Terms & Conditions

[Anonymous]

I trust everyone is aware of the new “100%” 2AR award that is allowable to student householders where a non-student in receipt of IS/JSA(ib)/PC is in residence.

Has anyone noticed the provision in Schedule 2 that prevents students who are eligible to claim CTB from claiming this new, higher, 2AR award?

Schedule 2 only allows 100% to students as defined in reg 45(2) – this reg excludes those students that are eligible to claim main CTB.

Surely this is a drafting error? The 100% award was set up to plug an anomaly that was seeing some students having to pay Ctax due to the presence of non-students on low incomes in their house. Why then make further exclusions just because they are eligible to claim CTB? Given the phrasing of Sch 2, you can’t even allow the better buy provision – they are simply excluded from getting the 100% award.

This exception was not mentioned at all in A18/05 so I’m not convinced the DWP have spotted this.

[Julian Hobson]

I think I know what you mean ?

Two student mates share and are J&S liable, their I/S mate moves in and isn’t J&S they can get 50% of 100% 2AR each on a CTB claim. NO CT PAYABLE no means test.

Lone parent who’s Brother on I/S moves in can now get main CTB because now liable for CT and will get upto 100% CTB (because no non dep deduction) can’t get 100% 2AR but can get 25% 2AR if that is more generous than main CTB. Might have CT to pay because it will be Means Tested on the students income.

Not sure whether this was the Policy intention, Is it a mistake. I’d ask Christine Watkins at DWP, contact details on the circular.

[APT]

Well (and not making any judgements on the reasoning behind this) prior to the introduction of this new 2AR rate any eligible student would qualify for either main CTB or 2AR under the better buy, so if their own income /capital was high they would have had the “safety net” of the 25% reduction.

By introducing the 100% 2AR without the bar you have spotted they would have effectively abolished the better buy process for eligible students with a PB non-dep.

[gerryg]

In case anyone saw my earlier post – I deleted it!

How I read it is that 45(2) is a definition of who cannot get CTB and applies by virtue of 45(1).

45(1) says that “except to the extent that they may be entitled to 2AR under S131 SSCBA” 45(2) applies.

I don’t see how that means that a person who can get ordinary CTB is precluded from getting 2AR.

[APT]

[quote:09954862e1=”gerryg”]In case anyone saw my earlier post – I deleted it!

How I read it is that 45(2) is a definition of who cannot get CTB and applies by virtue of 45(1).

45(1) says that “except to the extent that they may be entitled to 2AR under S131 SSCBA” 45(2) applies.

I don’t see how that means that a person who can get ordinary CTB is precluded from getting 2AR.[/quote:09954862e1]

I think the point is not that an eligible student can not get 2AR but that the rate of 2AR for the purposes of the better buy is limited to the 25% rate.

I’ve not had a read myself so I’m just going from what is posted here.

[Julian Hobson]

Gerry I don’t think it stops them from getting 2AR but it stops them from getting 2AR at 100%.

Schedule 2 reserves 2AR at 100% to the following “Where the dwelling would be wholly occupied by one or more persons to whom regulation 45(2) applies but for the presence of one or more second adults who are in receipt of income support, state pension credit or are persons on an income-based jobseeker’s allowance.”

the question is whether reg 45(2) applies to all students or just those that it seeks to exclude from main CTB, it actually says that it doesn’t apply to those in paras 3 and 7 of reg 45.

If those excluded by 3 and 7 are excluded from the 100% 2AR they can still get 2AR but only 25%. Hope this helps however I accept I might be getting the wrong end of the stick.

[Anonymous]

I see your point GerryG but, if thats the case, why does Sch 2 make reference to 45(2) at all? Why doesn’t it just make reference to full-time students as defined in reg 43?

I’ve e-mailed DWP about this – I’ll post their reply once I get it.

Thanks for your responses.

[gerryg]

I get it – I have seen the light!

Because 45(2) is subject to the following paras if they are eligible for main CTB then they can get a mximum 25%.

Well it’s all so obvious when you look at it like that! 🙄

I’ll be interested in the DWP’s response to your question Ants

[Anonymous]

Here’s the DWPs response;

[i:5f03994ab8]Reg 45(2) excludes students from receiving main CTB. However, those students to whom 45(3) to (7) apply are not excluded. This means that students to whom reg 45(3) to (7) applies can receive main CTB and obviously up to 100%. Therefore they would not need to fall back on AMCTB.

Those people who are excluded by 45(2) cannot get main CTB and need to apply for AMCTB. Under the new reg they can get up to 100% if a the second adult receives IS, JSA(IB) or Pension Credit. In this way students who fall under 45(2) can get up to 100% of their CT liability by AMCTB met in the same way that those who fall under 45(3) to (7) could under main CTB.

The new reg ensures that both groups are treated equally in this particular circumstance albeit either through main CTB ar AMCTB.[/i:5f03994ab8]

I’m still not convinced though – just because a student has access to main CTB, it doesn’t mean they will qualify, let alone receive 100%. If they don’t qualify, they have no recourse to the 100% AMCTB.

[Anonymous]

I think I agree with the DWP policy behind this. A non-qualifier for main CTB on means-test grounds is able to afford his/her Council Tax. They might get up to 25% 2AR, but that is only available as compensation for missing out on a discount.

A non-qualifier for main CTB simply by virtue of being a full-time student may or may not be able to afford his/her Council Tax – and having a non-dep on IS/JSA/PC won’t help much with the household finances. Hence the need for up to 100% 2AR.

Yes, I reckon it’s fair.

Edit after a few minutes’ reflection: I don’t think the above is a very strong argument actually. For a full-time student, 2AR is nearly always to compensate for not being totally exempt – a 25% discount would be available to a FT student with one non-dep. So on second thoughts I think I agree with those who argue that the distinction in the new rules is completely arbitrary

[Author]

Posts