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

PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

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

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

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

Well you can prove orherwise so why is that aproblem?


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

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

Thanks Eric's brother

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


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Already done. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:yo::yo:

PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?





  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The part that I have highlighted in bold, I think it's not quite right.   I don't believe that if a consumer took a dealer to court, with the defect being a blown bulb, 25 days after taking ownership, they would win. Or else, people could just decide they didn't like the car anymore, put a knackered bulb in the car and reject it.   The severity of the defect does matter.   It needs to render the car not fit for purpose, not as described, or not of satisfactory quality. That's what defines whether a defect is really a defect or  not. Small but subtle point that needs to be clear to people reading the forum I think. Otherwise, people may think they can take a car back for any old reason.    
    • whatever it was you need the date and the rebate. then you enter that as a MINUS figure in the spready same as a PPI payment on the date they made it.  
    • Thanks dx, one more question 😕   the final payment I paid 6014.71 after 6 months, presumably because the ppi was front loaded and the loan was only 5000 that final payment included the rest of the total ppi (1174 added at the beginning)   if i got a rebate would it of shown on the statement as i cant remember from so many years ago!? 
    • Sangie5952   Thanks that has clarified what the ET1 form represents. We haven't made disclosures yet so I can include the relevant evidence then. Appreciate your help many thanks.  
  • Our picks

    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • 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
        • Like
      • 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/
      • 57 replies
×
×
  • Create New...