown) becomes responsible for Council Tax.
  • Unoccupied Property Charges: If the property remains empty, the new owner may be liable for full Council Tax and potentially additional premiums for empty homes.

Thank you, this aligns with my understanding. However, convincing the Council of this is proving difficult, as they look at HM Land Reg and will still see me as proprietor (notwithstanding the restrictions obviously there for all to see) until another transfer eg on sale has been completed and registered. I’ve just sent them a copy of the bankruptcy order in the hope that someone in their legal dept can reach the same understanding that you and I have. I’ll see what happens and update this thread. Thanks again.

 

[Newchodge]

The property interest may revert to the former bankrupt owner,

Does 'former' relate to the bankruptcy or the ownership? Ie, is it bankrupt former owner or is it owner who was previously bankrupt?

 

[Shaun@M&H]

Does 'former' relate to the bankruptcy or the ownership? Ie, is it bankrupt former owner or is it owner who was previously bankrupt?

The bankrupt does not retain the property if the Trustee in Bankruptcy disclaimed their interest. To reiterate, it does not automatically revert to the bankrupt where the Trustee has made a disclaimer. There would need to be a transfer from the trustee to the bankrupt for the bankrupt to have an ongoing interest or a vesting order would need to be made. - S315 (General powers) & S317 (leaseholds)

The superior title will then hold the property save for any third party rights, such as the bank's right to repossess. The exception to this is the family home which does revert if the trustee does not deal with it within the statutory time limits (3 years). - S283A IA

If it was a registered title, as stated, and the trustee has disclaimed his interest then this would have been sent to the Land Registry. There should be an entry on the property register noting the trustees disclaimer and the Land Registry may not automatically remove your name as the proprietor. If there is nothing to show the trustee has disclaimed their interest on the property title and you are still showing as the proprietor then clearly that needs to be looked into.

The op has said it is not the family home so the property would not automatically revert to the bankrupt after 3 years.

The alternative is that the Trustee never dealt with the property and left it for the mortgage company to repossess the property, but this seems unlikely given that it is now 10 years later.

To give an accurate answer we would need to know a lot more, such as:

• Was the property leasehold or freehold?
• Was there a joint owner?
• Do you have a copy of the notice of disclaimer?
• Have you spoken to the trustee?
• Are you sure it has been empty all this time?

 

[Newchodge]

The bankrupt does not retain the property if the Trustee in Bankruptcy disclaimed their interest. To reiterate, it does not automatically revert to the bankrupt where the Trustee has made a disclaimer. There would need to be a transfer from the trustee to the bankrupt for the bankrupt to have an ongoing interest or a vesting order would need to be made. - S315 (General powers) & S317 (leaseholds)

The superior title will then hold the property save for any third party rights, such as the bank's right to repossess. The exception to this is the family home which does revert if the trustee does not deal with it within the statutory time limits (3 years). - S283A IA

If it was a registered title, as stated, and the trustee has disclaimed his interest then this would have been sent to the Land Registry. There should be an entry on the property register noting the trustees disclaimer and the Land Registry may not automatically remove your name as the proprietor. If there is nothing to show the trustee has disclaimed their interest on the property title and you are still showing as the proprietor then clearly that needs to be looked into.

The op has said it is not the family home so the property would not automatically revert to the bankrupt after 3 years.

The alternative is that the Trustee never dealt with the property and left it for the mortgage company to repossess the property, but this seems unlikely given that it is now 10 years later.

To give an accurate answer we would need to know a lot more, such as:

• Was the property leasehold or freehold?
• Was there a joint owner?
• Do you have a copy of the notice of disclaimer?
• Have you spoken to the trustee?
• Are you sure it has been empty all this time?

Thank you, although that does not answer my question.

 

[Shaun@M&H]

Thank you, although that does not answer my question.

Can you please clarify your question?

I cannot answer for what the poster you quoted stated or meant.

 

[Newchodge]

Can you please clarify your question?

I cannot answer for what the poster you quoted stated or meant.

