In-laws asking to be on our council tax but not living with us?

[AllIhearisMuuuuuuuuum]

Sorry if this is in the wrong place or is a stupid question but I'm just wanting to gain come clarity on something.

My husband's parents have decided to sell their house and buy a static caravan so they can move up North. As the site they're looking to buy on isn't residential, they can only stay there for 9 months of the year and have to be able to prove to the site that they live elsewhere for the other 3 months. During this 3 months they plan to go abroad but have to provide a council tax bill to the site to show they have somewhere to go. As a result, they have asked DH and I if they can be on our council tax bill so they can provide that to the site.

My question is, is this classed as fraud or anything of the sort?

We have 2 children of school age and both work full time - we aren't entitled to any benefits so it wouldn't affect anything like that and they wouldn't actually stay with us, it's purely so they are able to buy the caravan they want.

Can anyone please help as they're asking us and pushing and we don't want to agree to anything that is going to cause issues for any of us.

It seems like they're jumping from one perceived money pit to another. They have a finite "pot" from the sale of their house, which they ultimately also want to fund a small permanent home from. But every thread you read on static caravans refer to the cost of site fees, upkeep and replacing the van once the site decides it's "too old" (usually well before the end of its useful life). Where are they going to keep the touring caravan when they're at the static? Are you going to be expected to store it for them when not in use? My experience is limited but any site I've been to has plots large enough for the static and parking for one or two cars, plus the site owners can be pretty strict about appearance and usage.

They might be comparatively young or in good health, but these things can change very quickly. Between me and DH our parents are between 60 and 75, and in the last year the two young "healthy" ones have had a cancer diagnosis and a brain aneurysm. Obviously age shouldn't stop people travelling, but continuity of care is important. Will they even be able to register with a GP up North it it's not a permanent address? The whole plan just seems a bit pie in the sky tbh, unless they're only going to do it for a limited amount of time.

As one poster has rightly said, you cannot just "go on a Council Tax bill"- the bills are just not addressed to everyone living or supposedly living in the home.

I don't think there's any real fraud- they don't live with you and will not be put on the CT bill and that is that.

If they mean electoral roll that is fraud, but wouldn't produce a bill in any case.

They are muddled in their thinking, so stay out of it; they might have it wrong about what the Park require as they seem pretty ill clued up.

They are making life so difficult for themselves. In their shoes I would either move somewhere which has full year round residential status, in which case they would pay their own council tax, or, be totally upfront with the site owners. Tell them they do not have a permanent address, but guarantee, in writing, to vacate at, and for, the allotted time.
Have they thought how they are going to register with a gp, get mail delivered, re tax their car, and all the other things you need a postal address for? This is the problem for people who live a nonadic life style (caravans, narrow boats), you are considered homeless by the NHS, dvla etc.

OP- They are being rather sly.
What they are really saying is they want to register as living at yours, because they need an address to also give to their bank, their GP, dentist, hospital, DWP (if they're getting any pensions/benefits) and to anyone else that needs an address on their records.
I highly doubt a non-residential caravan site has a postman doing the rounds - and you can't use a PO box address for the above.

Anything can happen in this 15 year plan of theirs.
Any of you could have an accident, fall ill, lose your job etc and this will come to bite you on your arse in the future.

Told PIL that we won't be able to do as they asked as it's quite a grey area and we wouldn't be happy doing anything that isn't above board.

Today they have asked SIL and her partner if they will go on the static as joint owners and then they (SIL) can provide THEIR council tax bill to show it's only a holiday home and in laws will just be joint owners fading into the background. SIL has asked my opinion on whether there will be any implications but in all honesty, I don't know so can't advise. The spotlight is no longer on DH and I though.

Even if PIL pay in full for the caravan and SIL is used just for her signature on the deeds, this would affect SIL more than PIL

I'm not a house owner, but i'm sure there must be tax/mortgage implications if you own a second home?
Especially if SIL decides to move house in the next 15 years?
It would also need to be declared when applying for certain benefits - like JSA/mortgage relief if you lose your job.

PIL will NOT 'fade into the background' - again they are being manipulative.
What they mean is that despite SIL being a joint owner, it will be PIL home and SIL will be expected to fade into the background and have no say on anything or any right to use it.

PIL won't be facing the same risks/responsibilities as SIL (being a second homeowner) AND their home will have cost them 50% less (more savings for them).
PIL seem determined to use and shaft their kids in order to fund their lifestyle choice - and increase their own wealth/assets at the same time.....all of which will eventually fund their 'last' home in 15 years.

Then there's also the risk of a family/PIL fallout - if it happens how will that affect SIL and what implications will it have?

SIL needs to get legal advice on all the pros and cons before making a decision.

