Regarding the insurance, the management company for the block were helpful and sent me full details, so IF I ever get a completion date I ca get it checked out by a broker. My general advice would be avoid letting the estate agents refer you to a ‘solicitor’ at all costs. If you can find a real live one with an office near you, do it. Some of them seem to give ‘teams’ which was basically two people in my case as far as I could see, neither fully qualified, over one hundred cases. Ever likely they did not remember from one email to the next (which might be almost two months later) that I had told them they had not sent me the form they once again told me to read and check. They then turned round and said they didn’t even know if they had ever had it themselves. They could not find it to send me one and the solicitor for the vendors said he had sent it, but they had to ask for another one, this about three months after he would have sent it the first time. Then they criticise him for being slow, The worst scares about the buildings insurance not covering stuff like toilets and sinks as suggested by the conveyancer/trainee solicitor covering my case turned out not to be realised, still not sure about decorations and non load bearing walls. The solicitor in charge of the team said they wouldn’t be covered because I could take them with me. Odd idea I thought. But life is odd

I cannot find any statement of what they will do only pages and pages of terms and conditions. They are telling me 7 months is the new normal time to get moved because of COVID. I am buying an empty flat from executors and according to the estate agent selling to a cash buyer. I don’t know who to believe any more as my conveyancing firm cited problems with the solicitor of the lender of my buyer as if he were not a cash buyer. Seven months seems a long time even if as the estate agent said some of the forms are very long. They all blame each other. Since the estate agent put me onto this via something called ‘Move With Us’ I got grim satisfaction from the fact that the estate agent could not get through to them on the phone either. She threw a wobbly and got through to an office manager who blamed my vendors solicitor but when speaking to me she blamed the solicitor of the purchaser’s lender which contradicts the estate agents assertion that it is a cash buyer.

Well the handler has now left the firm. Second one. No new person named. I am so upset.

It is Arch insurance not AXA, sorry

Thank you I will try getting back to them it was LV whatever it is. However, I now have a little bit more information. I’ve received something called an LPE form. I note with some annoyance that the trainee solicitor will also have had a copy of this. It claims that enclosed with it are two sets of insurance schedules and policies. One relates to buildings and one to managed areas. But I have received neither from the conveyancers who sent me the form. (And I didn’t get the articles of association also said to be enclosed with it until I specifically requested them sometime later.) it didn’t help that this was one of the documents they sent to me upside down. When I bemoaned this they told me to print them off as this would make it easier to read them. I just can’t believe this attitude to customers and at this point I did, as a now vanished comment on this thread suggested, if I read it right, reach out to the supervisor of the trainee solicitor. A large bundle of printed-off documents arrived quite quickly! I’m sorry but this thread seems to be as much about my dissatisfaction with the conveyancing I have received, over the roughly 4 months it is taking them to buy me a flat, as it is about insurance, though obviously I am concerned to be correctly insured. The LPE had been completed by the management agents. (They accidentally put the wrong firm down as landlord, which took me some time to get sorted out in my mind. I thought it might be a mistake but lacked the confidence to say so, and it was and at the end of the day they said so and apologised. It’s one thing after another after another…… but I digress.) So I contacted the managing agents and they have promised to send me the missing policy documents, and an up-to-date one at that because it’s gone on for so long that the one they sent is now out of date! But they did send me a definition of buildings from the AXA policy. They said it covered all the items in my list, but I’m not quite sure which items from my email to them they regarded as my list, and I’m a bit nervous of approaching them again and being a nuisance to not to mention delaying things still further. I’ll dig it out and quote it. Grateful for peoples opinions on whether it covers nonload bearing walls, and the other items in the trainee solicitors original list of examples. apologies for typos etc.