My question is clear and was aimed at the poster who was quoted.

 

[Woodstain Wally]

The bankrupt does not retain the property if the Trustee in Bankruptcy disclaimed their interest. To reiterate, it does not automatically revert to the bankrupt where the Trustee has made a disclaimer. There would need to be a transfer from the trustee to the bankrupt for the bankrupt to have an ongoing interest or a vesting order would need to be made. - S315 (General powers) & S317 (leaseholds)

The superior title will then hold the property save for any third party rights, such as the bank's right to repossess. The exception to this is the family home which does revert if the trustee does not deal with it within the statutory time limits (3 years). - S283A IA

If it was a registered title, as stated, and the trustee has disclaimed his interest then this would have been sent to the Land Registry. There should be an entry on the property register noting the trustees disclaimer and the Land Registry may not automatically remove your name as the proprietor. If there is nothing to show the trustee has disclaimed their interest on the property title and you are still showing as the proprietor then clearly that needs to be looked into.

The op has said it is not the family home so the property would not automatically revert to the bankrupt after 3 years.

The alternative is that the Trustee never dealt with the property and left it for the mortgage company to repossess the property, but this seems unlikely given that it is now 10 years later.

To give an accurate answer we would need to know a lot more, such as:

• Was the property leasehold or freehold?
• Was there a joint owner?
• Do you have a copy of the notice of disclaimer?
• Have you spoken to the trustee?
• Are you sure it has been empty all this time?

Thanks:
- leasehold
- No
- Disclaimer is on the title entry
- Yes. To no avail. Their position is it’s nothing to do with them.
- Yes.

I’m currently waiting to see if local council accept a copy of bankruptcy order and their view of the title in the register as sufficient to retrospectively apply an exemption. Otherwise they will pursue a liability order against me, which in my mind is absurd.

And yes, it did sit empty all this time until I finally woke the mortgagee up to the fact that I was not going to make any further payments and they should exercise their power of sale. They have recently taken possession.

WW

 

[Shaun@M&H]

Thanks:
- leasehold
- No
- Disclaimer is on the title entry
- Yes. To no avail. Their position is it’s nothing to do with them.
- Yes.

I’m currently waiting to see if local council accept a copy of bankruptcy order and their view of the title in the register as sufficient to retrospectively apply an exemption. Otherwise they will pursue a liability order against me, which in my mind is absurd.

And yes, it did sit empty all this time until I finally woke the mortgagee up to the fact that I was not going to make any further payments and they should exercise their power of sale. They have recently taken possession.

WW

You are starting to get into the territory of needing legal advice. A letter from a solicitor to the council explaining the position would hopefully clear up the problem for you.

You say you told the mortgage company that you were not making any more payments, did you keep making payment upon your bankruptcy?

 

[Woodstain Wally]

My question is clear and was aimed at the poster who was quoted.

I am the registered owner (never occupier) who was made bankrupt and has been discharged. What I believe our colleague was referring to by ‘former bankrupt’, is me. The title could have reverted to me, in certain circumstances eg I had applied to the court. I didn’t, leaving it to the mortgagee to deal with and satisfy the loan. They ignored the bankruptcy notice, disclaimer notice and disregarded all my letters, as their view was mortgages survive bankruptcy. They were only partly right in that their rights survive. I had to get the Financial Ombudsman to adjudicate, which they did in my favour.

All very interesting but a digression. I’m wondering how to get the council to back off from applying for a liability order against me. I’ve explained the title situation and I’ve told them to go and ask legal. If they won’t accept it I may just roll over on the liability order, appeal and claim costs for what is a frivolous claim.

WW

 

[Woodstain Wally]

You are starting to get into the territory of needing legal advice. A letter from a solicitor to the council explaining the position would hopefully clear up the problem for you.

You say you told the mortgage company that you were not making any more payments, did you keep making payment upon your bankruptcy?

