I am confused as to how to advise my student with regards to the Council Tax liability and CTB. She is a full time student, therefore she is not liable. But she has a son, over 18, in receipt of JSA, not a joint tenant. For CTax purposes she is invisible, but he is not. The situation would fulfill requirements of second adult rebate except that she is not only exempt but not even liable. CTB application will not be accepted from him, as he is not a tenant. I really am confused what to advise next.
Help gratefully accepted.

I think you'll find your student IS liable. She falls into the one "gap" that still seems to remain for students regarding council tax. Her dwelling is not exempt because not all the adult occupiers are students, and while students cannot be held jointly and severally liable she misses out here as well because she is solely liable. You are right that she herself is "invisible" and so is entitled to a discount, but she remains liable for the 75% that is left. She will be entitled to SAR but that will only knock off another 25%.

From next April the regs are being changed to allow SAR to be equal to 100% of the liability in these situations in order to remove the anomaly. But I am afraid your person is stuck with 50% liability until then.

Fri 21-Oct-05 10:37 AM by Paul Treloar

I'm no expert in this at all, but I would say that in relation to your student's son, the actual entitlement condition for CTB is that he is liable for council tax in respect of the home where he is resident (for both main CTB and 2nd adult CTB) (see CPAG 2005/06, p.110) - further, in terms of 'where he is resident", CPAG states on p.112 that:

For CTB purposes, you are a resident in the home where you have your "sole and main residence". This is the same criterion as for liability for council tax, so any decision on your sole or main residence should be the same for CTB purposes."

My client was told that it would be in her interest if she "transfers liability" for CTax to her son. I am not sure if such "transfer" even exists? She was told to put in a written statement, signed by herself and son, stating that from now on the son is responsible for CTax. What are they on about?

It is not possible to just "arrange" liability in way that suits a particular household.

Liability is decided by a hierarchy based on the degree of legal interest the occupiers of the dwelling have. An owner occupier always comes ahead of a tenant, and a tenant always comes ahead of any other resident who has no legal interest. If the top of the hierarchy in a given dwelling is occupied by more that one person they are jointly liable.

I'd be a bit concerned if your client's advice was coming from a local authority!

Just as an afterthought, I do not know whether it is feasible for your client's son to join his mother on the tenancy agreement as a joint tenant. That way they would be jointly liable for council tax and each claim CTB. It would need some careful consideration of all of the possible financial and other ramifications, though.

Thanks for the advice.
The "transferring of liability" pearls of wisdom were given to client by L.A. staff at a special open evening for CTax queries. Ha!

From the above I think that it is fair to say that it is accepted that the liability can not be amended (because of the Hierarchy of Liability), and that the person concerned is being expected to pay 75% of her Ctax liability, (though I disagree with Paul’s assertion that the son is de-facto being asked to pay, as the demands will be sent out in the tenant’s name, and so will any resulting bailiff action etc.).

However, no one has mentioned the application for a DHP. Once the liable person applies for, and is awarded 2AR (reducing the liability to 50%), that person could apply for (and it would appear, unless they are an unusually rich student), a DHP.

This would appear to be a situation which DHP’s were made for???

Great idea. I'll get my student to get the application form asap. She is not a rich student, not many of those around nowadays. Thank you.

I am having difficulties in understanding how can a person get a single person rebate AND second adult rebate. I am realy confused. Sorry, but can you explain, please.

Further to my last post, I am not sure the student can claim a Second Adult Rebate as well as get the 25% reduction for only one adult living in the property. If there is only one person living in the property for Council Tax purposes, how could the liable person then claim a Second Adult Rebate? For CT purposes there is no second adult living in the property hence the 25% reduction in the bill in the first place.

SAR would be calculated on the full amount of the CT (124 of the current CPAG Council Tax Handbook) and so the discount could only be a maximum 25% but the student will get this anyway because the son is the only 'visible' occupant.
Am I correct?

You also say that the student could also claim a discretionary housing payment -but can she do that if she is in receipt of SAR?

Joanna,

I think that you are getting this a wee bit muddled... Don't worry though, Ctax can be really confusing once you delve into its mucky innards... (CTB is calculated to 6 decimal places, try explaining to your average lay person how they have been paid fractions of pennies, and that is why the overpayment does not add up to the ‘weekly’ figure notified in the award letter, because we add up all these fractions of pennies, and then ask you to re-pay them!).

The basic premise of Ctax is that it is a mixture of old 'rates' and 'poll tax' (yes it lives on in spirit, if not by name!). Ctax is in fact 2 separate taxes in one... 50% of the Ctax demand is for the property element (rates), and 50% is for the number of adults living in the property (poll tax). When getting into 2AR it is important to remember that there are these two separate taxes...