Uncle Bulgaria I did try contacting my contents provider, but even after keeping me hanging on they got no further than saying they were not allowed to provide buildings cover if I already had it even when I said I had been warned that my buildings cover might not include the items on the list I started the thread of my quoting. It would have helped if the insurance policy documents had been enclosed with the LPE but if they were they were not passed on to me and I think my conveyancers are saying they never had them. It makes it difficult to try to get insurance to cover these gaps when you don't know what you are covered for1 thanks

Ethel Well the lawyer got back to me when I asked about the non load bearing walls bit, and says that non load bearing walls are NEVER covered by insurance. It seems that after writing the report I quoted from they did some research. Yes, I know, it does seem base over apex to me too!. I have read this a few times now and still find it a bit opaque. Non-load bearing walls aren’t usually covered by any insurance. This is due to the fact that the only time that you would likely need to rectify damage to these is if the whole building was damaged, in which case the management company would sort this, or if, during your enjoyment of the property, you caused damage to these walls that you would then need to rectify. Insurance of the non-load bearing walls is something that, in our experience, clients have never needed to obtain or rely on. Insurance companies also aren’t likely to provide separate cover for just the internal non-load bearing walls given the reasons above but, if this is something you are wanting to cover, you may need to contact various insurance companies or contact an insurance broker so they can advise you more clearly on how this can be added to your insurance premium. They have forgotten they are the ones who told me it was necessary that I consult an insurance broker as in the quotation I started off with. And they gave the example. SO their initial advice just left me thinking what else might be regarded as and I quote it 'part of my flat' and therefore not insured. So even if I have no legal obligation to take out this additional insurance, my worry is that if I don't I' could in theory end up with no internal plaster, internal doors or non load bearing walls. which might not be nice.

Ethel Yes the lease. That has problems as in places it has the wrong flat number. The preamble states that 'property' in the document will mean one thing and then plainly uses it in other senses. Its author and correct use of commas seem not to have been acquainted. It sets up the management company who when all the leases were sold would take over the freehold and now holds it and I get two shares in this. But there is a management agent who sorts things. lease extract - Copy.pdf

Stu007 I don't know what the firm should and should not be asking which is part of my problem. They sent me an LPE1 form which said various insurance related things, including policies AND schedules were enclosed without sending me either policies or schedules. The same LPE stated it had enclosed the Management Companies articles of association and was attached to an email from said trainee stating that I could find out all I needed about the company from 'Companies Houses sight' (SIC). No articles of association came for some time to me, and then only when I asked for them point black. It wasn't helped b the fact that the LPE and other documents were sent electronically upside down. I asked them not to do this and by return of email they did it again!

Hello I am trying to buy a leasehold flat. The lease specifies that the management company should arrange buildings insurance. The trainee solicitor dealing with my purchase has made the following statement. “In any event it is Essential that you should consider insurance generally with your broker. (I don’t have a broker) It may be necessary to carry additional insurance cover not merely for contents but also (for example) items which may be regarded as part of your flat such as interior non load bearing walls, internal doors, internal plasterwork and all decorations.” So they’re insuring the building except the bits of it that I am buying? But I am buying some exterior load-bearing walls! So that it doesn’t make sense to me. Also this word may maybe be regarded. By whom? Am I to believe that a broker will know what the insurance cover the landlord/management company has and be able to advise me on what bits I need to top up the cover, because that is the message I am getting from the trainee solicitor if I understand correctly which I might not. I have had a Leasehold property enquiry form which claimed insurance policies on schedules with it, but only had a schedule of the buildings and nothing at all for the communal areas, corridors stairs et cetera. So how can I approach the broker when I don’t even know what the insurances? How can Broker quote me for cover for things that might not be covered because somebody thinks they are part of my flat? is there some secret knowledge that they have? Again that is the impression I’m getting from the trainee solicitor dealing with my case. Can you help on this welcome I am tearing my hair out. Thank you

The thing is here that they don't bother collecting evidence of fraud as this is most often dealt with via the civil tribunals and the problem with this is that you have to be the one who appeals which means you have to prove yourself innocent. But they do have to be able to produce evidence. It would help if people enquiring about this posted a copy of the letter, as many of these in themselves give reasonable cause for complaint. But people don't post them so one cannot tell.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/39.html This sets out the criteria for deciding the sole or main residence of an adult. The idea that an adult may have more than one residence is embedded in council tax law. The general rule as stated in this case is All this reinforces the conclusion (which is one that we would have reached without reference to the dictionary) that in section 6(5) of the Act "sole or main residence" refers to premises in which the taxpayer actually resides. The qualification "sole or main" addresses the fact that a person may reside in more than one place. We think that it is probably impossible to produce a definition of "main residence" that will provide the appropriate test in all circumstances. Usually, however, a person's main residence will be the dwelling that a reasonable onlooker, with knowledge of the material facts, would regard as that person's home at the material time. That test may not always be an easy one to apply, but we have no doubt as to the conclusion to which it leads in the present case.

