Council question Mum's right to single occupancy discount

EdInvestor

Droopsnout may find this thread of interest:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1708565

RobertoMoir

droopsnout wrote: »

My 84-year-old mother has today received a letter questioning her eligibility to receive the single occupancy reduction in her Council Tax.

She absolutely does live alone.

I am her only child, live in France, and haven't stayed with her for a longer period than a week.

Naturally, we are asking ourselves why the council has come to this conclusion. I do have one current account, a savings account and a credit card account which record my address as my mother's. Occasional bits of mail are delivered to me there if more convenient or appropriate. I am officially the owner of the property.

I'm not sure how you can square owning the property and having mail sent there with not understanding why the council might think you live there too.

droopsnout wrote: »

So do councils have the power to monitor bank account addresses and addresses on mail?

I am absolutely fuming about this intrusion into her private life, but more so because the letter was quite threatening and extremely upsetting for an old lady.

She actually said to me, "It makes me wonder what the point is of being here."

I've seen the horrible ads shown by the government on TV, the ones threatening to come and get you if you haven't paid your TV licence. The ones that tell us to snitch, Big Brother style, on those we think may be claiming money they are not entitled to. I find them very disturbing.

What powers does a local council have to spy on people like this? They can investigate all they like, but my Mum lives alone.

They are entitled to do this; rightly or wrongly they are well within their rights as far as I know. As for the letter upsetting your mother, without seeing it I can't obviously comment - while your case here might be nothing more than a mix up you can't seriously be saying they can't investigate potential benefit fraud and write to people asking for clarification?

chnelomi

their is nothing to worry about this is just standard stuff.
Nearly every one i know that is single gets this at some point, she just needs to say that as you are out of the country you use her address for mailings only.
done and dusted

droopsnout

There are some very silly and quite cruel people here, aren't there? However, I'll deal with the sensible points. And one or two the less sensible posts, too, starting with ...

Gordikin asked if the considered comments were only the ones I agreed with. No. Regrettably, I'm not able to scan the letter Mum received as I don't have a scanner and I happen to be rather a long way from where it is - a point that presumably RayWolfe didn't consider when he thanked you.

Alibobsy, I do appreciate that you were not suggesting I'd done something wrong. Of course I understand that if I use an address my name will be associated with it, yes. But your point is well made. As seven-day-week said, many people do think that you shouldn't have addresses in two countries. If ever that does happen, bang goes another freedom!

I do appreciate that benefits fraud is a problem that needs to be tackled. My main point throughout this thread has been that I cannot accept that the letter sent to my mother is the right way to go about it (despite the very considered view expressed by 00ec25).

If, as you say, "that generation do tend to overreact when they get official letters", perhaps the wording could be modified?

John_Pierpoint, I understand your points. As it happens, the lady concerned here happens to have been quite experienced in dealing with company accounts, VAT, income tax on employees' wages, etc., and so was not unused to dealing with "officialese".

Junkmayle, your message about contrasts between the Irish and UK populations and their reactions to totalitarianism did hit home with me. Watching with the extra little bit of detachment you get when not living in the middle of it, it is quite worrying that the British now seem not only to tolerate the erosion of their liberty, but to encourage it quite strongly. The growth of the far right is quite scary - but that is far from being a solely British phenomenon.

EdInvestor, nice to come across you again after a very long time! Thanks for the link. I don't think the case there is relevant, since the longest I ever lived at the address concerned was for three months, and that was temporary in between selling our marital home in the UK and moving abroad. The case, though, is fascinating, and I was extremely impressed by the knowledge shown by CIS, who clearly is a real brick. However, CIS deals with legalese and speaks it fluently! Whilst we on MSE are very lucky and privileged to have such knowledgeable people here to help us, even CIS' language would intimidate many less worldly people. That's not a criticism: CIS writes as his/her profession requires.

Aron, thanks for the laugh. I suspect that a couple of years ago you were getting great marks from your English teacher for creative writing. Your form tutor, though, probably expressed reservations about your relationships with your peers.

RobertoMoir, I take your point about property ownership completely. However, for council tax purposes, it matters barely at all who owns a property. The occupant pays the council tax. As I've explained already, I am fiscally resident in France, and the UK authorities are aware of that and write to me here. I am not on the electoral role in the UK, for reasons which are quite above board, but which I won't go into here for space's sake. (I do vote here in France in elections in which I am entitled to do so).

As I have already pointed out a few times, I am obviously in favour of fraudsters being brought to book. And I would support a system in which a council would "write to people asking for clarification". In this case, however, no questions were asked. The letter said that the council had reason to believe that the reduction was not merited. There was a request to submit a form saying either that the recipient wished to acknowledge that the reduction was no longer applicable, or that the recipient wished to continue claiming the reduction - in which case, the council would "investigate" the claim. I think the word "investigate" was one of the words which, accumulated with other expressions, frightened my mother.

chnelomi, thank you for your reassurance. I understand that the council concerned has indeed sent out 9000 of these letters. I sincerely hope that they recoup in CT more than they spend in staff costs and postage, etc. None of that negates the points I make, though, about government and its civil servants serving the public politely, rather than harassing them.