However, the poll tax being the nightmare that it was, it was decided that all properties would automatically be treated as having two occupants. This disadvantaged households with only one occupant. So to erase that anomaly in single households, the 25% attributable to the 'missing' adult would be refunded (this is called the SPD). This 25% is in fact a 50% reduction in the poll tax element.

As however is the way with these things, the government went further and said that it would not be fair to treat all people as being liable to ‘pay’ the additional 25% of the charge if they could not afford it, or were carers of the householder, or were students or as I recall members of religious orders... People in these groups were to be treated as if they were not resident, and invisible, thus allowing the 25% SPD reduction (50% of the poll tax element) to remain in place...

So with that in mind, there is no such thing as a single person rebate that you have referred to. Single Person Discounts (SPD's) are part of the statutory Ctax scheme. The SPD is not subject to any form of means test, and to qualify, all a person has to do is to tell the council's Ctax dept. that they live alone, or that they live with one or more 'invisible' people. There is no end to the number of invisible people that can be in the household (if all occupants are invisible, then the 'poll tax' side is removed completely allowing a 100% reduction in the personal element, and in the case of students and most others, it also brings with it a 100% reduction in the ‘rates’ side too, giving a total exemption to the Ctax. Again this exemption is part of the statutory Ctax system, and is not part of the benefit system).

Also, if a householder lives with someone who is 'invisible', that householder is treated as living alone. Full-time students are invisible so long as they have the all important 'Council Tax Student Exemption Certificate' issued by the relevant college/university. No Exemption cert, no invisibility…

There would be absolutely no need for 2AR in any circumstances where the SPD should apply. 2AR however is claimed in circumstances where for instance there are e.g. three people in a property (e.g. householder and 2 non-deps). Say one is a student (invisible), leaving two people. There would be no SPD (as there are two 'visible' people living in the property), but one of the non-deps is unemployed, or on a low income. 2AR can be used to claim back the 25% that would have been awarded by way of the SPD. The same applies even with 1 householder and 1 non-dep, or 1 householder and dozens of non-deps if all the non-deps are unemployed or have sufficiently low incomes).

2AR is paid in the name of the householder (with their NINo. etc.) although it is in respect of the non-dep. The householder might also be on a low income, and might claim 'Main' CTB. Councils should undertake a 'better buy' calculation and award whichever is the highest award. However, as CTB can cover both taxes (100% of the total charge), it is possible to claim a DHP on the remaining Ctax liability after CTB has been awarded.

It is possible for 2AR to be awarded at (from memory), 12.5% and lesser figures, of the total demand (or 25% and 12.5% of the ‘poll tax’ element), but I won’t go there in this post, as it really is potentially awfully complicated at that stage, and I have said to much already!!!.

Does this help, (I hope so because my fingers now hurt!)...

P.S. What I should have also said, is that 2AR (like 'Mian CTB' should only be calculated and awarded after all discounts, & exemptions have been awarded, hence it is important to get these applied first, also because it a persons income increases, they will not lose their 'entitlement' to the reduction, as the reductions are statutory, and not subject to the means test).

N.B. By way of a reality check (for myself if on one else), the above is theory only!!! This is because LA computer systems are sometimes 'pants' (technical IT expression), or are poorly administered, or are administered by people who want claims assessed and are not concerned with quality assessments, or a mixture of all of these things). This leads to CTB (main and 2AR), being awarded on the total 'gross' liability before discounts and exemptions. This 'short-sighted' approach to benefit calculation has later implications...

The 'non-pants' IT systems throw up one or more 'discrepancy warnings' alerting the assessment staff/management that the data on CTax and CTB systems does not align (e.g. F/T student registered as part of the CTB claim, but not on the Ctax system). A substantial minority of LA's ignore those warnings, (and some have actually set the software to deliberately ignore them), leading to nightmarish O/P calculations and explanations when the discounts and exemptions are finally resolved.

For these reasons, always try to get the discounts/exemptions sorted first, you will save your self a great deal of time/trouble later on!!!

Fingers now bleeding....

oooh, poor little fingers!
that was a reply and some...
still, please don't hit me, but, just to confirm, the student would be eligible for 25% discount and this would be SAR. (As you said: 2AR can be used to claim back the 25% that would have been awarded by way of the SPD.)
The more I think I know, the more I realise how stoopid I am.

Many thanks.

then again....what was that about: from your previous post: "Once the liable person applies for, and is awarded 2AR (reducing the liability to 50%)...."
Gimme your phone number!!!
please.

I have had the very same siutation with my client and have advised that she would be eligable for 100% SAR. Look at schedule 2 para 1 (C) found here:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/advisers/docs/lawvols/bluevol/pdf/a8_1701.pdf