The reason you have this letter is in all probability because they think you might be living with another person and they expect you to be able to prove that you cannot. Many people resent this. If your letter tells you that their records show you are receiving a discount 'because you live alone' then either their records are wrong or they cannot interpret them properly, as by law ALL 25% discounted bills must be issued on the assumption that the same rate will apply on every day of the coming year. The rate applies when only one adult who 'counts' ie who is not disregarded has his or her sole or main residence in the house. For the case law on what evidence is required to determine sole or main residence see Williams v Horsham District Council, a case you can find using google. Put simply, it is very likely that they regard you as a fraud suspect, so expect them to be unpleasant if you state that you live alone when they suspect that you don't. However, if they do issue an adjusted demand notice then you can appeal to a valuation tribunal. They usually, and deliberately in my view, fail to tell you this when they threaten to 'cancel' your discount.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]48004[/ATTACH][ATTACH]48004[/ATTACH] This legal briefing and the alarming position of the NFI on the ways in which it can use data mining to get people investigated for fraud even though there is nothing suspicious in their position may be useful to forum users. It was produced by the Legal Department of the Audit Commission. It came to light via an F of I request. My understanding is that the Commission wrote to the complainant in different terms, and avoided using the words 'could more accurately reflect' and 'inaccuracies'. One wonders why this might be. Any ideas? It refers to complaints about an annual report published by the Audit Commission. The Commission promised to publish more comprehensive explanations of this exercise in future, a promise which it has signally failed, in my honest and informed opinion, to keep. The other main sources of information are the valuation tribunal guide to council tax law, and some of their cases relate to people whose discounts have been improperly cancelled following Capita/NFI type 'reviews'; and also the case law on sole or main reference as here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/39.html This makes it clear that a council using the electoral register to decide where anybody lives would be flouting the decisions of the courts, known as 'case law'. In addition councils telling people they are receiving a 25% discount because they live alone (ie not with any disregarded adults) are providing inaccurate information, which is maladministration as outlined on the web site of the Local Government Ombudsman. So this is cause for complaint. The pdf I attach here was posted on line by the Audit Commission some time ago. I imagine that this complainant was quite pleased to find that the Audit Commission upheld her complaint. The addressees appear to be closely involved with the National Fraud Initiative which published the document about which the complaint was made. One can only wonder what internal discussions and panic might have followed from the realization that they had made a boo boo! The pdf is already in the public domain (put there by the Audit Commission) though not easy to find unless you know where to look. It is an important document which you should be considering sending to your council and to your MP next time you get a discount review letter such as those used by Crapita and the other firms making money out of this business, though at the heart of it are the credit reference firms who use automated processing to produce estimates of how many people are 'living' at your address. My understanding is that following this, the complainant found that in order to get information from the Audit Commission it was necessary to go all the way to an F of I tribunal. You can trace this via F of I Tribunal and Information Commission web sites. One has to wonder why the Audit Commission got so oddly cautious about responding to F of I requests, and whether this was because it did not want to drop itself into any more mess, but it is worth noting that unless one had been made this admission would never have come to light! May I say finally that I object to anybody not paying the tax they should be paying, but that I also support the rule of law, including council tax law, and that I believe that councils should a) act in accordance with the requirements of the law and b) refrain from providing taxpayers with false and misleading information about that law.