Agreed. I was trying to avoid having to over it all again at length just to then pay £100 (or whatever) for a letter from a solicitor. Without guarantee of success. I have sought legal advice on several occasions from insolvency law firms large and small, some were less up to speed than me. Some just left me hanging, presumably because they see no £ in helping me. Poor as I am.

Let’s see what the council come back with, as they may yet see sense.

Thanks all for your time reading and consideration. Appreciated.

WW

 

[Shaun@M&H]

Agreed. I was trying to avoid having to over it all again at length just to then pay £100 (or whatever) for a letter from a solicitor. Without guarantee of success. I have sought legal advice on several occasions from insolvency law firms large and small, some were less up to speed than me. Some just left me hanging, presumably because they see no £ in helping me. Poor as I am.

Let’s see what the council come back with, as they may yet see sense.

Thanks all for your time reading and consideration. Appreciated.

WW

If you have not already done so, put it all down in a letter to the Council. It will also have the added benefit of helping you should you decide to defend yourself at a court hearing.

 

[eteb3]

I don't think the council are being frivolous, though they may be wrong.

You could try pointing the council to s 315(3) IA 1986

disclaimer ... operates to determine the rights, interests and liabilities of the bankrupt and their estate, or of the company, in or in respect of the property disclaimed

Liability for tax where there is no resident falls on the owner (s 6 LGFA 1992)

Fpr the purposes of council tax, the owner of a hereditament or land is the person entitled to possession of it. (s 65)

As all your rights and interests in the property have been extinguished, you are not entitled to possession. End of.

If they need things explained, the reason for the title remaining open is that the property is mortgaged (Land Registry blog: cancellation of leases) As between you and the freeholder the lease is extinguished, but it continues in theoretical form because the mortgagee's rights were carved out of it, and as between the mortgagee and freeholder those rights subsist: Hindcastle v Barbara Attenborough Associates

 

[Woodstain Wally]

I don't think the council are being frivolous, though they may be wrong.

You could try pointing the council to s 315(3) IA 1986


Liability for tax where there is no resident falls on the owner (s 6 LGFA 1992)

Fpr the purposes of council tax, the owner of a hereditament or land is the person entitled to possession of it. (s 65)

As all your rights and interests in the property have been extinguished, you are not entitled to possession. End of.

If they need things explained, the reason for the title remaining open is that the property is mortgaged (Land Registry blog: cancellation of leases) As between you and the freeholder the lease is extinguished, but it continues in theoretical form because the mortgagee's rights were carved out of it, and as between the mortgagee and freeholder those rights subsist: Hindcastle v Barbara Attenborough Associates

Aha, the answer I was looking for! Many thanks for taking the time to set that out.

 

[Newchodge]

Aha, the answer I was looking for! Many thanks for taking the time to set that out.

If the mortgagee has only recently taken possession, was there a gap between th diclaimer and them taking possession?

 

[Gyumri]

The property has only just been taken up by the mortgagee (‘taken possession’), having been sat empty all this time. My local council are taking me to court for all the council tax since bankruptcy up to date mortgagee took possession.

Sorry to differ with the above posters but the council is right. The TIB never at any time took possession or control. You were never excluded. They never changed the locks etc. The mortgagee now has a possession order and is liable - but you are liable up until then. However, the council cannot go back beyond the last 6 years so they can now only make a claim for six years prior to the mortgagee taking possession.

 

[Newchodge]

Sorry to differ with the above posters but the council is right. The TIB never at any time took possession or control. You were never excluded. They never changed the locks etc. The mortgagee now has a possession order and is liable - but you are liable up until then. However, the council cannot go back beyond the last 6 years so they can now only make a claim for six years prior to the mortgagee taking possession.

I agree, except, wasn't the Trustee in possession for some of that time?

 

[eteb3]

Sorry to disagree with @Gyumri and @Newchodge

The test is residence, not possession; and where no one is in residence, the test is entitlement to possession ("ownership").

As from the date of disclaimer OP has not been resident, nor has a right to possession. OP is not liable.

