Forum Home → Discussion → Other areas of social welfare law → Thread
Council Tax liability and benefit
Hi All
Married couple but separated still living in the same property. Mortgage and deeds in her name only.
Is he liable for half of the CT and, therefore, able to claim CTS for his half?
Thanks in advance.
Council tax is usually joint and several liability (ie both occupants are liable for the whole CT) but the Council has a discretion to reduce liability - paragraph 80 of the Harlow DC Scheme. That should have the effect you are looking for. But I would check with the Council.
Only the wife has a liability to pay council tax as she comes highest on the hierarchy of liability due to being a resident freeholder.
Thanks both.
Elliot the hierarchy also states that if a liable person has a spouse who lives at the property, that person will be jointly and severally liable regardless of if they are at the same level in the hierarchy.
He is a spouse, albeit a separated one. Does this mean the spousal rule does not apply and his liability ends?
Thanks both.
Elliot the hierarchy also states that if a liable person has a spouse who lives at the property, that person will be jointly and severally liable regardless of if they are at the same level in the hierarchy.
He is a spouse, albeit a separated one. Does this mean the spousal rule does not apply and his liability ends?
Learn something new every day.
The Act doesn’t seem to suggest that separation would change the position.
Council tax is usually joint and several liability (ie both occupants are liable for the whole CT) but the Council has a discretion to reduce liability - paragraph 80 of the Harlow DC Scheme. That should have the effect you are looking for. But I would check with the Council.
Paul, do you mean the CTR scheme?
I think I’d be tempted to try arguing that a spouse shouldn’t be treated as a spouse if they’re not living together as a couple. Section 9(3) says: “For the purposes of this section, two persons are to be treated as married to, or civil partners of, each other if they are living together as if they were a married couple or civil partners”
I’m not saying it’s a strong argument on its own, but I would suggest there’s a question of discrimination against married partners which ought to be considered here. Is it fair that an unmarried partner can cease to be treated as a partner (and cease to be liable) if they stop being a couple, but a spouse doesn’t get that same relief? Is the different treatment justified?
I think I’d be tempted to try arguing that a spouse shouldn’t be treated as a spouse if they’re not living together as a couple. Section 9(3) says: “For the purposes of this section, two persons are to be treated as married to, or civil partners of, each other if they are living together as if they were a married couple or civil partners”
I’m not saying it’s a strong argument on its own, but I would suggest there’s a question of discrimination against married partners which ought to be considered here. Is it fair that an unmarried partner can cease to be treated as a partner (and cease to be liable) if they stop being a couple, but a spouse doesn’t get that same relief? Is the different treatment justified?
Thanks Timothy
I can see that this might be a useful argument in some cases.
I guess what I’m trying to get my head around is, if he is liable because he is the spouse of the freeholder, can he claim CTS for half the liability because they are separated?
If he is not liable, because he is separated, CTS is a non starter.
There’s probably a really simple answer and I’m just over thinking.
That seems like a very long shot Tim - you are arguing in effect that s9(3) defines spouses and civil partners in such a way as to exclude actual spouses and civil partners, while only catching cohabitees. I think it’s pretty clear that s9(3) is adding cohabitees in addition to actual spouses and civil partners. It does mean that cohabitees are only caught if they are still an item, whereas married couples and civil partners are caught even if they aren’t on speaking terms, but that is consistent with the way it’s always been in social security unless they are maintaining separate households.
As far as CTR goes, couples are defined in the same way as they are for benefit purposes which means:
- they will be aggregated as a couple and she can claim on the full liability if they are still part of the same household
- they can each claim for their half share if they are no longer part of the same household but still jointly liable (because CT liability doesn’t include the “household” test)
Thanks Peter, that’s what I needed to know.