× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Other areas of social welfare law  →  Thread

council tax single occupier discount and a ‘2nd home’ - no discount for sole or main residence?

Peter Turville
forum member

Welfare rights worker - Oxford Community Work Agency

Send message

Total Posts: 1659

Joined: 18 June 2010

Client had a 25% discount for 10+yrs at residential address. Also owns a second (business) property which is classed by council as part commercial premises part domestic and seperately billed for business rates and council tax. Client has always paid full council tax (and business rates) with no discounts on the residential part of the business property.

Council have now summonsed client for non-payment of council tax equivelent to the 25% discount previously awarded for residential address (i.e. they have determined that client was never eligible for the discount).

Council state because client owns two residential properties only one can count as ‘sole or main residence’ (understand that bit!).

However they then state that client cannot be eligible for a 25% discount on either property because one is classed as a second home. I cannot find any basis for this on council’s own website or in CPAG’s Council Tax Handbook.

I could understand if council were disputing that the property to which the 25% discount had been applied was not in fact clients ‘sole or main residence’ and it had evidence to dispute that on a factual basis - but that is not what they are arguing!

Is there a stautory / case law basis for council to argue a 25% discount does not apply to ‘sole or main’ residence if someone also owns a second property for which they are also liable to council tax?

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

Sounds like they are getting horribly confused between s11(1)(a) of the LGFA 1992, which provides for a single resident discount on the “sole or main” dwelling with no strings, and ss11A and 11B which allow discounts to be reduced or refused altogether in respect of empty properties, and for the basic 100% bill to be increased by up to 50% for long term empty dwellings.  It may be that the effect of being charged 150% for the empty dwelling and 75% for the occupied one make it look as if he has lost his 25% discount, but technically he is entitled to the discount on the sole or main dwelling while he might be liable for a long term empty surcharge on the other one.

Peter Turville
forum member

Welfare rights worker - Oxford Community Work Agency

Send message

Total Posts: 1659

Joined: 18 June 2010

HB Anorak - 27 February 2017 01:02 PM

Sounds like they are getting horribly confused between s11(1)(a) of the LGFA 1992, which provides for a single resident discount on the “sole or main” dwelling with no strings, and ss11A and 11B which allow discounts to be reduced or refused altogether in respect of empty properties, and for the basic 100% bill to be increased by up to 50% for long term empty dwellings.  It may be that the effect of being charged 150% for the empty dwelling and 75% for the occupied one make it look as if he has lost his 25% discount, but technically he is entitled to the discount on the sole or main dwelling while he might be liable for a long term empty surcharge on the other one.

Thanks for the info & reference. CT not my area of expertise.

The 2nd property (residential part) has always been occupied (by clients seperated husband). They remain jointly named on the business rates. She has been soley named on CT liability for both residential addresses over the years(Client & husband have different surnames).

My guess is that, regardless of what council state (in email to client) as reason, it is really that they have now decided clients ‘sole or main residence’ has always the the residential annex to business premesis (or that husband doesn’t actually lives there but with her) but simply cannot articulate that reasoning!?

As no one at the council seems capable of explaining the reasons I will advise client to appeal against the discount decision and request the liability proceedings are adjourned until that process is comple (or council give a coherent explanation).

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

Hmmm, on the face of it each should be liable for 75% as sole or main resident of his/her own dwelling.  Council obviously suspicious about some kind of residence-based jiggery-pokery and as you say struggling to articulate who should be liable for what.  Worst outcome I guess would be 50% empty surcharge on the higher banded of the two and no SPD on the other.