It's not really a question of who is liable, this charge attaches to the property, rather than the person
True enough. However if the bank wish to sell the property it cannot give clear title to a new owner without paying the NPPR charges. Theoretically the owner can subsequently be pursued for the charge plus any negative equity in the property. However, this may prove to be a worthless task in many cases!!This isn't strictly true. The liability to the charge arises from the ownership of a property on a given date so if AN Other owned the property on 31/3/201x, (s)he is liable to pay the NPPR for the year 201x.
The attachment of unpaid charges to the property is simply a device to eventually bring to heel those property owners who fail to pay when the charge is due.
Thanks B.
I believe myself that this adds weight to the argument that the NPPR is an "expense of management" of a property, in that it is/was there to finance essential services relevant to the property.
This is regardless of the jesuitical debate on what constitutes "a rate levied by a local authority".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?