beneficial change council tax benefit only

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #31883
    tracycox
    Participant

    Hi
    We had two claims for two people living in a property who were jointly liable for the council tax and therefore both got benefit based on 50% of the liability. One of the customers has informed us that the other person moved out in july – so we have cancelled their claim from july but i am now querying do i increase the other person’s to 100% of the liability from july or do i just do it from when they notified us as it is a beneficial change.
    Thanks

    #89132
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Definitely go back – the change in circs is an increase in Council Tax liability – the claimant does not have a duty to notify this.

    #89133
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I don’t think it’s that simple. What’s the increase in council tax liability? If they were joint tenants they were always jointly and severally liable for 100%. Would the remaining clt get a new bill? I don’t think so. The increase to 100% is a benefit decison, not a liability issue, so I would treat it as a late notified change and not go back.

    #89134
    Kevin D
    Participant

    I agree with Chris on this. The clmt’s liability, for CTAX purposes, has always been 100% (jt & several). It’s the CTB regs, not CTAX legislation, that deem the proportion of that liability.

    #42096
    David
    Participant

    Tha amount of ctax will change as SPD will be awarded (if I’ve understood this corectly).

    Therefore, no duty to notify

    #89135
    trishc
    Participant

    The remaining tenant should get a new bill, with an SPD, so I agree, no duty to notify.

    #89136
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I’m with Kevin and Chris on this one.

    There is no change in the amount of council tax charged, just the proportion that the CTB is assessed on. So there is a duty to notify.

    #89137
    David
    Participant

    CTB reg 74 refers to ctax payable, and that has changed if there is a SPD

    #89138
    Kay_Tade
    Participant

    I have to agree with David and mwigg, no duty to notify, amend CTB back to date it changed. CTBR 74 (3) and (4).

    #89139
    Kevin D
    Participant

    For some reason, I posted on the basis that there was still more than one person present 😯 .

    If a discount has been applied, I agree CTB must be amended from the date the change takes effect from – but under CTBR 67(3), not CTBR 74,

    #89140
    Kay_Tade
    Participant

    [quote:e30d3c4fee=”Kevin D”]If a discount has been applied, I agree CTB must be amended from the date the change takes effect from – but under CTBR 67(3), not CTBR 74,[/quote:e30d3c4fee] I can see that with the SPD but would say 74 also also applies. 🙂

    #42103
    Kevin D
    Participant

    CTBR 74 is only relevant to the extent of a duty (or not) to notify a CofC – it cannot drive the date of the effect of a CofC.

    #89141
    Kay_Tade
    Participant

    [quote:d76ff2ea82=”Kevin D”]CTBR 74 is only relevant to the extent of a duty (or not) to notify a CofC – it cannot drive the date of the effect of a CofC.[/quote:d76ff2ea82]

    But a duty(or not) to notify directly drives the coc effective date 😕

    #89142
    Anonymous
    Guest

    If an SPD has been awarded from the date of the change in occupation, the effective date of [b:3b18f4306d]that[/b:3b18f4306d] change in liability is determined by 67(3) to be the exact date of the change.

    But the change in occupation has another effect – the apportionment of liability under reg 57(3). Should the two outcomes be combined?

    We have a change event which is required to be notified, and two direct outcomes. Similar to the common HB situation where a non-dep moves in and the change is reported late. In these situations we would look at the net effect of any increase in RO/LHA rate vs the non-dep deduction. If the change is overall beneficial, late notify dates should be considered.

    Maybe the same should be considered here? Does the combined effect of the reduction in liability due to the SPD and the reapportionment of liability due to the change in occupation reduce or increase the award? I’m guessing the overall effect is beneficial. Therefore, maybe CTB should be calculated based on 50% of 100% of the liability (ignoring any SPD) up to the date of the notification; then 100% of 75% of the liability from that date?

    Unfortunately – some Councils will not award SPDs retrospectively.

    This is a bit of a mess – it might be easier for you to just think of some special circumstances for the delay notifying the change…

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.