This was quite a while ago. I've been going though my 2005 statements due to a problem with bank and have realised that I paid at least £600 of c/tax within a 5-month period. I was a full-time student at the time. Were students exempt from c/tax at this time? If so, what are the chances of recovering the sums paid?

Thanks

Yes student exemption existed in 2005. Can you recover it? I suspect not, but you could contact the council and ask. Have you got evidence, other than your bank statements, of what your council tax was? And that you were a full time student? And who else lived in the property? And whether they were also full time students?

From a quick look online it seems that you can go back that far if your claim is that the house was placed in the wrong Band, but that it's up to individual councils how far you can go back if you failed to claim an exemption or discount.

OK thanks, I'll report back on any progress.

This was quite a while ago. I've been going though my 2005 statements due to a problem with bank and have realised that I paid at least £600 of c/tax within a 5-month period. I was a full-time student at the time. Were students exempt from c/tax at this time? If so, what are the chances of recovering the sums paid?

 

Thanks

In England and Wales there is nothing itself within council tax itself to prevent a discount or exemption being backdated. There has been some argument by councils using s9 of the limitation act 1980 to try and prevent it, these are cases that usually end up at a valuation tribunal for a decison.

That is encouraging. Thanks!.

However, the council don't seem to be the problem. The university I was at has a policy of recording what it calls "Continuing" postgrad students as part-time even when they are not and sending that information on to the council. This issue is apparently ongoing even after all these years.

Well you can prove orherwise so why is that aproblem?

The university tell the council that a student on continuation status is effectively a part time student even though that was not the case. I was studying more than full time hours. The council require proof from the university of full time student status. The uni give you a continuation status sheet to give them.

The issue you have is that it is the course which defines whether or not you qualify, not the actual hours of study undertaken. Off the top of my head, it's para 4(1) of Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992 you need - bearing in mind that para 4 was amended on 2011 so, I think, it;s now 4(1)(a), (b)(i) and (ii) rather than 4(1)(a),(b) and © which sets the hours requirement but the comments made in Jagoo v Bristol City sums up a situation similar to yours:

(Jagoo's course required 20 hours p/w but she did more than that due to her disability - the court found that disability was immaterial, the wording of the legislation in para 4(1)(b)(ii) was the deciding factor.)

"Secondly, the legislation applies or withholds the student exemption on the basis of the normal requirements of the course. On the (limited) evidence in this case, the normal requirements of the course were for 20 hours of study per week. The extra support to which the Appellant was entitled was not a requirement of her as an individual, still less one of the normal requirements of the course. Even assuming that in every other respect the Appellant might be able to bring herself within the terms of paragraph 4, she was accordingly prevented by paragraph 4(1)(b)(ii) from being a person undertaking "a full-time course of education". The Respondent (and the VTE) did not treat her differently from other students on the same course: she, like her fellow-students, was treated as a person undertaking a part-time course. Like her, other students were so treated even if they in fact devoted more than 21 hours per week to their studies"

Off the top of my head, it's para 4(1) of Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992 you need - bearing in mind that para 4 was amended on 2011 so, I think, it;s now 4(1)(a), (b)(i) and (ii) rather than 4(1)(a),(b) and © which sets the hours requirement

. ……...:-):-)

The issue you have is that it is the course which defines whether or not you qualify, not the actual hours of study undertaken. Off the top of my head, it's para 4(1) of Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992 you need - bearing in mind that para 4 was amended on 2011 so, I think, it;s now 4(1)(a), (b)(i) and (ii) rather than 4(1)(a),(b) and © which sets the hours requirement but the comments made in Jagoo v Bristol City sums up a situation similar to yours:

 

(Jagoo's course required 20 hours p/w but she did more than that due to her disability - the court found that disability was immaterial, the wording of the legislation in para 4(1)(b)(ii) was the deciding factor.)

I didn't know that. Probably not relevant here, but I wonder how they decide how many hours a week are "the normal requirements" of a course for post-graduate research degrees? Studying for PhD for example. Just curious.

I didn't know that. Probably not relevant here, but I wonder how they decide how many hours a week are "the normal requirements" of a course for post-graduate research degrees? Studying for PhD for example. Just curious.

It has caused issues in the past in respect of council tax and on the case of Feller it was accepted that the student was clearly undertaking more than 21 hours,even though there was no specific hours written to the PhD requirements (the council conceded that 21hrs+ for a PhD course would be reasonable). The problem with Feller is that Judge seemed to step over the full reasoning for stating the hours requirement was met, he never really went in to why he thought the course meet the full-time hours requirement, even though on the face of it it doesn't. I know there are some tribunals who have bypassed Feller by distinguishing the case, presumably to bypass that argument.

In Jagoo, which was a degree course, her course set the hours so there was something to relate to. Her required hours were set at 20, but she was doing 21+ on the basis she needed extra time due to a disability. The court held that it was course description which mattered, and that didn't require 21+ hrs (even if she did more hours) so she did not qualify.

the college register you as a full time student so that is what you are even if staying at home writing up. Work behind the union bar to earn a few bob? so what. If it is your 15th year of writing up then the council may well wnat to know about your hours and what else you are doing with your time

Thanks Eric's brother

Sorted! I received a refund for the overpaid council tax with no issues.

Thanks a million for the help.

Brilliant! Thank you for letting us know, I'll amend your thread title to reflect the result.

HB

hey glad we could help

please consider a donation to keep us here.

dx

Already done. Thanks.