Access to electric, gas, and water what is required?

[EFLImpudence]

Exactly

An indesputable example:

Do you want one, two or three sugars?

 

[ajohn]

Do you want one, two or three sugars?

I don't take sugar.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

OK. How about: Must be a UK Citizen, male or female.

 

[JohnW2]

OK. How about: Must be a UK Citizen, male or female.

I suppose that there has to be 'an exception'

In this case, I imagine that the issue is the imprecise use of punctuation. As has been said, I think that, in general, "A, B, C or D" is taken to be a 'list' which means "A or B or C or D". Your example clearly is not a ('comma-separated') 'list' in that sense, but really means "UK Citizen (male or female)" or, in more precise logic terms, "UK Citizen AND (male or female)" - and therefore should not really be written as you suggest.

I would say that it's really analagous to the maths equivalent. If we did not have conventional rules of 'operator precedence' to fall back on in jusch ('imprecise') situations, then "2 x 3 + 4" would be ambiguous. With the word situation, it seems that the 'conventional rule' is to regarded it as a list, with ORs between each item - so that (as with the maths example) if one intends a meaning which differs from what happens by application of the 'rule', then one has to use parentheses to clarify the intended meaning.

I haven't so far managed to find the chapter and verse about Council Tax exemptions in the legislation, but the usual format (of legislation) in such cases would probably be (unambiguously) something like:

​

The dependent must be:

(i) 65 or over, or
(ii) severely mentally impaired, or
(iii) have a substantial and permanent disability.​

Provided one accepts that OR means what it says in logical terms (i.e. 'AND/OR'), rather than meaning 'XOR' (which would exclude 'and' situations), that sort of wording presumably achieves 'what is intended'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

I know how these things should be expressed if they have some kind of pseudo-legal meaning; I spend a lot of time writing specifications.

My point is that 'Must be a UK Citizen, male or female.' is a perfectly correct English phrase, is totally clear in what it is supposed to mean, and yet violates the rule you just invented. When writing something that may have major financial consequences for the reader, it is important to use a form of language which cannot be misinterpreted. You are clutching at straws to say the phrase is not correctly written. The English language is just not precise unless you take pains to ensure that it is not ambiguous. A document which attempts to clarify the law should be written in a manner similar to your example.
XOR, by the way, has no meaning at all in a sentence like yours.

 

[ajohn]

Take binary 1 and OR it with another and the result is 1 as it is if just one of them is 1. XOR changes the result to 0 if both are 1. Exclusive OR.

So gender would come out no if both the same.

 

[JohnW2]

I know how these things should be expressed if they have some kind of pseudo-legal meaning; I spend a lot of time writing specifications.

Same here - and, as I said, if I could but find it, I strongly suspect that the actual legislation (which everyone seems to be paraphrasing, potentially ambiguously) is probably 'properly expressed' (and unambiguous)..

My point is that 'Must be a UK Citizen, male or female.' is a perfectly correct English phrase, is totally clear in what it is supposed to mean, and yet violates the rule you just invented.

I would suggest that the meaning is only clear because, in context, it is 'obvious' that it is not a 'list of alternative nouns' but, rather that 'male' and 'female' are being used (as adjectives) to refer to subgroups of 'UK Citizens'.

I would imagine that you would probably think differently in the absence of such 'contextual clues' and, in particular, if all of the 'items' were clearly nouns. For example, if the phrase were "Must be a UK Citizen, Political Leader or Diplomat", I would expect you to interpret that as meaning that the person must be one of those three things (the latter two not necessarily being UK Citizens), and not that the person had to be a UK Citizen who was either a Politician or Diplomat, wouldn't you?

When writing something that may have major financial consequences for the reader, it is important to use a form of language which cannot be misinterpreted.

That is obviously true. However, as above, I would expect that the actual legislation (which is what presumably matters in terms of 'financial consequences') is written in "a form of language which cannot be misinterpreted"

XOR, by the way, has no meaning at all in a sentence like yours.

Well, in context it would not make any ('common') sense, but, if someone were so inclined, I suppose that there's nothing stopping them saying that the dependent has to "satisfy one, but only one, of the the following three criteria.... ".

