Council tax in the director's name for a property his company rented
- Area:
- Enforcement and bailiffs
- Decision body:
- Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council
- Decided:
- September 2026
On this page
The issue
A property rented by a company, and run as short-stay accommodation, had its council tax account with Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (the council) in the name of the company's director. The account had gone to the council's enforcement agents, Jacobs Enforcement (Jacobs), against him personally.
How it unfolded
- June 2023. The council registered the director personally as the council tax payer for the property from that month to December 2024, on information the letting agent gave it for the landlord.
- March 2026. Jacobs emailed that its agent had attended and asked him to pay £3,070.39. The next day he asked the council to review who was liable: the company held the tenancy, so the bill was the company's. He also asked whether a property let this way should pay business rates instead.
- April 2026. The council put the account on hold at Jacobs while it looked at it, and asked for a full copy of the tenancy agreement signed by all parties.
- May 2026. The council answered his March request: as the tenancy agreement did not state that the tenant was a limited company, he was personally liable. Whether the property should pay business rates was for him to ask the Valuation Office Agency; the council would not ask it.
- May 2026. He sent the tenancy agreement, which named the company as the tenant.
- July 2026. The council still said no, for now. The agreement left "Limited" out of the company's name, so the agreement alone did not show that a company held the tenancy. It asked within 14 days for evidence that the company had paid the rent and the deposit, and said payment could not be held back while the question was decided.
- July 2026. He replied with the company's bank statements.
What was provided
- A request to the council to review who was liable, on the ground that the company held the tenancy.
- The tenancy agreement, which named the company as the tenant.
- After the council asked for more, the company's evidence that it had paid the rent and the deposit.
- The argument: the bill belonged to the tenant, and the tenant was the company.
How would you have decided?
Vote to see how other readers answered and what the decision body said.
Won
The outcome
In September 2026 the council wrote that it had amended the liability from the director to the company, and added: "The recovery action has also been withdrawn." The bill was reissued to the company.
This was the council's own decision. No court or independent body ruled on it.
The council would not put the account on hold while anything else was argued. Payment from the company was due in September, and the company had not paid it by October.
What it means if you are in the same position
- Being right about who is liable does not make the tax go away. It moved to the right payer.
- The name on a tenancy agreement matters down to the last word. One missing word cost months.
- When a council doubts a document, it asks who paid. The council asked for bank statements, the deposit payment, and the deposit protection papers.
- Ask for the personal side to be closed in writing: the demands, any order, and the enforcement file. He asked for those three confirmations, and the papers do not yet hold the council's answer.
Where it went next
The question of who pays is settled. A separate question is whether a property used this way should be charged council tax at all, or business rates instead. The company told the council it would take that to the Valuation Office Agency. It has not been decided. A related matter about the same property is before a court, and nothing about it is told here.
Updates
- October 2026. Checked against the papers and emails in the matter. The story had said the company still pays the reissued bill; it had not paid it by October. The story now also gives the council's first answer, in May, that he was personally liable, the £3,070.39 Jacobs had asked him to pay, and the end of the period, December 2024.
- October 2026. Reworded so that the matter is told by the person's role, with nothing to say whose it was. No fact changed.
Comments
Comments are read before they appear.
This story is one matter, told from its papers. It is general information, not guidance on your situation, and one outcome says nothing about another. Docketory is not a firm of solicitors.
This story may change. It is told from the papers as they stood when it was written. If new evidence comes to light, or a court, an ombudsman or a regulator decides something new about the matter, the story is updated, or the part now before a court is taken out, and the change is noted at the end of the story with the month it was made. The poll's question and answers never change, so a vote cast before an update stands as it was cast.