Liability to tax​

6 Persons liable to pay council tax.​

(1) The person who is liable to pay council tax in respect of any chargeable dwelling and any day is the person who falls within the first paragraph of subsection (2) below to apply, taking paragraph (a) of that subsection first, paragraph (b) next, and so on.

(2) A person falls within this subsection in relation to any chargeable dwelling and any day if, on that day—

(a) he is a resident of the dwelling and has a freehold interest in the whole or any part of it;

(b) he is such a resident and has a leasehold interest in the whole or any part of the dwelling which is not inferior to another such interest held by another such resident;

(c) he is both such a resident and a statutory [F1, secure or introductory tenant]of the whole or any part of the dwelling;…

(d) he is such a resident and has a contractual licence to occupy the whole or any part of the dwelling;

(e) he is such a resident; or

(f) he is the owner of the dwelling.

 

[Newchodge]

Sorry to disagree with @Gyumri and @Newchodge

The test is residence, not possession; and where no one is in residence, the test is entitlement to possession ("ownership").

As from the date of disclaimer OP has not been resident, nor has a right to possession. OP is not liable.

Why did they have no right to possession after the disclaimer and before the repossession action?

 

[eteb3]

Why did they have no right to possession after the disclaimer and before the repossession action?

Because "disclaimer operates to determine [terminate] the rights, interests and liabilities of the bankrupt and their estate ... in or in respect of the property disclaimed" - s 315(3) IA 1986

It's scorched earth: nothing remains after the disclaimer, so there can be no right of possession (nor of anything else) - nor in law nor equity, nor in possession nor reversion, etc, etc.

 

[Gyumri]

Sorry to disagree with @Gyumri and @Newchodge

The test is residence, not possession; and where no one is in residence, the test is entitlement to possession ("ownership").

As from the date of disclaimer OP has not been resident, nor has a right to possession. OP is not liable.

Read the full hierarchy which applies where a property is empty: the OP was not resident but was legally in possession of the property. He could have occupied it. The liability defaults to him. The OP also seems to have continued to own his property, as the TIB disclaimed it.

 

[Gyumri]

I agree, except, wasn't the Trustee in possession for some of that time?

No. He would have needed an order for possession or had he taken possession or control of the property by changing the locks to exclude the OP then he or she as the TIB would have been liable for council tax.

 

[eteb3]

Read the full hierarchy which applies where a property is empty: the OP was not resident but was legally in possession of the property. He could have occupied it.

If the last item in the hierarchy specified the test for liability as "legally in possession", then it would be worth considering whether OP was, in fact, legally in possession. (I doubt it.)

But last item in the hierarchy, read with s. 65, specifies the test as "entitled to possession". And as I hope I've shown, OP was not entitled to possession.

The OP also seems to have continued to own his property, as the TIB disclaimed it.

I'm afraid you've misunderstood the effect of disclaimer - no ownership by OP was possible thereafter. See the links to s. 65, LR blog, and the Hindcastle judgement, of which the most useful section is this one and the ones that follow it:

Disclaimer: (1) where only a landlord and tenant are involved
The simplest case is of a landlord and an insolvent tenant. No third parties are involved. Disclaimer operates to determine all the tenant's obligations under the tenant's covenants, and all his rights under the landlord's covenants. In order to determine these rights and obligations it is necessary, in the nature of things, that the landlord's obligations and rights, which are the reverse side of the tenant's rights and obligations, must also be determined. If the tenant's liabilities to the landlord are to be extinguished, of necessity so also must be the landlord's rights against the tenant. The one cannot be achieved without the other.

Disclaimer also operates to determine the tenant's interest in the property, namely the lease. Determination of a leasehold estate has the effect of accelerating the reversion expectant upon the determination of that estate. The leasehold estate ceases to exist. I can see no reason to question that this is the effect of disclaimer when the only parties involved are the landlord and the tenant.

 

[Gyumri]

If the last item in the hierarchy specified the test for liability as "legally in possession", then it would be worth considering whether OP was, in fact, legally in possession. (I doubt it.)