By the way, for completeness, you mentioned two possible interpretations of the paraphrase we have been reading, namely ...
(1)..The dependent must be( 65 or over) AND (severely mentally impaired OR have a substantial and permanent disability).
(2)..The dependent must be (65 or over) OR (severely mentally impaired) OR (have a substantial and permanent disability).

Is there not also a third possibility, namely ..
The dependent must be (65 or over AND severely mentally impaired) OR (have a substantial and permanent disability).
?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Since my wife and I are both over 65, and I am classed as 40% disabled then it would seem if I move my bedroom to the granny flat we would not have to pay rates on it, but Powys have said they simply charge according to what the valuation office tells them the bands are and I must contact them, however that is easier said than done, trying on the web I get English valuation office, they are not answering phones, so I simply can't take it up with the valuation office, and a leaking flat roof means actually living in the flat is not really an option, it does have a bath, shower, and kitchen which are handy when working on the Heritage railway as I can shower and change out of dirty cloths before going into main house, and second kitchen is great with BBQ. I often wondered about the phrase back kitchen, well I actually have a back kitchen and front kitchen.

But in real terms it is like I would guess everyone else's garage, it's a store room, and with the central heating boiler, electric meter, and common water supply with main house there is no way it could in real terms be used as a separate property.

 

[JohnW2]

"The dependent must be 65 or over, severely mentally impaired or have a substantial and permanent disability."
This can be read two ways, typical lack of thought went into it. .... It makes a big difference.

Same here - and, as I said, if I could but find it, I strongly suspect that the actual legislation (which everyone seems to be paraphrasing, potentially ambiguously) is probably 'properly expressed' (and unambiguous)..

Not literally the 'exact legislation', but a pamphlet published by the Welsh government (click here and then download 'Handy Guide') , which seems to support my suspicion, in having two "OR"s (hence no ambiguity) in the statement of which we have been seeing a paraphrase ...

Kind Regards, John
Edit: link sorted out

 

[JohnW2]

Since my wife and I are both over 65, and I am classed as 40% disabled then it would seem if I move my bedroom to the granny flat we would not have to pay rates on it, but Powys have said they simply charge according to what the valuation office tells them the bands are and I must contact them, however that is easier said than done ...

This is getting rather confusing.

Much/most presumably depends upon whether the entirety (main house + 'annex') is classified as a single dwelling (one Council Tax bill) or two dwellings (two Council Tax bills).

If the former, then the (single) Council Tax bill would depend only only the banding, regardless of where you sleep. That banding (for the entirety of the house+annex) will presumably have been reviewed (and probably 'revised upwards'!) when the annex was created (assuming that was done 'legally').

If the latter (two Council Tax bills) then, as I understand it, and as we have been discussing, the 'annexe' would seemingly be exempt from Council Tax ("100% reduction" of that bill) if it were occupied by a 'dependent relative' satisfying one of the three criteria we have been discussing. I haven't yet seen the equivalent for Wales, but I would imagine that it's probably the same as in England - where exemption from Council Tax for (just) the annex is available not only when occupied by such a dependent relative but also when occupied by the owner of the main house - so, again, that would include the situation if you slept in the 'annex'.

It sounds as if you probably need to have a discussion with a sensible person at the Council (if you can find one!).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Yes if we go up one band for combined we would pay slightly less than existing plus band A for annexe, however with two council tax bills we do get two bins emptied so not all bad, but the problem is really Covid-19 which has resulted in inability to contact anyone who can help. Last year they tried to add on an extra 40% as an infrequent occupied premises, we got that removed, but before we could get the thing sorted we got lock down.

So it seems the annexe is classed as our second home, so under Covid-19 rules we must not travel to it, even if it is part of the same house and in the same grounds, which is of course completely daft, and we have been using our second home most days. As far as we are concerned it is same as a built in garage, which is what it was when built, so push bikes are garaged in it at the moment.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes if we go up one band for combined we would pay slightly less than existing plus band A for annexe, however with two council tax bills we do get two bins emptied so not all bad ...

