Jump to content
cc1

I paid Council Tax as a student! - ** REFUND RECEIVED **

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Thanks a million for the help.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey glad we could help

 

please consider a donation to keep us here.

 

dx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please fill in your quit date here

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Tweets

  • Our picks

    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
    • The FSA has announced large fines against DB UK Bank Limited (trading as DB Mortgages) - DeutscheBank and also against Redstone for their unfair treatment of their customers.
      Please see the links below for summaries and full details from the FSA website.
      It is now completely clear that any arrears charges which exceed actual administrative costs are unfair and therefore unlawful.
      Furthemore, irresponsible lending practices are also unfair and unlawful.
      Additionally there are other unfair practices including unarranged counsellor visits - even if they have been attempted.
      You are entitled to refuse counsellor visits and not incur any charges.
      Any charges for counsellor visits must not seek to make profits. The cost of the visits must be passed on to you at cost price.
      We are hearing stories of people being charged for counsellor visits for which there is no evidence that they were even attempted.
      It is clear that some mortgage lenders are trying to cheat you out of your money.
      You should ascertain how much has been taken from you and claim it back. The chances of winning are better than 90%. It is highly likely that the lender will attempt to avoid court action and offer you back your money.
      However, you should ensure that you receive a proper rate of interest and this means that you should be seeking at least restitutionary damages - which would be much higher than the statutory 8%.
      Furthermore, you should assess whether the paying of demands for unlawful excessive charges has also out you further into arrears and if this has caused you further penalties in terms of extra interest or any other prejudice. This should be claimed as well.
      If excessive unlawful charges have resulted in your credit file being affected, then you should take this into account also when working out exactly what you want by way of remedy from the lender.
      You should consult others on these forums when considering any offer.
      You must not make any complaint through the Ombudsman. your time will be wasted, you will wait up to 2 yrs and there will be a minimal 8% award of interest and no account will be taken of any other damage you have suffered.
      You must make your complaint through the County Court for a rapid and effective remedy.

      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/120.shtml
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/redstone.pdf
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/db_uk.pdf
       
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/firmnews/2011/db_mortgages.shtml
      Do you have a mortage arears claim to make? Then post your story on the forum here
      • 0 replies
    • 30 Day Right To Reject - Vehicle Casualty Report. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415585-30-day-right-to-reject-vehicle-casualty-report/
      • 9 replies
    • I am new here but very glad to find my way here and would welcome any input.
       
      i purchased a brand new campervan conversion from Hillside Leisure (175 miles from our home) on July 26th for £31,000 and, within 48 hours, during a storm, the alarm began to sound incessantly. We could not get it to stop, even after trying everything listed in the manual. We phoned Hillside on Saturday July 28th around 2.00pm. The young man who answered the phone said he would seek the advice of their technician and call us back, which he did. The technician told us that they, Hillside, couldn’t help, but that we should take the van to Nissan (the van is a Nissan) as the fault would lie with one of their components.
       
      • 42 replies
×
×
  • Create New...