But last item in the hierarchy, read with s. 65, specifies the test as "entitled to possession". And as I hope I've shown, OP was not entitled to possession.


I'm afraid you've misunderstood the effectorthagee of disclaimer - no ownership by OP was possible thereafter. See the links to s. 65, LR blog, and the Hindcastle judgement, of which the most useful section is this one and the ones that follow it:

eteb3: is correct except the op was entitled to retain possession and did retain posession until the mortgagee stepped in with a posession order. So he would have been liable for council tax even though the property was left empty.

What is your view?

 

[eteb3]

op was entitled to retain possession and did retain posession until the [COLOR=revert-layer] mortgagee[/COLOR] stepped in with a posession order.

What is your view?

My view is unchanged

The effect of bankruptcy is that it vests the whole of the bankrupt's estate in the trustee-in-bankruptcy. Excepted are items strictly for their personal or business necessities, and a variety of residential leases where those are for the bankrupt's own occupation. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/45/part/IX/chapter/II

OP says this was rental property and that he never occupied it - so it is not excepted. Therefore the bankruptcy order vested his entire interest in the property in the trustee - OP had no right in the property whatsoever, so he couldn't have been entitled to possession.

The trustee was entitled to possession, and therefore liable to the tax. But the trustee disclaimed the lease, with the effect that the lease ceased to exist, and naturally their entitlement to possession was extinguished with it.

Thereafter the person entitled to possession will have been the holder of the superior title. I don't think we can say on this info whether that was the freeholder or the mortgagee - but happily that doesn't affect the OP.

 

[Gyumri]

The TIB will only be in possession if the keys of the property were handed over as an empty property. A TIB does not have any automatic right to possession unless established by a court order for possession. If the OP retained the keys to the property then he continued to be in possession and would presumably be responsible for council tax even if he or she chose not to take up physical occupation.

 

[eteb3]

The TIB will only be in possession if the keys of the property were handed over as an empty property. If the OP retained the keys to the property then he continued to be in possession and would presumably be responsible for council tax even if he or she chose not to take up physical occupation.

In my respectful submission you are continuing, wrongly, to equate in fact being in possession with being entitled to possession. (On these facts I think it's questionable whether OP had possession in fact, but that's another enquiry.)

Take an example: once a court orders repossession of my home for non-payment of the mortgage, I cease to be entitled to remain in possession. I remain factually in possession for as long as I ignore the court order, but my entitlement to be in possession has ended. That's why bailiffs can remove me by force. Even if I refuse to surrender the keys, and throw them in the river so I can never do so.

A TIB does not have any automatic right to possession unless established by a court order for possession.

I don't see how you get this from the statute

 

[Gyumri]

In my respectful submission you are continuing, wrongly, to equate in fact being in possession with being entitled to possession. (On these facts I think it's questionable whether OP had possession in fact, but that's another enquiry.)

Take an example: once a court orders repossession of my home for non-payment of the mortgage, I cease to be entitled to remain in possession. I remain factually in possession for as long as I ignore the court order, but my entitlement to be in possession has ended. That's why bailiffs can remove me by force. Even if I refuse to surrender the keys, and throw them in the river so I can never do so.


I don't see how you get this from the statute

Take an example: once a court orders repossession of my home for non-payment of the [COLOR=revert-layer] mortgage[/COLOR], I cease to be entitled to remain in possession.

You are right. But in this case the TIB never obtained a court order and so never obtained possession - the TIB in fact disclaimed the peoperty. Until the mortgagee obtained possession the OP was in possession. So did he have a liability to pay council tax during that period? That is the question!

 

[eteb3]

You are right. But in this case the TIB never obtained a court order and so never obtained possession - the TIB in fact disclaimed the peoperty. Until the mortgagee obtained possession the OP was in possession. So did he have a liability to pay council tax during that period? That is the question!

I don’t think we’re understanding each other. Not to worry.

 

[Newchodge]

I don’t think we’re understanding each other. Not to worry.

If you are right and the OP lost the right to possession when they were declared bankrupt, why doesn't the council understand this?