I've been looking around, and it seems that there are small variations in how different Councils are interpreting the rules, at least in terms of what they are writing on their websites ...

They all seem agreed (both in England and Wales) that if a annex is occupied by a 'dependent relative' (defined as we have been discussing), the (separately assessed/billed) annex is exempt from Council Tax ("100% reduction").

Some, but not all, also say that if an annex is used/occupied only by the owner of the main house then, again, the annex is exempt from Council Tax payments - so that could well apply to you, but I haven't yet found anything about this in relation to Powys.

Some also say that there 'may be a reduction in Council Tax' when an annex is occupied by a relative who does not satisfy the definition of a 'dependent relative' - but that's not relevant to you.

It sounds as if you are probably going to have to wait until some of the Covid-19 dust is settled and then try to find someone sensible at the Council to speak to. In the meantime, if you haven't already done so, you might try filling in the on-line Powys Council "Council Tax Exemption Enquiry Form", which you can find (click here)


Kind Regards, John

 

[ajohn]

Since my wife and I are both over 65, and I am classed as 40% disabled then it would seem if I move my bedroom to the granny flat we would not have to pay rates on it, but Powys have said they simply charge according to what the valuation office tells them the bands are and I must contact them, however that is easier said than done, trying on the web I get English valuation office, they are not answering phones, so I simply can't take it up with the valuation office, and a leaking flat roof means actually living in the flat is not really an option, it does have a bath, shower, and kitchen which are handy when working on the Heritage railway as I can shower and change out of dirty cloths before going into main house, and second kitchen is great with BBQ. I often wondered about the phrase back kitchen, well I actually have a back kitchen and front kitchen.

But in real terms it is like I would guess everyone else's garage, it's a store room, and with the central heating boiler, electric meter, and common water supply with main house there is no way it could in real terms be used as a separate property.

It sounds a bit welsh to me - an excuse to charge a higher band / get more. Is the annex attached or separate?

It also sounds like you have already applied for change of use on the garage at some point. Just or in the past?

 

[ericmark]

We have only been in the house a year, on moving in we phoned council and arranged to pay council tax by direct debit and thought that was that. So in March they sent us a bill for the Annex, up to that point we thought it was all one house, and they wanted an extra 40% as infrequent use, phoned up, got the 40% taken off, told to contact the valuation office to get changed to one property which we did, but then lock down happened, so now extra bill, not sure over what time the bill is for, no break down, and why, Powys council seem to say still two properties, can't get in touch with valuation office.

It seems if there is an access to annex from inside main house then no problem, but if access is from outside then it needs to either be a garage or an annex, but I can't see how it can be an annex when the water, oil heating and electric are common to both main house and old garage, if we lived in the annex we could rent out house as all the services are in annex, so we would be able to read electric meter, and service boiler etc, but it does not work other way around, as we need access to CU, electric meter, boiler etc all which are in the annex, even if we did rent out main house, then the hot water cylinder and immersion heater and main water stop cock are in main house, it seems crazy to try and say the main house and annex are separate, it has clearly been built as a single house, and because a bath, shower, kitchen sink, cooker and washing machine are fitted in the garage it does not really make it a separate premises, as far as we are concerned it is the dirty rooms where I can change and clean myself up after working on the Steam Heritage railway so I don't bring the muck into the main house.

 

[JohnW2]

... It seems if there is an access to annex from inside main house then no problem, but if access is from outside then it needs to either be a garage or an annex, but I can't see how it can be an annex when the water, oil heating and electric are common to both main house and old garage ...

Almost everything I've read (for both England and Wales) stresses that, contrary to common belief, the means of access is not a relevant consideration. For example ..

Contrary to popular belief, a home does not have to have a separate entrance or front door to be liable for a separate council tax charge. The Valuations Office, a branch of HMRC and the department responsible for setting Council Tax on properties, deems an annexe to be liable for separate banding if it could be classed as a self-contained unit - i.e. it has its own kitchen area, bathroom and sleeping/living space - even if it shares other services and entrances with the main house. Two sets of Council Tax could be levied if a property has an annex ...

Kind Regards, John