Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

[Magrew]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

When you have finished your bickering I would value your views on this. :tinysmile_twink_t2: I hadn't paid enough attention to Example C. It makes the person diagnosed SMI liable.

Example C
Husband and wife live together in their property. The wife is severely mentally impaired and is the sole owner of their home. They will be jointly liable to pay the council tax bill. In this case the bill will be reduced by the single person discount (25%) as only the husband will be counted.

This massively weakens my argument I believe.

Could someone please tell me what this means in plain English, it's getting late and my brain is a little addled?

"3. Where there are two or more second adults residing with the applicant and any of those second adults falls to be disregarded for the purposes of discount in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Act(1), that second adult’s income is to be disregarded in determining the amount of any alternative maximum council tax reduction, unless that second adult is a member of a couple and the other partner does not fall to be disregarded for the purposes of discount."

Does it mean that the second is deemed to have no income?

[des8]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

Joshing finished (I hope Charity!) & back to business.

My understanding is that a couple living in a house are both liable for CT
If one is SMI that person is disregarded and the house is treated as being occupied by a single person and so qualifies for 25% discount.
However both are liable for that tax (although enforcing it against someone who is SMI might be problematic)

I think example D is more representative of your scenario.

"Does it mean the second is deemed to have no income?" I read it as saying any income he/she has is disregarded, which effectively means he/she is treated as not having any income (unless he/she has a non disregarded partner)
Does that quote "3" come from some "explanatory" pamphlet?

[Magrew]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

3 is from here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/20...chedule/2/made

I hadn't checked it out in detail before because I was hoping it was irrelevant.

I am now swithering between a 50% discount but unsure if there is further discount because that appears to show a maximum alternative reduction, regardless 78 of the regs above. I get that because I am dividing the 100% by 2. But I also think that 100% is possible because I have been unable to find a scenario where the CT liability increases by the introduction of a Carer.

If it is my first then that will create a tax bill of £1350 which will occur due to a Carer moving into a property which appears perverse and may contravene recent carers legislation.

[charitynjw]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

Bicker? Moi?



Is it the carer's main (primary) residence?

[Magrew]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

He was previously his mum's carer but he moved out to study, this wasn't working for the family so he took a part time job, gave up further study and took on the role of care and support for his mother and his brother. A big sacrifice on his part.

[charitynjw]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

Joshing finished (I hope Charity!) & back to business.

My understanding is that a couple living in a house are both liable for CT
If one is SMI that person is disregarded and the house is treated as being occupied by a single person and so qualifies for 25% discount.
However both are liable for that tax (although enforcing it against someone who is SMI might be problematic)

I think example D is more representative of your scenario.

"Does it mean the second is deemed to have no income?" I read it as saying any income he/she has is disregarded, which effectively means he/she is treated as not having any income (unless he/she has a non disregarded partner)
Does that quote "3" come from some "explanatory" pamphlet?

He was previously his mum's carer but he moved out to study, this wasn't working for the family so he took a part time job, gave up further study and took on the role of care and support for his mother and his brother. A big sacrifice on his part.

I've found this - again, not legislation, but it is from Carers UK, gives some pretty clear guidance & advises phoning their helpline.

http://www.carersuk.org/help-and-adv...ax-rate-relief

[Magrew]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

Thank you for that link, I had checked it before but was frustrated that it didn't have an example matching the scenario in hand.

there is this note which I have also seen elsewhere, I cannot find this clearly stated in legislation however

"Note: If a property is occupied by more than one person considered to be ‘severely mentally impaired’ it is also exempt."

This does not seem to exclude the possibility of someone else resident in the property. I do wish statements like these referenced the source.

I will see if I can get a call into them tomorrow.

thanks again

[Magrew]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

This is the closest I have found yet, I think it confirms a 50% discount. Still not sure on the rules for reduction however.

"Someone who falls into either of these carer groups is disregarded for council tax purposes. They will pay a reduced council tax bill (it is not the case that they don't pay at all, such as in the previous section).

• Example - Peter has Alzheimer's disease and is disregarded for council tax purposes under the severe mental impairment rules. He lives in a house with Jo, his daughter. Jo is also disregarded for council tax purposes because she is recognised by the local authority as his carer and meets the criteria (first group of carers described above). Therefore, because both Peter and Jo are disregarded, but Jo is a carer (not mentally impaired) they are eligible for a reduced council tax bill. This property is being treated as empty."

This comes from here:- https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/s...documentID=137

I must admit I am surprised that there isn't similar advice on the National Autistic Society website, once I get a conclusion I may contact them and suggest that it would be helpful if they had this matter clarified on their site. Autism has a strong genetic link so the scenario in question is bound to be encountered by others.

