hi can anybody tell me where I can find the current Council tax legislation for England?

many thanks.

omero

Use OPSI - the governing legislation is the Local Government Fiance Act 1992 but the actual bones of it are set out in various statutory instruments.

What area are you interested in and I'll tell you which SI you need.

Hi

thanks! I am intersted in the exemptions, specifically for people with mental ilnesses. (should nbe 100%). I have seen different interpretations by Councils - for instance a person gone to live elsewhere to be cared for by relatives will not pay council tax (at the property where he used to live, I assume). Another Council has interpreted the rule as meaning that the person with the illness has to be recovered in a hospital all the time.

I will look up the finance act to start with but any comments are welcome thanks

omero

Thats why I asked about a document which encompasses the whole issue and then I could ask more specific questions here.

Hi again

nothing on the Local Gov Finance Act as far as I can see - there is an entry in Shelter, as follows:

You do not have to pay council tax if you are away from home to receive care because:

• you are elderly
  
• you suffer from ill-health or a mental health problem
  
• you have a disability
  
• you are or have been dependent on alcohol or drugs.
  
• 
  

The Citizens advice bureau has a similar entry, but the case would be more solid if I were to read it from the source. What infuriates me is that, in applying for the Council Tax Benefits some time ago, The Council were made aware of this situation yet ignored when rejecting the application on the basis that the person concerned was not at the property full time.

TBH the info on the CAB site can be too basic at times.

From what I can see your looking at either Class E or Class I

Class E exemption is a person who is in residential car/hospital and that location has beome their main residence.

Class I exemption is for a person who left their own property to be cared for in another persons home.

The defintions can be found here - The Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992 .

many thanks, I have read it albeit quickly. Interesting (and it will never cease to amaze me) how transciptions of the relevant legislation always contain a different flavour i.e. I am pretty sure the write-up on the Council website (there is nothing on the website of my Council) qualified the criteria (mental ilness) as 'severe' mental illness.

I will go and read up the 1992 document more attentively.

Thanks for your help - it s been very good

omero

There is an exemption (Class U) and disregard for a person who suffers from 'severe mental impairment'. It may have bene that which you saw.

This is the info contained in the "Council Tax: A Guide to Your Bill" leaflet under discounts and exemptions:

thanks

SS002d6252

thanks, I cannot see class U on the 1992 legislation. Have there been any amendemts since?

aviva

thanks, yes I spotted that in a run thu websites. If they remove intelligence, even partially, from a human being, then we are discussing psychotic disorders only. For example, people affected by schizophrenia cannot filter reality from non-reality in some situations, though they may perfectly lucid in others. Hopefully, there will not have been significant amendments to the Statutory Doc referred to by SS2d6252 but I would certain challenge them to show me the exact legislation wording and a fairly current psychiatric paper which categorically states that only psychotic conditions limit social functioning.

I have written off to the Court with an update, quoting the Statutory document verbatim, to have the request for Summons rejected prior to the hearing. Let see what they say.!

===

thanks again

ha!

I found all the opsis from 1992 - though you will still beat me to find out the ones past 1992 on council tax, so I would still appreciate an input thanks

SS002d6252

thanks, I cannot see class U on the 1992 legislation. Have there been any amendemts since?

The Council Tax (Discount Disregards and Exempt Dwellings) (Amendment) Order 1995

The exemption uses the definintion of SMI in the original legislation to extend the diso**** to an exemption if the property is ocucpied only by people who meet the Class U exemption.

Local Government Finance Act 1992 (c. 14)

and

The Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992

The defintion does not just include psychiatric disorders, any functioning impairment that meets the criteria counts, even if through an accident rather than illness - the key words are 'however caused'

(1) A person shall be disregarded for the purposes of discount on a particular day if—

 

(a) on the day he is severely mentally impaired;

 

(b) as regards any period which includes the day he is stated in a certificate of a registered medical practitioner to have been or to be likely to be severely mentally impaired; and

 

© as regards the day he fulfils such conditions as may be prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State.

 

(2) For the purposes of this paragraph a person is severely mentally impaired if he has a severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning (however caused) which appears to be permanent.

