Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

[enaid]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

Further back up for the 50% discount

Q: Who counts as an invisible person?

A: Carers, if they are living with and care for, a disabled person over 18 who is not their wife, husband, cohabitee, or child under 18. The disabled person must receive the higher rate Attendance Allowanceor the high rate care component of Disability Living Allowance and the carer must be providing care for 35 hours on average weekly. The carer does not have to have Carers Allowance to be invisible. More than one carer can be invisible. Others classed as invisible includes full-time students, apprentices, trainees, student nurses, severely mentally impaired, prisoner's or people detained under the mental health act.

.................................................. .............................................

Q: How do I find out if I qualify for any discounts?

A: List anyone over 18 who live in your property, then cross out anyone who would be classed as invisible for Council Tax purposes. If you are left with two names or more you do not qualify, one name you could get 25% discount, if all are invisible you should be paying only half the full amount due.
http://www.welfarerights.net/benefits-guides/Council-Tax-Benefit

I would also check your LA this will show the rules for empty property etc and may vary. http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Governmen...lg/usefullinks

[enaid]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

CT benefit is over and now is replaced by CT reduction, so the person liable may be entitled to a reduction but you would need to apply

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/sc...ou-eligible-s/

[seduraed]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

Shelter do some good books on the subject. http://shop.shelter.org.uk/publications.html . I may be you local CAB or library have copies. The rules get more and more complicated.

[Magrew]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

I have looked at interpretations on lots of sites and also investigated what is said in the disability rights handbook, I haven't found any that I can close out against the legislation. Every one has a point somewhere that doesn't stack up to the wording of the act.

l believe that this closes it however.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/14/section/72
"(6)In this Part—

• “chargeable dwelling” means any dwelling in respect of which council tax is payable;
• “exempt dwelling” means any dwelling of a class prescribed by an order made by the Secretary of State.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) above, a class of dwelling may be prescribed by reference to—
(a) the physical characteristics of dwellings;
(b)the fact that dwellings are unoccupied or are occupied for prescribed purposes or are occupied or owned by persons of prescribed descriptions;"

This says pretty clearly clearly that if a property is owned by a person of a prescribed description then it is exempt. l can't see that it conditions it to "unless there are other residents".

This also lines up to the Scottish Government guidance where it says
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Government/local-government/17999/counciltax/leaflets/0

"If you are severely mentally impaired and are the sole owner/occupier or tenant your home will be exempt"

This says "sole owner/occupier" rather than "owner or occupier" which again would allow for others living in the property, disregarded or not.

l conclude from this that a sole resident owner of a property with a SMI makes that property exempt regardless of how many other people are resident. l have not found a prescribed condition that backs this however. So no doubt I will be proven wrong.

So accepting that Council Tax has to be paid, I can't then work out who is the liable person which will determine the applicable amount and then the income to means test since all residents are disregarded and in theory have no income.

[enaid]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

Just my thoughts the LIABLE person is the person on the lease and they will have to apply for the CT reduction giving all the info required even the others living there even though they may be disregarded.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/sc...ou-eligible-s/

As I said in my first post my daughter with learning difficulties is disregarded myself as a carer too, so leaves my oh as a single occupant so we receive 25% discount. As we are both named on the lease and the CT bi we re both therefore liable.

[Magrew]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

Just my thoughts the LIABLE person is the person on the lease and they will have to apply for the CT reduction giving all the info required even the others living there even though they may be disregarded.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/sc...ou-eligible-s/

As I said in my first post my daughter with learning difficulties is disregarded myself as a carer too, so leaves my oh as a single occupant so we receive 25% discount. As we are both named on the lease and the CT bi we re both therefore liable.

Your case is clear however, that is defined in legislation, Regulation 77 of the LGFA which has that wrapped up, spouses or partners have joint and several liability, also in your case you have not escaped liability this can only be achieved as a student or SMI, you are simply not counted as an adult in the property, there is a significant difference.
In this case Regulation 75(4) of the LGFA removes the owner's liability if they are initially considered joint and severally liable with another resident lower in the hierarchy (which I can't see is covered by any mechanism in the legislation but we will consider it since that appears to be the accepted flow presently). This is important because it can have a very significant impact on the sums used in the CTR assessment. It also means that a carer could end up liable for more council tax than a partner providing the carer role even if they have identical incomes. This appears unfair.

[Magrew]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

So far they have not been able to close this matter. I think it is evident that the law is not clear in these circumstances.

[lgfa92]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

Where I am struggling is to find the logic where an SMI individual with a live in carer suddenly becomes liable for 75% CT.

Just had a quick glance at your first post - if this is still the issue then it should be an easy one for the local authority to resolve .

Assuming the SMI person is an owner / tenant and the carer is not. Also assuming the carer is not a partner (please correct me if I'm wrong).

