× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

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

Council Tax discretionary write off under 13a(1)(c) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992

AngelaM
forum member

Staying First, Shepherds Bush Housing Group

Send message

Total Posts: 13

Joined: 1 September 2016

Hello

I’m wondering whether anyone can help.

I have a client who is on Universal Credit with the standard allowance and housing costs elements only. She has two non-dependents living with her, so she needs to make up the shortfall in her rent.

Additionally, she is also liable for some council tax. This is because her council will not cover anyone’s entire council tax liability through council tax support, as well as non-dependent deductions being made.

She has arrears going back years. Some of it is with enforcement agents and some arrears are with the council. In total, for her on going council tax and the two sets of arrears repayments, she is expected to pay £120 per month for council tax alone.

In terms of her non-dependents (her Son and Daughter), they will not contribute at all to the rent or council tax. Though they live in the same house, they are estranged from her. Despite knowing her difficulties they won’t contribute or tell her what they’re up to work wise. Despite the way they treat her, as their mother she feels unable to ask them to leave.

She also has health issues such as a personality disorder, osteoarthritis, bowel disease, slipped disc, sciatica, a leaky valve in her heart and depression. We are having to appeal a PIP decision, but if this is awarded by tribunal then non-dependent deductions will cease.

She is reluctant to go for a debt relief order.

I wrote to the council to request a discretionary write off of this year’s council tax under section 13. This was rejected so I requested a review.

The review upheld the original decision. It said ‘I do not accept that the situation surrounding her Son is beyond her control and that all reasonable steps have been taken to resolve this situation. As you are aware, the non-dependent deductions are the main cause of her problems in relation to council tax. It is not for me to advise her on how she treats her son, but it is also not for the residents of this council to bear the burden of his refusal to contribute to the household’.

It is unclear what reasonable steps can be taken but in any case I’m not sure whether I have further recourse and if so what I could do next. Has anyone been in a similar situation?

HB Anorak
forum member

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

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

There is a right of appeal to the VTE - I think you are now at the stage where that can be done as the Council has in substance rejected a grievance about the amount of Council Tax.  The time limit is two months; the appeal is lodged directly with the VTE.  The VTE has jurisdiction to look at the merits of applications for discretionary reduction under s13A(1)(c) following the President’s personal intervention in an East Riding of Yorkshire case a couple of years ago.  The Tribunal will first consider whether the Council has followed its own policy, but is not bound to reject the appeal if the policy has been followed - the Tribunal is stepping into the Council’s shoes and discretion includes the ability to depart from the policy when presented with a compelling case.

Obviously there is no guarantee your client will win - it may be that the Tribunal will see it the Council’s way.  Their stance is harsh but not necessarily unfair.  But there is a right of appeal for sure.

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3196

Joined: 7 January 2016

Might seem like a bit of a nuclear option but if you think there are signs of financial abuse (or other), then it might be worth discussing with your client whether a safeguarding review should be requested through the local authority safeguarding team?

From what you’ve said, it’s doubtful she’d agree to this either - depending on how extreme the situation is, you can request a review without her consent but that obviously runs the risk of damaging your relationship as an adviser with her.

There’s more informaiton about this in our factsheet Safeguarding older people from abuse and neglect

AngelaM
forum member

Staying First, Shepherds Bush Housing Group

Send message

Total Posts: 13

Joined: 1 September 2016

Thank you both, I shall discuss both options with my client.

SamW
forum member

Lambeth Every Pound Counts

Send message

Total Posts: 430

Joined: 26 July 2012

Hey Angela :) ! Hope you’re well!

If the council are applying the maximum non-dep deductions, have a look at the decision I’ve attached -  it sounds like it might be a similarish situation?

Obvs you might get stuck with appeal deadlines/evidence problems if client has literally no idea what the non-deps are doing/issues about the decision being about the national Council Tax Benefit scheme and not a local scheme but it might be worth a try? You’d imagine the principle remains.

Cya soon!

File Attachments

AngelaM
forum member

Staying First, Shepherds Bush Housing Group

Send message

Total Posts: 13

Joined: 1 September 2016

Thanks Sam :)

Stuart
Administrator

rightsnet editor

Send message

Total Posts: 890

Joined: 21 March 2016

HB Anorak - 03 November 2017 03:50 PM

... The VTE has jurisdiction to look at the merits of applications for discretionary reduction under s13A(1)(c) following the President’s personal intervention in an East Riding of Yorkshire case a couple of years ago…

A recent example of a VTE decision on a discretionary reduction appeal (unfortunately went against the claimant) - includes summary of former President’s guidance…
http://info.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/decision_document.asp?Decision=&appeal;=/decision_documents/documents/CT_England/3060M229273/037C

ROBBO
forum member

Welfare rights team - Stockport Advice

Send message

Total Posts: 334

Joined: 16 June 2010

Decision quotes Yorkshire’s East Rising. 

Glad to hear it, and not before time.

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

ROBBO - 01 November 2018 12:04 PM

Decision quotes Yorkshire’s East Rising. 

Glad to hear it, and not before time.

Sinking into the North Sea some time soon though.

Timothy Seaside
forum member

Housing services - Arun District Council

Send message

Total Posts: 539

Joined: 20 September 2018

stuart - 25 October 2018 03:24 PM

A recent example of a VTE decision on a discretionary reduction appeal (unfortunately went against the claimant) - includes summary of former President’s guidance…
http://info.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/decision_document.asp?Decision=&appeal;=/decision_documents/documents/CT_England/3060M229273/037C

That seems to me to be a very very poor decision. Way too much emphasis on the “don’t rock the boat” elements of the East Riding decision, without any consideration of the rest of that decision. It seems to accept the idea that the applicant’s circumstances should be exceptional… er, no; the judge (and counsel for East Riding) said there was nothing to support such “extraordinary statements in the submission” in that case. Para 54 of the decision says it all for me:-

“54. The simple fact is that there is no surplus income to meet this bill. The respondent accepts that. It is difficult to imagine a clearer case for discretionary assistance. To deny help on the grounds that this situation owes nothing to exceptional circumstances, or that absent an exceptional circumstance relief is unavailable, or that their situation cannot be measurably improved by any relief granted strikes me as perverse, irrational and unsustainable.”

Given that the panel in this recent case found that the appellant had a budget deficit of nearly £500 per month, what possible justification could there be for refusing relief?

 

[ Edited: 19 Nov 2018 at 05:29 pm by Timothy Seaside ]