They'll obviously have the money from the sale of a house, so they need to spend it on something workable which doesn't involve roping their family in to get them out of legal pickle. If it means less money for all the overseas holidays, tough shit.

Your PiL sounds a tad like mine - which is to say "on the fiddle".

For a long list of reasons (including winning "the most batshit MiL ever to be mentioned on MN" - totally true ) we're completely NC now, and they can consider themselves lucky not to have been prosecuted.

We were spun a sob story about how MiLs partner (they weren't married) was being chased by his Crazy Ex' family, so would it be possible for us to put him on the electoral roll with us.

Long story short, the actual reason was to have him at a different address so they could coin it in by claiming Direct Payments with him appearing to be her carer who didn't live with her .In one year he made £40,000 - more than I earned. (We found that out because DWs sight is fucked, and she accidentally opened his bank statement ...)

What prompted me to reply was the mention of caravans. Because one place MiL stuffed her hard-stolen earnings was into a static caravan. That she then had the nerve to invite us to "invest in". Which we declined - she then started pestering her other daughter (my wifes sister) and her husband.

So TL;DR - the bulk of reasons for fudging the electoral roll will be connected to fraud somewhere. Don't do it.

Sorry I should have clarified.. they don't want SIL to invest any money, just for her to be joint owners so she can provide her council tax statement and they can basically 'fade away'. If anything, SIL could have them over as she's going to technically own half of something she hasn't paid for - not that she would, she's the nicest person I know!

they don't want SIL to invest any money, just for her to be joint owners so she can provide her council tax statement...

Owners have liabilities and responsibilities. Lots of what ifs admittedly but there is no benefit to your SIL in being party to this and there could well be potential downsides.

I'd be perfectly happy to be on the paperwork. The park don't really care. They just have to follow these rules for their own tax reasons. As long as their paperwork is in order and people are off the site for the required time then they've complied with what they have to.

But then I do trust my family implicitly not to leave me financially screwed.

I have a friend who researches these parks, and I remember her giving a seminar where she said this was common. Apparently, many people do try to stay the winter 'under cover' and there is increasing concern amongst the park owners since a disaster flood in France where some people died in caravans.

I would ring the local council and explain the situation and ask what the protocol is if they were to stay with you for 3 months over winter some years. They may be able to advise.

Glad you said no, SIL should also decline the ridiculous part - ownership. She'd be taking on a liability.

PIL's are wanting a dream life with none of the responsibility. They're happy to dump all that responsibility on the next generation. Not on at all.

Is this actually fraud?

It's definitely a lie, but doesn't fraud have an additional part to it: that the lie exposes another person to loss or risk of a loss? I can't see how that second part is true here: who is exposed to risk as a result? They really are intending to go abroad - so the caravan park is in the clear. The OP gets no benefits from them being registered at her address, but the council doesn't lose money either. To my (admittedly ignorant) eyes, it looks like a victimless lie?

Another update!

The story has now changed; noone has to be joint owners and they don't want to be on anyone's council tax or electoral roll. They want to have our house as their 'fixed abode' and have their post delivered here - thing like GP letters and anything else not allowed a PO box.

Any ideas on if this could work?

Sure, you could have a address such as
In laws
C/o all I hear is mum
No1 the street.

It’s only a care of postal address, no ramifications at all

But if the registered address is down south what gp is going to take them on a recurring visits (read, 9 months of the year) up north?

They are being asked to prove the static wont be the permanent address. They cant, because it will be their main home.

They need to find (and pay) for a residential site, or buy a small home.

And if they dont have the money now to have a flat and a caravan, where is the money going to come from in 15 years? My understanding is the depreciation on statics is pretty hefty.

In the nicest way possible, I'm that sick of these people trying to put on their children, I couldn't care less now what they do or how they afford it.

DH has had a phonecall today of MIL pleading and crying down the phone that we need to help them and it won't affect them and is now being swayed. I just need to know if it will affect me or not and don't know where to get this information

So the story, predictably, has changed.

The advice remains the same- and for any further changes in their "story":

Keep out of it- it will only lead to trouble. They are up to no good.

If your house is their address and they have eg. bank statements delivered, that address on driving licence etc there then they will be able to take out credit. And whilst credit isn’t tied to the house per se the credit reference agencies may assume PIL, DH and OP are financially connected if they share a last name. You’d need to look into this. I think you can file a notice of disassociation but the whole thing just sounds subject to risk.

Also on a practical basis if your house is their address there may be all manner of problems with eg getting Gp care and hospital appointments.

Oh god. I really wouldn't want to get involved tbh.

In all honestly I don't want to get involved. DH is now saying if it won't affect us he doesn't see the issue as they're stuck and is now arguing their case. Feel like telling him he can live with them at the bloody static at this rate!

Sounds well dodgy. Don't have anything to do with it.