underlying entitlement

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #20599
    pauldean
    Participant

    We have had a case where we refused a carers discount as the carer did not get the higher rate of DLA and , by his own admission, hadn’t applied for it becasue he didn’t think he would qualify for it.
    He did appeal to the VT though and they have ruled that there is an underlying entitlement to the higher rate 😯
    does anyone else have experience of VT’s making these sort of decisions?
    we are not sure whether to appeal or not?
    any thoughts 🙄

    #3239
    gerryg
    Participant

    Part II of Schedule 1 of the Council Tax (Additional Provisions for Discount Disregards) Regulations 1992 (1992 No. 552) states:

    3. The requirements set out in this Part of this Schedule are that the person is-
    (a) providing care to a person who is [b:804b3a90d3]in receipt of[/b:804b3a90d3]-
    (i) a higher rate attendance allowance under section 65 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992
    ii) the highest rate of the care component of a disability living allowance under section 72(4)(a) of that Act;

    etc, etc,

    As far as I know that has never been amended.[b:804b3a90d3][i:804b3a90d3]***SEE POST BELOW***[/i:804b3a90d3][/b:804b3a90d3]

    I think that the VT has erred in saying “entitled” and that you would have grounds for appeal.[color=darkred:804b3a90d3][/color:804b3a90d3][color=darkred:804b3a90d3][/color:804b3a90d3][color=darkred:804b3a90d3][/color:804b3a90d3][color=darkred:804b3a90d3][/color:804b3a90d3][color=darkred:804b3a90d3][/color:804b3a90d3][color=darkred:804b3a90d3][/color:804b3a90d3][color=darkred:804b3a90d3][/color:804b3a90d3][color=darkred:804b3a90d3][/color:804b3a90d3][color=darkred:804b3a90d3][/color:804b3a90d3][color=darkred:804b3a90d3][/color:804b3a90d3][color=darkred:804b3a90d3][/color:804b3a90d3][color=darkred:804b3a90d3][/color:804b3a90d3]

    #3240
    pauldean
    Participant

    SI 1996/637 amended the term ‘in receipt of’ to ‘entitled to’
    still an odd decision to make i think……………..

    #3241
    gerryg
    Participant

    Thanks for that update DeanP. I missed that one.

    I agree that it is a dodgy decision by the VT.

    I would argue that “entitled to” meant that there was actually an entitlement but that it was not being paid due to an overlapping benefit (e.g. the over 65’s not getting Carers Allowance because their State Retirement Pension is more) not that a person could have got the qualifying benefit if they had bothered to apply.

    Is it worth taking it further? On principle I think you should but how many people would it affect? It may not be worth the fianancial cost.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.