Sharnbrook yoga/healing retreat host ordered to pay £13,190 after council tax support fraud admission

Current assessment: The available evidence supports reporting that Bedford Borough Council says Antonio Noto was sentenced at Luton Crown Court on August 27, 2026, after admitting fraudulent claims for Council Tax Support and a Council Tax discount over six years. The council says the case arose during an investigation that linked Noto and his partner to a yoga/healing retreat operated from their Sharnbrook home. The reported total financial order was £13,190.38.

The most precise present framing is not that an identified yoga-retreat company was prosecuted, but that a person the council says was listed as a host of an unnamed yoga/healing retreat was sentenced in a council-tax-support fraud case. That distinction matters because the council’s release does not name the retreat or provide records establishing its formal ownership structure.

Reported facts

According to Bedford Borough Council, Noto, also known as Tony, of Templars Way in Sharnbrook, admitted fraudulently claiming both Council Tax Support and a Council Tax discount for six years. The council reported that he was sentenced at Luton Crown Court on Thursday, August 27, 2026.

The council said its Investigation Service began examining the case after receiving a tip-off that Noto and his partner were operating a yoga/healing retreat and an Airbnb from their home. It said investigators found a retreat website listing the couple as hosts, alongside documents and public records that the council said linked the couple to living together at the property.

Bedford Borough Council said the judge imposed a three-year conditional discharge, ordered £5,860.38 in compensation payable within six months, and awarded £7,330 in costs. Those elements total £13,190.38.

Supporting evidence

The council’s September 1 news release is the strongest available source because it identifies the defendant, court, sentencing date, claimed conduct, investigation, and financial orders. Its account is also specific about the evidence investigators said they reviewed, including Companies House, Department for Work and Pensions, financial-institution, school-admissions, website, and social-media material.

The available record is consistent with the general structure of Council Tax discounts in England: a full Council Tax bill is ordinarily based on at least two adults in a home, while a 25% reduction may be available where the payer lives alone or other residents are disregarded for Council Tax purposes. That general guidance does not establish the facts of this individual case; it provides context for why a household-composition change could affect eligibility.

Limitations and competing evidence

The council is both the investigating authority and the source of the public account. No sentencing remarks, indictment or charge sheet, plea record, or other court document was available in the sources reviewed. As a result, this draft relies on the council’s description of the admissions, evidence, and sentencing outcome rather than on an independently inspectable judicial record.

The official release uses the phrase “owner of yoga retreat” in its headline, but its body says the retreat website listed Noto and his partner as hosts. It does not name the retreat, describe its legal entity, or document whether Noto held sole ownership. A cautious reading is that the yoga/healing retreat is relevant as part of the council’s investigation into household circumstances, not that the retreat itself was charged or found liable.

Hello Rayo also published a report under a substantially similar headline, according to the supplied candidate material. However, the official council release is the only detailed source reviewed that sets out the alleged conduct and court order.

Current conclusion

The available record supports publication of a carefully attributed report that Noto was ordered to pay £13,190.38 after the council says he admitted six years of fraudulent Council Tax Support and discount claims, and that the council’s investigation involved an unnamed yoga/healing retreat linked to his household. It does not establish that a named yoga business committed an offence, nor does it independently verify the precise legal counts or sentencing rationale. A court record confirming the plea and order would materially strengthen the report and is necessary before using more definitive language about the conviction or characterizing Noto as the retreat’s owner.