The point is that has come to be a common practice that it is only when people have been identified as a 'risk' or even a 'high risk' are review letters sent out. On that basis the fact that you have been sent a review letter suggests that you have been identified by data mining/statistically based inference to be a risk of not being entitled. Did your letter threaten to cancel if you didn't reply to it? The implications of this are clear enough. I am not saying this is definitely the case in respect of your council, though I think that it is. http://www.capita-softwareandmanagedservices.co.uk/partnerships/Documents/Brochure_SPD_April%202013_FINAL.pdf This document is thoroughly misleading. There is no requirement to carry out an SPD verification check. In fact an SPD as this document represents it has no existence in law. My understanding is that it was invented by Experian Ltd of Nottingham, in around 2006, and that this was done largely so that Experian could make money out of the full electoral register, having never recovered from or accepted the findings of the Robertson decision limiting the ways it could make money out of this document. So they came up with this, and here I use a term subjectively, [problem] to make money out of it. They use it to check whether a discount which does not exist as they describe it actually applies. The contracts usually have disclaimers in so that if the sh** hits the fan the council takes all the liabillity. Until somebody is able to get a judicial review, it seems that it is hard to put a stop to it, except by sticking to your rights and insisting on civil tribunals, the only pathway available. What is appalling about this is that Capita claim to be able to 'identify fraud'. A private business apparrently takes it upon itself to decide whether people are guilty of a serious crime of dishonesty, and without any right to an appeal or a trial, and presumably they do this in secret so that you do not even know. And councils go 'Yeah, right, that's a good idea'. Let's create a society like that. Returning to your question about sharing information, my information is that such information can be shared via various anti fraud networks. They call in 'intelligence'. If this were the NFI they would be telling your boss that you had been on a hit list before any investigation had been carried out, merely on the basis of the data mining output. And the irony is that it is PERFECTLY LEGAL TO RECEIVE A SINGLE PERSON DISCOUNT IF MORE THAN ONE ADULT IS RESIDENT. Heaven only knows what Capita's criteria for deciding that you are committing fraud. Let's hope they don't privatise the police because this is what we have to look forward to. In effect they have privatised crime investigation and prevention and it is a nightmare with hundreds of years of progress towards justice, and the right to a fair trial being undermined. You can see why councils fall for this sort of marketing material, though if the back office boys knew their council tax law properly alarm bells would be ringing. When Capita (or more specifically Equifax the credit reference company whose data banks of personal data are used) believe that there might be more than one resident they send out review letters, also known as investigation letters. One is required to eliminate oneself from the investigation by 'explaining' whatever evidence they have against you. If you return the form confirming that you literally live alone, they take this as very suspicious, and, indeed, complaining is also taken to be 'unreasonable' and also potential evidence of fraud as only the guilty have anything to fear when data is shared or these investigations take place. Here is a typical Capita account of the exercise. They use Equifax but my understanding is that Experian invented this sort of 'product' and was the first that started mis selling it to councils. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/30742/response/84490/attach/3/SPD%20Review%204.5.10.JPG.jpg If the record show that they are receiving a discount 'as they live alone' the records should be amended to accurately reflect the basis on which they should, in accordance with council tax discount law, be receiving their discount. This is explained in various legal briefings prepared by the Audit Commission, which have been in the public domain for some time. It is not even a civil penalty, leave alone an offence not to declare a person who lives in their household, so you can see that Capita are probably assuming that people are frauds in cases where there is no actus reus and no mens rea. T Gaffney of Capita should check his facts! My gripe with these is that misrepresentation of your legal position is at their heart. The law requires all 25% discounted notices to be issued on the assumption that the same rate of discount will apply on every day of the coming year. Nobody is receiving the discount on the basis that they live alone. Entitlement only ceases when another adult who is not disregarded has their sole or main residence at the address. Your records should not show that you are receiving a discount 'because you live alone' and there is no requirement for councils to keep a register of residents at houses where they have issued the bill on the assumption that a 25% discount will apply on every day of the coming year. It is the personal data merchants who made all this up, doing so presumably because they make money out of it. My gripe about all this is that councils should comply with the law and not flout or misrepresent it and that their agents ought to follow suit.