This does seem a perverse outcome however, if the owner's son was living on his own elsewhere and moved in to offer care and support it appears to me that there would be no council tax to pay on either property but since he has given up his lease elsewhere then that attaches 50% liability on his mum's property (in this case £1350). There seems to be something wrong with that outcome to me. Of course my interpretation may be wrong.

Frustratingly I cant get through to the Disability Rights advice line. Only ever getting their answer service.

[des8]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

In confirmation of your "discovery"I found this on an ENGLISH council website:

• If you live alone and have a severe mental impairment you will be exempt from paying any council tax at all.
• If you (being SMI) live with others you will still qualify for a discount. If everyone in a property is disregarded, a 50% discount is awarded.

I expect the same applies north of the border.

[charitynjw]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

This seems like baloney to me! (the interpretation on the link, not you guys!)

The carer is 'disregarded'.......to me, that ought to mean not recognised, not liable.

The others are SMI, so exempt.

3 x 0 = 0!

But I suppose the rules are made by those who benefit most from the perverse interpretation.
You'd think that when carers are saving the system an absolute fortune, they could afford to be a bit more generous!

[des8]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

SMI = exempt
Disregarded = property regarded as empty= 50% discount

Daft is my polite printable opinion.

Reminds me of Through the looking Glass: When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

[Magrew]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

This seems like baloney to me! (the interpretation on the link, not you guys!)

The carer is 'disregarded'.......to me, that ought to mean not recognised, not liable.

The others are SMI, so exempt.

3 x 0 = 0!

But I suppose the rules are made by those who benefit most from the perverse interpretation.
You'd think that when carers are saving the system an absolute fortune, they could afford to be a bit more generous!

I have extracted a section of my response below. Does this appear logical and reasonable? The number formatting has gone a bit crazy but it doesn't matter in the context of you chaps reviewing my logic.

You will note I have decided to follow the route of tasking the panel to offer clarity.

"

1. Para 8 -The matter of SMI is recognized by Parliament when they prepared the Primary Legislation in respect of Council Tax which is the Local Government Finance Act 1992. In that Act at Regulation 75 defines who the liable person is in respect of Council Tax. I have copied the Regulation below and enclosed a copy for the Panel’s convenience. (Ref. A.1). This document was listed as reference 32 in M Council’s Schedule of Documents but they have in fact provided Regulations 78, 79 and 80.

"75 Persons liable to pay council tax.


(1) The person who is liable to pay council tax in respect of any chargeable dwelling and any day is the person who falls within the first paragraph of subsection (2) below to apply, taking paragraph (a) of that subsection first, paragraph (b) next, and so on.
(2) A person falls within this subsection in relation to any chargeable dwelling and any day if, on that day—

(a) he is the resident owner of the whole or any part of the dwelling;
(b) he is a resident tenant of the whole or any part of the dwelling;
(c) he is a resident statutory tenant, resident statutory assured tenant or resident [F1Scottish] secure tenant of the whole or any part of the dwelling;
(d) he is a resident sub-tenant of the whole or any part of the dwelling;
(e) he is a resident of the dwelling; or
(f) he is any of the following—

(i) the sub-tenant of the whole or any part of the dwelling under a sub-lease granted for a term of 6 months or more;
(ii) the tenant, under a lease granted for a term of 6 months or more, of any part of the dwelling which is not subject to a sub-lease granted for a term of 6 months or more;
(iii) the owner of any part of the dwelling which is not subject to a lease granted for a term of 6 months or more.


(3) Where, in relation to any chargeable dwelling and any day, two or more persons fall within the first paragraph of subsection (2) above to apply, they shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the council tax payable in respect of the dwelling and that day.

(4) Subsection (3) above shall not apply as respects any day on which one or more of the persons there mentioned fall to be disregarded for the purposes of discount [F2either] by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act (the severely mentally impaired) [F3or, being a student, by virtue of paragraph 4 of that Schedule] and one or more of them do not; and liability to pay the council tax in respect of the dwelling and that day shall be determined as follows—
(a)if only one of those persons does not fall to be so disregarded, he shall be solely liable;
(b)if two or more of those persons do not fall to be so disregarded, they shall be jointly and severally liable."

1. It is therefore complex to assess in the circumstances before us who the liable person is, what is the correct level of discount, and what is the correct income to consider if Council Tax Reduction is applicable.

1. There are examples offered by the Scottish Government, however none of these emulate the circumstances here.

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Governmen...tax/leaflets/0

“Example A
A single man lives alone and is severely mentally impaired. The property will be exempt and there will be no council tax bill.”

“Example B
Husband and wife are co-owners. The wife is severely mentally impaired, the husband is not. The husband will be liable to pay the council tax bill for their home. The wife will not be held jointly liable because she is severely mentally impaired. The bill will be reduced by the single person discount (25%) because the wife will not be counted and the husband will be treated as a single person.”

