The relevant case law is Browning v Floyd (1946) KB 597 (funnily enough, a husband using his wife's non-transferable ticket). The fact that a fare (her fare) was paid didn't mean that HIS fare was paid .... So, the risk is that you'll in effect be saying (since this was an annual Pass): "Dear TfL, I evaded my fare for months, using my wife's Student Annual Oyster. (It doesn't matter that I'd paid for her Oyster, as that was for HER fare, but I didn't pay MY fare). So, it is bad, but not as bad as Freedom Pass abuse, so you shouldn't take me to court." The fact that freedom pass abus

exactly that and do nothing when they send the next demand after that. The only time you need to reiterate what has been said already is when they send a proper LBA adn they wont be in a hurry to do that

The technical term is they haven't got a Scooby! Although there's a bit of speculation that your final point might be very close to the truth! There has only been one rouge JCP area trying it on before being called out (top down management direction)...... but lack of staff training is rampant and far more likely rather than direct malice. Glad things worked out for you superg

Hi You have been given some excellent advice Could I just ask as your mother due to her medical condition is classed as SMI do you have Power of Attorney (POA) for your mother? When you initially informed the council you were living in the property as your mothers carer did they send out a Change in Circumstances Form for you to complete or a blank new Council Tax form to fill in? Challenging a Council can be very difficult especially if they know they are in the wrong but don't want to admit it and dig there heels in and throw any confusing dribble at you in the hope you will go away.

look on the bright side, they have to spend more time and effort on this and they still wont make any money out of it. you say you sent a more technical letter, that may be good if you got your facts absolutely right and didnt say anything that makes it a dead end argument should it be used as evidence later. that is why we try and get peopel to say the absolute minimum, it doesnt show the limits of your knowledge and cant be used to limit what you say later. as for not posting up here in case they read it- we would rather they did read it here and then realise that you arent going to be mugged and save everyone's time and mo

There are two different issues at play here - until the council tax side is sorted the CTR side can never be correct. Don't get CTR and council tax discounts mixed up - they use different definitions and different rules. Within council tax a (non)dependant has no meaning (except for a couple of non-relevant specific situations) whereas (non)dependants are something that is relevant for CTR calculations. It is clear that your mother and yourself are disregarded for council tax purposes so the 50% discount applies. How the council then treat yourselves for the CTR calculation on the remaining 50% depends on how their scheme treats

After they sent me the letter, I tried to look online for information regarding dependents. I saw that they said they wouldn't consider a full time live in carer like myself who isn't in any other employment and is looking after a parent, an adult. I don't know what they mean by that specifically. If I'm not considered an adult, am I exempt entirely or am I just entitled to a discount? I can imagine in my local council nothing is straight forward. Is it better to email rather than deal with them on the phone? Is it worth involving the local MP? Apologies for all the questions, I just want to make sure I can put this i

Yes to both, based on what you have posted. On the basis that she is SMI and you are a carer, for council tax purposes, then a 50% discount applies as standard - any CTR would be against that amount. It's not straightforward if they dig in. Most of the clients I deal with, and take to valuation tribunal, are because councils have dug in and refused to budge even after multiple attempts to resolve the issue.

Thank you so much for such detailed replies. So from what you're saying there is, that as long as my mother lives in and owns this property, she will always be liable for the council tax regardless of her status with SMI? So in theory, the council tax bill should remain in her name, where she's given full discount to her condition and I should be listed as a resident? I have a couple of questions I hope you can help me with: 1. Would there still be an amount to pay since I'm living with her or would she be given a full discount regardless of who lives here since the bill would be in her name?

In respect of council tax reduction (CTR) the local authority has discretion to vary their scheme slightly providing they stay within the overall scheme limits set by government in some instances. What the CTR scheme does not have the delegated powers to do is to alter a determination under council tax legislation in respect of liability. This includes the inability to pay a CTR claim to someone other than party who is liable for the council tax charge on a property. This requirement is, as required, covered in the council's CTR schemes at Part 3 (13)(1)(a), Part 3 (14)(2)(a) and Part 3 (15)(3)(a) of the council's pensioner CTR scheme and

Before any discounts or exemptions are discussed the council have to first determine liability - liability is determined under s6 of the LGFA 1992 and is not something councils have delegated powers over. Liability and discounts/exemptions are two separate determinations and only in a few specific cases do they overlap. Under s6(2) there is a list, the hierarchy of liability. This list is worked down from the top to bottom and gives a description - resident freeholder, resident leaseholder etc. The resident who comes nearest the top of the list is the party liable for the council tax charge (if more than one person falls at the sa

If the council have made you liable then they have done so in error (or on the basis of unclear information). You cannot claim council tax benefit as you do not have the highest legal interest under s6 of the LGFA 1992. As the resident owner your mother retains the highest interest for council tax purposes. Although your mother is disregarded as SMI that doesn't stop her remaining as the liable person for council tax purposes (people often confuse the issue of liability and disregards - even council staff sometimes do). Therefore she is both the liable party for payment and the party who has to claim council tax benefit.

Former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie now wishes he voted remain. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03zqwlc#play A lot of people have changed their minds and it will be interesting what happens.