 

(3) The Secretary of State may by order substitute another definition for the definition in sub-paragraph (2) above as for the time being effective for the purposes of this paragraph.

thanks! very informative though I need some more help.

when it comes to mental illness (or disorder) there seems to be a difference in the criteria i.e.

a) discounts, disregards or not counted

these are concessions for people who live in their homes and the definition of illness has been qualified in the 1992 Act and successive amendements, to a point where 'severally mentally impaired' would disqualify people with a neurotic condition. It seems the law is quite specific on the subject. (and a challenge in court would cost a fortune and this takes care of a comment I made in an earlier post).

b) for 'exemptions' on the other hand, the only criteria seems to be limited to 'mental illness', as quoted to exemptions laid out in the (1992) Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Class I, where the person has left the property empty to be cared elsewhere with (for instance ) relatives in their own residence.

Therefore

1. - a person who still lives at home may be disregarded, not counted or received a discount.

2. - a person who has left his home to be cared in a residential home, hospital etc is subject to the same rule.

3. - a person who leaves home to be cared for by relatives has the full exemption

4. - a person who leaves home to be cared for in hospital for example will be disregarded not counted and receive a discount.

Any flaws in the above? Many thanks.!

===

A Class U exemption is a follow on from a disregard due to being SMI. If all occupiers are disregarded as SMI then the property is exempt. It requires the SMI person be resident at the property.

The rules for Class I dont require a disregard to be applicable as the person is not resident at the property for which the exemption is due therefore its being given on an empty property as is the Class E exemption.

For a Class I exemption the rules are more lax than that for an SMI as they dont specify that the illness has to be a 'severe impairement', it gives a whole range of possible qualifying conditions.

ss02d6252, thanks

I didnt realize you had posted - I have only managed to find this site again today.

I have tried to get a postponment by the Court so that I could get a doctors/specialists certificate of some sort, but I learned that these Liability Orders are virtually rubber stamped en-bloc (to quote Court staff..) so my request was mignored it seems. More of that later, though I have applied now directly to Council for a Class I exemption and finally the Council are listening - though I have 2 questions following their questions (quote):

a) The care you are receiving with details of your care provider;

b) Your disablement, illness, drug or alcohol dependency or mental

disorder, (Doctors or health specialist certificates / letters spanning

the period from which you went into care.

Given the specific correspondence that has taken place with the Council, I feel more than p****d off at this latest questioning, which ignores my offer of specific evidence in advance of submitting a 3rd application to save time all-round.

My The

a) a above could incolude dl,include anythign with hygiene to financial support and arguing my case in Court if I cannto atte.unancialwasbove

HI all

Pls ignore my previous post, still unfinished and unedited - the administrator will delete it shortly. Will post a reply when done.

thanks !

ss02d6252, thanks!

here is a new post...

I didnt realize you had posted - I have only managed to find this site again today.

I tried to have the hearing postponed by the Court so that I could get a doctors/specialists certificate of some sort, but I learned that these Liability Orders are virtually rubber stamped en-bloc (to quote Court staff..) so my request was ignored. More of that later, though I have applied now directly to Council for a Class I exemption and finally the Council are listening - though I have 2 questions following their questions (quote):

a) The care you are receiving with details of your care provider;

b) Your disablement, illness, drug or alcohol dependency or mental

disorder, (Doctors or health specialist certificates / letters spanning

the period from which you went into care.

Questions:

is there a guideline on the relevance and extent of their questioning?here they replied with these 2 questions in response to an earlier request of mine, asking to be advised on the extent of the specific medical evidence required when submitting the aplication. That question was ignored and thus the worry that their questions may not be answered without incurring the risk that the answers may be considered incomplete.

Coming to b) above .. it's an impossibile task, in that the medical condition has existed for the last 18 years. Though if one assumes that 'went into care' could mean 'being cared for' (by a relatives at home for example) then the relevant 'period' would be around 6 months, thus limiting the evidence to one psychiatrist certificate instead of a GP's entire filing system.

Hence the need for guidelines somewhere, open to public scrutiny. Where do these guys get their questions from - can we see the rule book?

Many thanks - all suggestions are welcome.

Omero

There are no ruels per se, the local authority however has to be able to request sufficent information to ensure they are awarding a discount/exemption correctly.

You need to supply sufficent proof, if that proof only goes back 6 months then the local authority will not award past that unless they are satisfied you meet the criteria at an earlier date,

thanks though can you rephrase it for me - my understading is that they Council wont grant an exemption retroactively, past 3 months prior to the date of the application.

Clinically, the past has limited relevance anyhow in this case, other than point to maybe a chronic condition. It is the present and the future prognosis that matters mostly to the sufferer of the condition and the specialists who treat it - to a point where a new assessment is invariably carried from scratch before a different clinic or therapist take on a patient with or without a history.

