A council tax order for a flat the tenant had already left
- Area:
- Enforcement and bailiffs
- Decision body:
- The London Borough of Havering, after an application to the magistrates' court
- Decided:
- September 2026
On this page
The issue
Years after a tenant moved out of a rented flat, enforcement agents acting for the London Borough of Havering (the council) contacted him about council tax for it. The council held a liability order for a period after his tenancy had ended, because nobody had told it he had gone.
How it unfolded
- August 2017. The tenant began renting a flat in the borough. He did not tell the council he had moved in.
- February 2018. He moved out. The tenancy ran on to July 2018, the last date he was charged rent. Neither he nor the landlord told the council.
- June 2019. The council obtained a liability order from the magistrates' court for £774.14 of council tax on the flat, covering a period after his tenancy had ended. Without a date for his leaving, it held him liable until new tenants arrived that September.
- October 2019 to March 2020. The council's enforcement service, and then the council itself, emailed him about the account. The last of those emails, in March 2020, said a balance was overdue.
- March 2023. The council traced a new address for him and, as it later told him, wrote to him there about the debt. It said the letter was not returned.
- July 2026. Rundle & Co Ltd (Rundles), the council's enforcement agents, emailed him an unpaid debt notice and later said one of their agents had attended a property.
- August 2026. He wrote to Rundles that he did not know what the debt was and had no connection with the London Borough of Havering that he was aware of. That was wrong: the flat had been in the borough. Rundles answered that his case had "reached the final stage" and offered a payment plan. Its statement of account then set out the debt: the order's £774.14, with £310 of its own fees added in 2026, £1,084.14 in all.
- August 2026. He applied to the magistrates' court to set the order aside, and served a notice on the council the same day disputing that he was liable for the period it covered.
- September 2026. The court asked for his current address, then listed the application for a hearing and sent the papers to the council.
What was provided
- An application to the magistrates' court to set the liability order aside, with a signed witness statement.
- The tenancy agreement and the rent statement, to show when the tenancy began and the last date he was charged rent.
- The final heating bill for the flat and the deposit scheme's emails about the return of the deposit, to show the tenancy was over before the period the order covered.
- The enforcement agents' emails, which named no amount and no period.
- A written notice to the council, sent the same day, disputing that he was liable for that period.
- The argument: the order charged him for a time when he was no longer the tenant.
How would you have decided?
Vote to see how other readers answered and what the decision body said.
Partly won
The outcome
Before the hearing, in September 2026, the council looked at the evidence and wrote to him. It closed his account from the date the tenancy ended and said the liability order "has been withdrawn as you were not liable for the period it related to". It recalled the case from Rundles, whose fees went with the order, and said the hearing would be cancelled.
This was the council's own decision. No court or independent body ruled on it.
The same letter said he still owed council tax for the earlier period, when he did live in the flat, because he had made no payments while he lived there. It added that its letters had gone to the flat as his last known address. That part is not settled.
What it means if you are in the same position
- Tell the council when you move in, and again the day you move out. He did neither, and the council said that neither he nor the landlord had told it he had gone, so it went on charging him until new tenants appeared.
- Keep whatever proves when a tenancy ended. The deposit scheme's emails and a final utility bill did that job here.
- Check your own history before you deny a debt. He first told the enforcement agents he had no connection with the council; his own papers showed he had.
- The council that asked for an order can withdraw it. The evidence went to the court and to the council on the same day, and the council acted first.
- A withdrawal covers the order it names. It does not clear other periods on the same account.
Where it went next
The route was the enforcement agents first, then the magistrates' court and the council together, then the council's own withdrawal. No court decided the application, because the order it challenged was gone. The council's claim for the earlier period is still open between him and the council.
Updates
- October 2026. Checked against the papers and emails in the matter. The story now gives the order's sum, £774.14, and the £310 of fees Rundles added, which went with the order, and says that he never told the council he had moved in. Nothing in the earlier text was found wrong.
- 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.