 

[eteb3]

why doesn't the council understand this?

I would guess that, as this thread has shown, it's not straightforward to unpick the liability to tax. They probably think that because OP still appears on the title register he has superior title, therefore entitlement to possession, therefore liability.

That's fair enough on the face of it given that 1) the title register does not reflect the vesting of the property in the TIB in the first place, their interest instead appearing as a charge; 2) in the case of a disclaimed mortgaged leasehold, the title remains open in spite of the estate ceasing to exist. That's because, as explained above, the mortgagee's subsisting interest is parasitic on the now-vanished lease.

 

[Newchodge]

I would guess that, as this thread has shown, it's not straightforward to unpick the liability to tax. They probably think that because OP still appears on the title register he has superior title, therefore entitlement to possession, therefore liability.

That's fair enough on the face of it given that 1) the title register does not reflect the vesting of the property in the TIB in the first place, their interest instead appearing as a charge; 2) in the case of a disclaimed mortgaged leasehold, the title remains open in spite of the hereditament ceasing to exist. That's because, as explained above, the mortgagee's subsisting interest is parasitic on the now-vanished lease.

but the basic scenario of a property possessor becoming bankrupt and thereby ceasing to be the possessor must be quite common. You would think they would have dealt with this numerous times.

 

[eteb3]

the basic scenario of a property possessor becoming bankrupt and thereby ceasing to be the possessor must be quite common

I'm sure you're right. I would guess usually the bankrupt *does* remain liable, since they are usually in occupation, and that is the general test - you only go to entitlement to possession as the last resort. And away from liability to tax, leasehold property occupied as the bankrupt's home is treated differently in the bankruptcy, too. A bankrupt owning leasehold investment property is probably less common.

I admire your faith in the council's ability to always get things right, though. I can only say that things must be better in the north east!

 

[Gyumri]

If you are right and the OP lost the right to possession when they were declared bankrupt, why doesn't the council understand this?

A TIB has no right to possession of a property until that right is established by an order for possession. If the OP didn't give possession of the property to the TIB then he remained in possession of the property. The rules quoted above will then show the pecking order for council tax purposes.

 

[eteb3]

A TIB has no right to possession of a property until that right is established by an order for possession.

How not, when TIB has the whole of the beneficial interest in the property?

If the property is occupied, then the person entitled to possession may not enforce that possession except by proceedings in court. Is that what you have in mind?

Protection from Eviction Act 1977

An Act to consolidate section 16 of the Rent Act 1957 and Part III of the Rent Act 1965, and related enactments.

www.legislation.gov.uk

A close reading of the provision (s3) shows that the one seeking possession is already entitled to the possession. It’s just the enforcement that is barred. His prior entitlement to possession is why an order for eviction will be granted ; the order does not create the entitlement following his application to court

And once more: liability to tax follows entitlement to possession, in a case (as here) where no one is in occupation.

For OP to be liable in priority to TIB, he would have to have been resident in the property , and he says he never was.

 

[Gyumri]

How not, when TIB has the whole of the beneficial interest in the property?

If the property is occupied, then the person entitled to possession may not enforce that possession except by proceedings in court. Is that what you have in mind?

Protection from Eviction Act 1977

An Act to consolidate section 16 of the Rent Act 1957 and Part III of the Rent Act 1965, and related enactments.

www.legislation.gov.uk

A close reading of the provision (s3) shows that the one seeking possession is already entitled to the possession. It’s just the enforcement that is barred. His prior entitlement to possession is why an order for eviction will be granted ; the order does not create the entitlement following his application to court

And once more: liability to tax follows entitlement to possession, in a case (as here) where no one is in occupation.

For OP to be liable in priority to TIB, he would have to have been resident in the property , and he says he never was.

How not, when TIB has the whole of the beneficial interest in the property?

The TIB may be the beneficial owner and would be entitled to claim posession but it is the OP who is in fact and in law in possession of the property unless he gave possession to the TIB by giving him the keys to the property.