Thanks !

p.s. It depresses me no end to see that we are virtually without recourse to the law, in the hands of bureaucrats whose understanding of mental disorders may not even go as far as knowing they have to engage a specialist to advise them. The correspondence from the Council so far points to all this, unfortunately.

a sad Omero ...

Hi again

 

nothing on the Local Gov Finance Act as far as I can see - there is an entry in Shelter, as follows:

 

You do not have to pay council tax if you are away from home to receive care because:

• you are elderly
  
• you suffer from ill-health or a mental health problem
  
• you have a disability
  
• you are or have been dependent on alcohol or drugs.
  

The Citizens advice bureau has a similar entry, but the case would be more solid if I were to read it from the source. What infuriates me is that, in applying for the Council Tax Benefits some time ago, The Council were made aware of this situation yet ignored when rejecting the application on the basis that the person concerned was not at the property full time.

Elderly people do have to pay council tax, I am a pensioner and am obliged to pay council as indeed other eldelry as well. What I object to is that a lot of my council tax goes toward gold plated pension for lazy government staff.

Hi allwood

thanks x the comments.

I know.. - I suppose what I cannot accept is that Council and central Government seem to take a discretional view on too many things.

If SS02is right and there are no set rules, shouldnt that prompt a question: why not - shouldnt there be any? so at least we would arguing our rights based on something that has intentionally set our in law with the good intention to bring consistent judgement to these issues. Discretional judgement is fine in Court when it comes to decide on somethign that is unclear in law.

p.s. I had another ancounter with same council years ago because I didnt realize I could have 25% discount for sole occupancy - when I asked for a refund they replied they 'normally' rebated up to 2 years (I think it was 2 years or something..) unless in exceptional circumstances blah blah blah... I asked to see a list of such circumstances and they didnt seem to have a clue - I pressed and finally they relented and agreed to rebate from when it first applied. I guess I have been a marked man ever since...

I will ask them tomorrow to se the rule book.. I cant believe that there is nt some sort of directive on the subject.

Hi allwood

 

thanks x the comments.

 

I know.. - I suppose what I cannot accept is that Council and central Government seem to take a discretional view on too many things.

 

If SS02is right and there are no set rules, shouldnt that prompt a question: why not - shouldnt there be any? so at least we would arguing our rights based on something that has intentionally set our in law with the good intention to bring consistent judgement to these issues. Discretional judgement is fine in Court when it comes to decide on somethign that is unclear in law.

 

p.s. I had another ancounter with same council years ago because I didnt realize I could have 25% discount for sole occupancy - when I asked for a refund they replied they 'normally' rebated up to 2 years (I think it was 2 years or something..) unless in exceptional circumstances blah blah blah... I asked to see a list of such circumstances and they didnt seem to have a clue - I pressed and finally they relented and agreed to rebate from when it first applied. I guess I have been a marked man ever since...

 

I will ask them tomorrow to se the rule book.. I cant believe that there is nt some sort of directive on the subject.

Now these people in Town Halls do want to do a little as possible for joe public and if you cause them to get off their backsides and exert themselves because you know your rights then you will differently be a 'marked man, trouble maker'.

allwood hi: yes, I wouldnt be suprised if I had 5* (stars) alongside my name on their database. ..

If SS02is right and there are no set rules, shouldnt that prompt a question: why not - shouldnt there be any? so at least we would arguing our rights based on something that has intentionally set our in law with the good intention to bring consistent judgement to these issues. Discretional judgement is fine in Court when it comes to decide on somethign that is unclear in law.

Council Tax legislation is vague in many areas, why central government made it this way is a question best answered by them, and causes a large amount of trouble both for the council and the tax payer.

well - I have emailed them today asking to see the source of their logic - the 'rule book' or something, so that we avoid timewasting in qualifying the wording and so forth. I have actually offered them some examples they could have offered - categorizing things would be a start.

I wonder how one could take matters further given that, if there is no law that governs these issues as such, they wouldnt be breaking it therefore (wouldnt that be ironic..?), so we are all in limbo. Maybe it will be a question of case history prevaling up to now (unfortunately, I fear) ;-)

thanks all x the input here so far ! at least I feel I am not alone on the high seas.

hope the links below are helpful.

Oxton Parish Council - Nottinghamshire

Standing Orders for Local Councils