Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
Council Tax Reduction and absent joint tenant
Hi folks,
Got slightly odd query whereby mother and daughter have just been given joint tenancy of 3-bed HA property. We’ve been told daughter might be moving out on long-term temporary basis for reasons unknown (suspicion is to try and get HB to pay full rent to mother which I think could be problematic anyway). The current 14% bedroom tax would also go up to 25% as well.
But with regards to Council Tax Reduction, I’m getting tangled as always. Liability for Council Tax is split 50/50 between mother and daughter as joint tenants of course, whether daughter is actually living there or not but if she isn’t living there, then mother can attract 25% single person discount on the CT liability.
My question is, does the 25% discount apply to the 100% of the CT liability, so she can claim CTR for half of the remaining 75% (33.75%) or does it apply only to her 50% liability so she can claim CTR for remainder (25%)?
My assumption is the former situation but despite checking, I’m not certain. Anyone help me with this Friday Gordian knot please?
If there is a discount, that is because the daughter is no longer resident. And if she is no longer resident, she is not liable because the mother appears first in the s6 hierarchy. The daughter would be an “owner” for CT purposes, and owners are not normally liable when there is a resident.
She cannot be resident for liability purposes and non-resident for discount purposes.
Worst case scenario would be that she is still resident, but absent for too long to get CTR on her share. Your use of the word “temporary” worries me a bit in that regard.
If there is a discount, that is because the daughter is no longer resident. And if she is no longer resident, she is not liable because the mother appears first in the s6 hierarchy. The daughter would be an “owner” for CT purposes, and owners are not normally liable when there is a resident.
She cannot be resident for liability purposes and non-resident for discount purposes.
Worst case scenario would be that she is still resident, but absent for too long to get CTR on her share. Your use of the word “temporary” worries me a bit in that regard.
Thanks Peter, there’s a lot that doesn’t really make sense on this enquiry.
You’re saying that the daughter is either counted as resident and therefore CT liability is 50/50 with mother and therefore mother can claim CTR on her portion, or the daughter is counted as non-resident in which case mother is liable for 100% CT and would get 25% single person discount and could claim CTR for entirety of remainder of liability?
You’ve also reminded me of the dual residence rules so the daughter could be treated as having her main or only home at the property in question but also resident elsewhere “temporarily”. Which could mean the LA decide either of the two scenarios above apply to the case?
You’re saying that the daughter is either counted as resident and therefore CT liability is 50/50 with mother and therefore mother can claim CTR on her portion, or the daughter is counted as non-resident in which case mother is liable for 100% CT and would get 25% single person discount and could claim CTR for entirety of remainder of liability?
Yes, exactly that.
You’ve also reminded me of the dual residence rules so the daughter could be treated as having her main or only home at the property in question but also resident elsewhere “temporarily”. Which could mean the LA decide either of the two scenarios above apply to the case?
She can only be resident in one place for Council Tax liability purposes, but CTR in most LA schemes has temporary absence rules that mirror those in HB. This means you can still be liable for CT as a resident, because that is a durable and long term state of affairs, but temporarily staying elsewhere for longer than the CTR scheme allows. If the scheme mirrors HB, that could be as little as 4 weeks or as long as 52 depending where she is and why.
You’re saying that the daughter is either counted as resident and therefore CT liability is 50/50 with mother and therefore mother can claim CTR on her portion, or the daughter is counted as non-resident in which case mother is liable for 100% CT and would get 25% single person discount and could claim CTR for entirety of remainder of liability?
Yes, exactly that.
You’ve also reminded me of the dual residence rules so the daughter could be treated as having her main or only home at the property in question but also resident elsewhere “temporarily”. Which could mean the LA decide either of the two scenarios above apply to the case?
She can only be resident in one place for Council Tax liability purposes, but CTR in most LA schemes has temporary absence rules that mirror those in HB. This means you can still be liable for CT as a resident, because that is a durable and long term state of affairs, but temporarily staying elsewhere for longer than the CTR scheme allows. If the scheme mirrors HB, that could be as little as 4 weeks or as long as 52 depending where she is and why.
Thanks again. This always gets me.
So daughter can be resident in more than one property but she can only be liable for Council Tax at one or the other. If she is deemed to have her main residence elsewhere, mother is liable for the full 100% CT and gets 25% SP discount and can claim CTR on rest?
If the daughter’s main residence remains at the property, then it’s still 50/50 liability and mother can claim CTR for her half. Not sure how the temporary absence rules for CTR would affect that?
Well the temporary absence rules could mean that the daughter is not entitled to CTR despite being jointly liable as a resident - in the same way that rent liability doesn’t end when the claimant is temporarily absent for longer than the HB regs allow.
In HB, you can remain liable for rent on a place that you still consider to be your home, but no longer entitled to HB because you have been or will be absent for longer than 4/8/13/26/52 weeks.
Likewise, in CTR, you can remain liable for CT as a resident because that is still your sole or main residence, but no longer entitled to CTR because you have been or will be absent for longer than 4/8/13/26/52 weeks.
When we are talking about Council Tax, I think it’s helpful to only use the word “resident” in the way it is used in the LGFA. So where you say “she can be resident in more than one property”, I understand what you mean but that is a legal impossibility in the CT regime. You meant, she could be making use of two homes and living in them both to some extent, but she can only be *resident* in one of them.
Well the temporary absence rules could mean that the daughter is not entitled to CTR despite being jointly liable as a resident - in the same way that rent liability doesn’t end when the claimant is temporarily absent for longer than the HB regs allow.
In HB, you can remain liable for rent on a place that you still consider to be your home, but no longer entitled to HB because you have been or will be absent for longer than 4/8/13/26/52 weeks.
Likewise, in CTR, you can remain liable for CT as a resident because that is still your sole or main residence, but no longer entitled to CTR because you have been or will be absent for longer than 4/8/13/26/52 weeks.
When we are talking about Council Tax, I think it’s helpful to only use the word “resident” in the way it is used in the LGFA. So where you say “she can be resident in more than one property”, I understand what you mean but that is a legal impossibility in the CT regime. You meant, she could be making use of two homes and living in them both to some extent, but she can only be *resident* in one of them.
Ah sorry, the CTR is for the mother only, so daughter wouldn’t be claiming CTR herself, she is in FT work. Think I’ve got there in the end, thanks for your help Peter, have a good weekend.