Underlying Entitlement or not?

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
  • #22244

    Hi just wondering if you could help me on this one

    Claimant in receipt of CTB for a number of years – She has a non-dep resident in the property who does not qualify. She therefore receives full CTB less the full non-dep deduction.

    We have now established that 8 years ago she transferred her property to the non-dep (son). His liability for Ctax will be amended to reflect the ownership.

    Due to his income he does not qualify for benefit, but a 2AR claim would apply as the mother is still resident and receiving Pension Credit.

    Now here comes the tricky bit…

    Would all the CTB that we have paid her from the date she transferred the property be recovered? And then they need to put a 2AR claim in?

    Or can we treat it as Underlying Entitlement even though there are 2 different claims/ctax accounts

    Thanking you in advance 😀


    As far as I see it, the mother will not be the claimant, so i don’t see how you can calculate underlying entitlment for her, the son will need to claim the SAR.

    Carol Meredith

    Is this claimant error or LA error? Assuming that the LA did not know that the lady had ceased to be the owner and she continued to cliam as the owner then it is cliamant error and it is recoverable.

    However, if the LA just overlooked the fact that she had ceased to be the owner (is the question asked on your forms?) and nonetheless continued to award CTB then I think it could be classed as LA error not recoverable.

    Agree that you cannot have any underlying entitlement as the son and mother are two different cliamants on two different CT accounts.


    Many thanks for the replies

    It is claimant error, she has continued to tick the box as being the owner.


    All Ctb paid to the mother could be recovered but there wouldn’t be an overpayment as her liability had ended.

    there is a recent thread covering this topic.


    However the son would have a rather large ctax bill.


    If liability is ceased back along with the CTB then all that is outstanding is the payments of CTAX due from the liable person – the son.


    Just to throw a spanner in the works.

    I suppose the son could make a 2AR claim, ask for backdating which goes into the OP period, AND get it granted.

    What you would have is a technical OP as mother’s liability has been removed and a new liability reduced by the backdated award of 2AR.

    Almost smiles all round, even though no underlying entitlement has been assessed (I think!!)

    Do I know what I'm doing? The jury's out on that........................

    chris harvey

    just breaking this down a little more and using a worked example. Lets assume the mother has been billed for £8000 council tax over the years and received £5000 CTB. She now has no liability and no entitlement to benefit, so an overpayment of £5000 would be raised and posted to her CTAX account. Council Tax would remove her liability and assuming she has paid the £3000 her CTAX account would be £3000 in credit which would need to be refunded to her. The subsidy claim would have £3000 added to cell 73 (excess benefit due to reduced CTAX liability) for which no subsidy is payable. This puts the claimant and the authority (subsidy wise) in the same position that they would have been in, had the facts been notified at the outset.
    Quite separately the son would need to apply for SAR. There may be good cause to backdate the claim 52 weeks, but he is likely to end up with a bill for £8000 with a small amount taken off for a years worth of SAR.
    Whatever SAR is awarded is eligible for 100% subsidy.
    Remember reductions due to reduced liability are always recoverable no matter what, and are never eligible for subsidy.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.