“Example C
Husband and wife live together in their property. The wife is severely mentally impaired and is the sole owner of their home. They will be jointly liable to pay the council tax bill. In this case the bill will be reduced by the single person discount (25%) as only the husband will be counted.”

“Example D
Two brothers live together and are both severely mentally impaired. They are co-owners of their home. The property will be exempt and there will be no council tax bill.”

“Example E
Two people share a flat. One is severely mentally impaired and the other is a student. The property will be exempt and there will be no council tax bill, as a student is equally disregarded from the calculation when determining the number of adults in the flat.”

1. It is clear from each of these examples that the person with a severe mental impairment never becomes solely liable for the payment of council tax. In each of the cases where they may have been solely liable the property becomes exempt or someone without that disability shares liability.

1. Evidence has been provided to M Council to confirm that Ms C’s sons are both disregarded, A on two counts, firstly as severely mentally impaired which has been certified by his GP and secondly as a student and R is disregarded due to providing care and support to his brother, he does this for at least 35hrs per week and a person he cares for is in receipt of the enhanced rate of PIP and previously the highest rate of the DLA care component. Unfortunately copies haven’t been kept by Ms C but M Council will have them should the Panel require sight of them.

1. Advice has been sought from a number of appropriate sources and I have been unable to get clear and consistent guidance from any advisory organization on the correct method to interpret this scenario.

1. From my interpretation and the examples above I believe the following possibilities are those that need to be considered:-

Persons Liable to Pay Council Tax

J - Reg 75 (2)a above but as we have seen from example C above someone diagnosed with a severe mental impairment cannot be solely liable. This is a very logical precaution because it is likely that such an individual would not have the capacity to ensure that they could comply with the imposed liability, it is possible that such an individual will have greatly reduced ability to reason or plan the correct course to meet their responsibilities, they could have severe dementia, or be non-communicative with autism or any manner of other difficulties. It would therefore be problematic to raise any action against a person with such difficulties. However, the regulations are unclear on the correct course to follow. Two possibilities appear to be possible:-

1. J becomes liable as the sole owner/occupier but the property is then deemed exempt due to her SMI and no Council Tax is payable;

1. Other residents in the household for brought in for consideration:-

Resident R - Reg 75 (2)e
Resident A - Reg 75 (2)e
Resident T - under 18 and still at school, clearly can’t be held liable

1. This brings us to Reg 75 (4)(a) above removing A from consideration due to his SMI, but R becomes jointly and severally liable. This would appear inappropriate however because the only example above where this becomes the case is an example of a husband and wife where joint and severally liability may be expected for the reason they are married rather than being another resident in the property.

1. Clarity is sought from the Panel on this matter.

[des8]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

:thumb:
Be interested to see any response

[charitynjw]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

I will also be interested to see the response.

& I would bear in mind the conflict of interests (aka greed) (potentially) lurking within the 'corporate mind' of those who respond.

It would be a pleasant surprise to be pleasantly surprised.

But I won't hold my breath!

[enaid]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

Both my dad and my MIL who have or had Dementia and lived alone were exempt form CT and both received rebates from the date of the claim.
My daughter with Severe Learning Difficulties is also exempt and I as her carer am also disregarded leaving my OH as a sole occupier receiving 25% discount.
Just an example as to how it works for us.

If only one person lives in a property they will be the liable person. If more than one person lives there, a system called the hierarchy of liability is used to work out who is the liable person. The person at the top, or nearest to the top, of the hierarchy is the liable person. Two people at the same point of the hierarchy will both be liable.

The hierarchy of liability is:

1. a resident who lives in the property and who owns the freehold
2. a resident who lives in the property and who has a lease
3. a resident tenant
4. a resident who lives in the property and who is a licensee. This means that they are not a tenant, but have permission to stay there
5. any resident living in the property, for example, a squatter
6. an owner of the property who does not live there.

Some people are exempt from liability for paying Council Tax.

Exempt people include those who are:

• defined as a severely mentally impaired person
• carers

as said exempt from liability, so as far as I can see no one in that property is liable for council tax.
That means it may be classes as empty
Well that was my opinion and have found the same info as above in an example

Jenny has Alzheimer’s disease and gets the higher rate of AA. Herson lives with her and looks after her for at least 35 hours a week.Jenny is invisible for Council Tax because she is severely mentallyimpaired and so is her son because he can be discounted asJenny’s carer. No one in the household counts for Council Tax and a50% discount is given. Jenny remains liable to pay the remainingamount because she is the sole owner of the property.
http://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN....pdf?dtrk=true

So looking at that a property where no one is liable is classed as empty and the rules from the individual council will be implemented.