Second attempt

Data given to the aptly named Crapita can be shared widely a) for the assessment and collection of any tax or b) for the prevention and detection of crime - or even to assist in the prevention and detection of crime, which includes statistically based exercises in which pools of suspects for investigation are drawn up using statistical methods of various sorts (if you believe the Audit Commission). Councils are not supposed to collect information which is excessive for the purpose so I don't suuppose the phone number is excessive. It has to be made clear that there is no obligation at all on the taxpayer to 'update their eligibility' ie to tell the council of any changes in circumstances or if the basis for their eligibility changes during the tax year. I mention this because so many councils falsely tell people that they can issue civil penalties when this is not true in respect of discounts. The only exception might be in respect of a person who is jointly and severally liable, ie usually a joint tenant or live in partner. Discount reviews are fraud investigations masquerading as 'reviews'. Capita standard letters are everywhere on the internet and are moral and grammatical and legal gibberish. So are the accounts of these on council web sites eg http://revsandbens.centralsussex.gov.uk/council_tax/358.htm This alleges that the review is an investigation into discrepancies. It is perfectly legal to receive a 'single person discount' when more than one resident is resident. The use of the term 'discrepancy' is at best sloppy and at worst reflects underlying maladministration and injustice Hope you find this helpful. I attach a briefing on council tax law prepared by the Audit Commission legal department, in response to complaints about the same sort of nonsense in an annual report it produced some years ago. You can see they say their report could more accurately reflect the law and was less than ideal (an understatement I suppose!). However similar and even more prejudicial information continues to be published by the Commission despite promises to publish 'more comprehensive' accounts of the matter in the future. I have come to believe that when they say 'more comprehensive' they mean 'less economical with the truth'. Interesting to discuss. Well I have tried to attach it but it may not work. All the best

They might be using lie detection software on the basis that it can take whatever steps it thinks are reasonable, or to try to get evidence that you are a thief.

data processed for the assessment and collection of tax or for the prevention and detection of crime isn't covered by the DP Act. In other words they can release it. Some of these systems don't actually disclose personal data, but only the results of processing it, as if this made a legal difference because no third party data has been disclosed. They usually use the full electoral register and information derived from it, which means that it has to be for a statutory purpose related to fraud and crime prevention. So they argue that they are in fact acting to prevent fraud.

This is an excellent post but it doesn't fully reflect the mess here. For they are usually reviewing a discount which does not exist in the form stated in all the PR materials.

I may be able to help here. Capita provide various services to local councils relating to discounts and benefits, and by all accounts they make an appalling job of it. If they are acting as the 'agent' for the council then they can do lots of stuff and collect lots of data. These 'discount reviews' were started as far as one can tell by the credit reference firm Experian Ltd of Nottingham and they have maladministration and misinformation built into them from the outset. The thing to check is whether Bromley provide reasonable information about the basis on which you are receiving your discount. You should be aware that in law you are NOT claiming to live alone, and nor should the council have issued your bill on the assumption that you were living alone. Your legal position is that you are receiving a discount of the appropriate percentage (currently set at 25%) on the assumption that the same rate applies on every day of the tax year covered by the demand notice (ie the bill). This rate applies on any day when only one adult who counts (ie is not disregarded because a student, apprentice etc) has his or her sole or main residence at the address in question. Bromley like many other councils provides misleading information on its web site. It lists the categories of people who do not count as different discounts each with its own application form. This implies that there is a 'single person discount' distinct from these disregard discounts, which is not how the law works. Please post a copy of the 'review' form you have been sent so that we can comment on whether the information on it correctly reflects the legal position. Far too many councils send out forms which do not, and this is something that needs tackling sooner rather than later.

Maybe the problem is arrears from the address shared with the former partner, for which the poster would be jointly and severally liable? If the poster was on a low income, her mother may have been entitled to a rebate/reduction on this basis?? Or have these been abolished now? Lost track as never knew about 'benefits' as opposed to council tax. Agree about benefits. Also possibly a 25% reduction for being only adult in sole or main residence.

Users of this forum who have posted having had problems over the unfortunately nicknamed single person discount may find evidence to the Parliamentary ad hoc sub committee dealing with the draft local audit bill interesting. It seems that several posters have been provided with misleading information by their councils, and that some councils fail to provide with the annual demand notice information actually required by law, or replace this with misleading or inaccurate information. However, this evidence does seem to sum to topic up quite well. It is copyright of Parliament it should be noted. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmdraftlocaudit/writev/m01.htm

THey can only issue an administrative penalty if you failed to tell them with a certain time of realising that there was an issue. I think it is 21 days. Check the Act.