URGENT HELP , VALUATION TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED NO JURISDICTION TO HEAR CTS APPEALS

I have a letter from VT striking out case for overpaid council tax support as the VT has decided it does not have jurisdiction to hear the case. I have a pile of these in the pipeline. Bizzare as the VT can hear section 13 A discretionary cases. What do I do now with my client ???

Is HB Anorak’s point relevant?

Incidentally referring to a reduction under s13A, or even s13A(1), is insufficiently precise because both discretionary reductions and CTR fall under that same subsection.  You need to drill down to 13A(1)(a) and (c) in order to distinguish the two reduction mechanisms.  This might sound pedantic but it could result in the VT declining jurisdiction of the wrong one is referred to in an appeal.

I have asked CPAG if they can take a test case but they do not have capacity at present, is there anyone else who can take a test case to challenge the VT decision ???.

I don’t know anyone else to take a test case but I do think it is worth you applying for discretionary relief under reg 13A (1)(c) as suggested by Andy and Jon above - unless I’ve misunderstood and you have already done that? I believe there is no time limit for that. And have a look at the thread here - http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/9187/P30/#45811

Good luck!

Thanks Daphne, I do use section 13 a regularly, problem is its only really useful if cl can show they have trouble paying the c tax bill, if they are able to pay they now have no redress against official error

SocSec - 22 August 2016 09:09 AM

Thanks Daphne, I do use section 13 a regularly, problem is its only really useful if cl can show they have trouble paying the c tax bill, if they are able to pay they now have no redress against official error

As much as LAs like to pretend otherwise, s13A(1)(c) is in no way limited to financial circumstances. If your client’s case is that the circumstances (including the assurances made with regard to CTS and the errors they made in working it out) mean it would be oppressive to recover the bill, then you can use 13A even if the client is a millionaire.

Thanks Elliot, that is very good news.

I don’t think a test case is necessary because it is very easy to work around this jurisdiction obstacle.  People just need to get into the habit of expressing their dispute about CTR allowed in error as an application for discretionary reduction: an appeal on facts and merits clearly lies where such an application is rejected.  It’s all a matter of presentation.

I appreciate that the discretionary reduction route is inferior from the claimant’s point of view to the old CTB non-recoverable excess benefit rules which were hard-wired into the Regs.  But I cannot really see much hope for a CPAG test case arguing that the VTE must behave as if such rules did exist in CTR - they just don’t (except in areas where the Council has included them in its scheme- eg Waltham Forest).