As you're in Scotland:

Section 75 of the LGFA92 lays out who is liable for council tax purposes (hierarchy of liability) - the resident who falls nearest the top of the list has the highest liabilty in the property.

Unless the carer has an equal level of legal responsibility in the property then they cannot be the liable party as they have a lower legal interest.

Section 77 / 77A works in cases of jointly liability only (to remove the SMI person from joint liability in specified cases) but wouldn't come in to effect unless the other person was a partner.

Once liability has been determined - in this case the SMI person will have the highest liability and remain liable - any disregards need to be determined. If the carer meets the criteria to be disreagrded (and there's no other adults resident) then only a 25% reduction applied as per Section 79.

A council tax exemption would only apply where all occupiers of the property are disreagrded as SMI - Regulation 23 of the The Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) (Scotland) Order 1997.

Craig / lgfa92

[Magrew]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

Just had a quick glance at your first post - if this is still the issue then it should be an easy one for the local authority to resolve .

Assuming the SMI person is an owner / tenant and the carer is not. Also assuming the carer is not a partner (please correct me if I'm wrong).

As you're in Scotland:

Section 75 of the LGFA92 lays out who is liable for council tax purposes (hierarchy of liability) - the resident who falls nearest the top of the list has the highest liabilty in the property.

Unless the carer has an equal level of legal responsibility in the property then they cannot be the liable party as they have a lower legal interest.

Section 77 / 77A works in cases of jointly liability only (to remove the SMI person from joint liability in specified cases) but wouldn't come in to effect unless the other person was a partner.

Once liability has been determined - in this case the SMI person will have the highest liability and remain liable - any disregards need to be determined. If the carer meets the criteria to be disreagrded (and there's no other adults resident) then only a 25% reduction applied as per Section 79.

A council tax exemption would only apply where all occupiers of the property are disreagrded as SMI - Regulation 23 of the The Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) (Scotland) Order 1997.

Craig / lgfa92

There are points of logic in what you say, however if all residents are disregarded then a 50% reduction is applicable and then the question arises over the level of Council Tax Reduction.

Since all residents are disregarded then it is my interpretation that they are all treated as having no income. It should then follow that maximum CTR is applicable and in that case only 50% of the water and sewage remains payable.

What I find very hard to accept is that the legislation is so difficult to interpret that the CTRRP have been unable to close this in 10 months. This must demonstrate the legislation to be unclear and therefore unsatisfactory.

[lgfa92]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

There are points of logic in what you say,

They're not points of logic - it's how Council Tax legislation works.

all residents are disregarded then a 50% reduction is applicable

If all the occupiers are disregarded and an exemption does not apply then it is correct that a 50% reduction applies.

Council Tax and Council Tax reduction/support are only interconnected at the basic level - that being that Council Tax reduction/support can only look at the gross charge which is generated from the calculation of Council Tax. e.g If a charge is £1000 and both occupiers are disregarded then the gross Council Tax charge for Council Tax reduction/support purposes is £500.00 - after that any further reduction falls solely within the rules for Council Tax reduction/support. In basic terms Council Tax reduction/support cannot pay more than the charge which is determined under Council Tax legislation.

Any parts of Council Tax which are income related (which are few) don't affect the income taken in to account for Council Tax reduction/support unless the local authority has tweaked their own local Council Tax reduction/support to say so.

It appears that the Council Tax reduction/support problem isn't down to legislation itself but it's more likely down to how the local authority has written their own Council Tax reduction/support rules within the legislation. Local Authority schemes can have quite a bit of leeway within the basic framework and can tweak it on a local level. Some haven't been thought out particularly well.

Craig / lgfa92

[Magrew]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

Thank you, these responses are very helpful.

The purpose of the CTRRP is to review and settle disputes of Council Tax Reduction, they therefore should be able to offer clarity on any Council's "tweaked" policy. Otherwise I can't see that they can be effective in their purpose.

[lgfa92]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

Quite.

Have they even actually confirmed (in detail) what particular aspect of the decision they are having problem with ?

Craig / lgfa92

[Magrew]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

Quite.

Have they even actually confirmed (in detail) what particular aspect of the decision they are having problem with ?

Craig / lgfa92

Nope, to date all they have done is ask the local authority to respond in the manner of a "he says/she says" argument. Although I am not a lawyer , I am fairly experienced in adjudication and appeals. This is the most impotent I have yet encountered.

[lgfa92]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

Nope, to date all they have done is ask the local authority to respond in the manner of a "he says/she says" argument. Although I am not a lawyer , I am fairly experienced in adjudication and appeals. This is the most impotent I have yet encountered.

Have you tried making a formal complaint to the chairman of the panel ?

Craig / lgfa92

[Magrew]

Re: Severe Mental Impairment - Liable Person

No I haven't raised a formal complaint, I have asked for the Panel to offer clarifications however rather than just posting opposing views between the two parties. They did offer 5 "Findings in Fact" 2 of which were incorrect and contrary to other findings.