paying ctb on two homes

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #38703
    Cheryl Lunt
    Participant

    Can anyone help me with this? I have received a form for a claimant who wishes to claim ctb only for six months. She is already receiving benefit in london with her partner who is staying there. She has moved up here temporarily to look after her son is receiving medical treatment but she cannot move in with him. She wants to claim ctb only she has already paid her rent in advance for six months.

    Can she claim?

    #109314
    Kevin D
    Participant

    If she is still a member of the household in London, she cannot be entitled to CTB elsewhere – it is only possible to be a member of one household at any one time.

    Based on the info given so far, my view is that she will not be entitled to CTB at the “second home”. Incidentally, the same applies to HB in these specific circumstances.

    #109326
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Surely it depends where she is regarded as resident for taxation purposes?

    If she is liable to pay Council Tax as a resident of the home in London, she remains eligible for CTB there subject to temp absence provisions. If she is planning to be away for more than 13 weeks at a time, it would be advisable for her to end her CTB claim and let the partner become the CTB claimant in London, at least for the duration of the absence.

    But if she is taxed as the liable resident in your authority, she is entitled to CTB.

    She ought not to be liable for tax as a resident of both properties, but if she is there is nothing to stop her getting CTB on both, again subject to the temp absence rule on the London home so again it might be the best idea for the partner in London to become the claimant there.

    #109332
    Kevin D
    Participant

    I will go away and double check Peter, but I’m pretty sure that if the “partner” is still a member of the household at “address A”, she will not be entitled to CTB at “address B”. Something is niggling that there is case law on the express subject of not being in more than one household at the same time. Also, wouldn’t s.134(2) of the SSCBA 1992 provide a bar?

    #109333
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I agree Section 134(2) would certainly prevent her from being the claimant for her 6-month address while at the same time being aggregated into his CTB claim for the London address: if they are still a couple (which presupposes that they are still part of the same houehold) they cannot each separately claim the same means-tested benefit. The same would go for HB as well – they cannot both separatel;yget HB if they are still aggregated as a couple. I was thinking that Cheryl’s authority would have to disaggregate them for means-testing purposes if he becomes the London claimant, on the basis that she has for the time being established her own household and is therefore not a member of a couple.

    If that flies in the face of the facts, she is going to have to be the claimant for both addresses and make sure she goes back to London at least once every 13 weeks in order to keep her CTB claim alive there.

    #109343
    Kevin D
    Participant

    Actually, I’ve just seen a possible get out. The crux is going to be HBR 21. If the clmt’s absences from London are temporary (as the OP stated) and the absences are less than 52 weeks and there is an intention to resume living together, the default position will be that THAT clmt is still part of the London family / household.

    However, I’ve just spotted an exception in HBR 21(2)(b). HBR 21(1) is expressly disapplied where “…his {i.e. “her” in this case} absence from the other members of his family is likely to exceed 52 weeks, unless there are exceptional circumstances (for example where the person is in hospital or otherwise has no control over the length of his absence) and the absence is unlikely to be substantially more than 52 weeks.”

    Depending on the nature of the medical treatment, it may well mean the exception in HBR 21(2) should apply . However, I agree that if she can properly be treated as a clmt at “address B” (because of the exception taking her out of the household at “address A”), she can no longer get HB or CTB at address “A” – her “partner” will have to claim in his own right without her as his partner.

    Does that sound about right? (My brain is turning to mush at this time of day)

    #109344
    Cheryl Lunt
    Participant

    HI Kevin I have been able to establish that she is the partner on the claim in london not the claimant. Her son is the one receiving medical treatment she is only here to look after him.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.