Finally, back to aron, who wins this week's bad taste award. My mother, aron, lived through World War Two. Perhaps she experienced a different kind of "shelter" than the one you implied.

And tomorrow morning, when you can't find two matching socks, just remember the people who ensured that you are free to moan about it.

Are they worth a little civility?

Thanks again to those who offered advice and/or comfort. The matter is being dealt with.

gordikin

The Council are entitled to investigate....indeed they have a duty to do so especially given the circumstances. Can you post an accurate account of the other words/phrases that alarmed your Mum?

Secret_Lady

I get a letter or rather a form every year that I have to sign and return to the council to say I am still the only occupant and can have the 25% reduction. I have been receiving one every year since I started claiming the reduction which is a considerable number of years now. I think it is just standard procedure, the letter/form I receive is not badly phrased or rude just asks the question, maybe councils vary in what they send out?

Sorry your Mum has been upset though.

Churchmouse

Perhaps it's just me, but I think the point droopsnout is making is that the assumption is one of guilt of wrongdoing, and the need to prove innocence, rather than the other way round

I don't care how young or old the recipient of any letter may be, it should be worded courteously and should not assume an attitude of recrimination. I well remember when DH and I married, and we did not have a TV. The letters I got from the licensing authority demanding that I prove I didn't have a TV were astounding :eek: Do those that defend this attitude want defendants in court to be presumed guilty in the absence of proof to the contrary?

I have no objection to a courteously worded letter stating that correspondence to a third party ( well I do actually, but we'll gloss over this aspect of big brother) is recorded at this address, and could the resident confirm that the recipient does not live at the address, being received. I would expect any such letter to give the title and telephone extension whereby the writer could be reached. Yes, we all want fraud kept to a minimum, but does anyone actually think that these officious letters upset the fraudsters? From my experience they certainly do not, and are consigned to the rubbish bin quicker than you can blink an eye.

Sarcastic remarks may show your clever wit and way with words, but do nothing to address the very real problem with officialdom in the UK. And incidentally, Madam does not indicate spinsterhood ( from someone who got a very low grade pass at O level French )

John_Pierpoint

It is partly arrogance and partly computers.
Once a system has been computerised, the knowledge in embedded in the system and the organisation can employ cheap low grade labour to administer to the system.
One of the first things to establish is a contact with an organ grinder behind the ranks of monkeys - or shall we call them "muppets" who have almost no cognition of their system and probably no ability to make decisions.

Just try sorting out the affairs of someone of another sex, who has been struck dumb with a stroke, and you realise that the teenage nerd who created the system failed to program in that possibility.

(Thinks must go a practice my falsetto voice to avoid the "I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO THE ACCOUNT HOLDER" get out clause).

I would advise "droopsnout" to arrange Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) now, at the UK address. If you leave it until you need it there will be MONTHS before you get it. When you do only one muppet in a hundred will have any idea what it is.

John

PS I managed to extract a letter of apology from the TV licence people - is this a first?

droopsnout

Churchmouse, thank you for making the point so well. Lovely to bump into you again!

Had to laugh at your correction of aron's use of "madam". I must admit that I'd missed that as I rolled around the floor clutching my sides. He won't have scored many marks with his French teacher, will he?

John_Pierpoint, I'm sure you're right and that quite a significant degree of blame must fall on modern methods of mass communication administered by people whose bosses fail to see the need for training. However, someone devised the policy the council adopts, and someone composed the letter.

It would be interesting to know - and really the info should be available to the electorate as they evaluate their council's performance - how many of the 9000 letters result in either returns of the "You're right, I'm not entitled to this" form, or a prosecution for hiding the real facts.

Interestingly to me, no-one has commented on the fearsome TV ads the government puts on, in which they threaten legal action quite heavily to benefit fraudsters and TV licence dodgers. Public service ads never used to be like that.

What does it say about society, about changes in society, and about the relationship between government and its electors? Does it have implications for the future? Does it reveal a contempt, a disdain for the public amongst those who govern the country? Or is it nothing more than a dramatically presented attempt to stop fraud?

RobertoMoir

droopsnout wrote: »

Interestingly to me, no-one has commented on the fearsome TV ads the government puts on, in which they threaten legal action quite heavily to benefit fraudsters and TV licence dodgers. Public service ads never used to be like that.

Well that's un-connected to the issue, and besides, not even the craziest person here would attempt to defend the indefensible. I hope.