Help Needed - Student Council Tax Reduction

scottishblondie

Paying the university fees would probably cost more than the council tax!

olly300

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Surely a rich owner of (say) three homes could not early retire at (say) 55 and do a degree in (say) Sanskrit and thus be able to stop paying council tax?

Probably but you are presuming that:
1. They don't have adult children who live in one of the houses as a main residence
2. They don't have a partner who live in one of the houses as a main residence
3. Two of the homes count as holiday homes so they pay only a proportion anyway.

John_Pierpoint

scottishblondie wrote: »

Paying the university fees would probably cost more than the council tax!

Scottish university ?

I have a modest bungalow I built myself (by that I mean physically) - I pay 160 GBP a month in tax to the local authority on my piles of bricks and sacks of cement.

[I actually think that a tax on land is quite a good idea, given that we have to tax something, as it is very difficult to avoid, however my local authority seems to write off a fair chunk every year as uncollectable but the local prisons are not overflowing].

What is the definition of a holiday home? Am I right in thinking that the Income Tax is redefining the definition of a "Holiday let" to prevent higher rate tax payers running their second home at a loss?

lincroft1710

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

What is the definition of a holiday home?

Can be a posh expression for a static caravan.

The original thread refers to Council Tax. CT law refers to sole or main residence, a dwelling which is nobody's sole or main residence is generally referred to as a second home. However if it is let out for 140 days or more per annum on short term lets, it ceases to be a dwelling and becomes a commercial property which is subject to non domestic rates as opposed to CT.

educatingmyself

CIS wrote: »

They are under 18 so are disregarded from any council tax calculations. If they were the sole occupiers then the property would be exempt under Class S (all occs under 18 yrs old).

In any property where all the occs are under 18yrs of age the owner would be liable for the council tax (it comes under the liability of owners regulations).

Hi CIS, please can you confirm if, for example, the only occupant is a full time student aged 17, would the property be a Class N exemption or Class S and then would the owners liability kick in and the freeholder would then have to pay?

CIS

The Class S would apply and the regs regarding the Liability of Owners would also apply as the only occs are aged under 18 years of age.

educatingmyself

Many thanks CIS. :-)

educatingmyself

CIS wrote: »

The Class S would apply and the regs regarding the Liability of Owners would also apply as the only occs are aged under 18 years of age.

Hi CIS, if you are still dipping in to past threads?

Please can you point me in the direction of the Liability of Owners regs that covers the Under 18 occupants? I can find the bit re HMOs and care homes etc, but not the Under 18 Occupants?

I cannot understand if there is an Class S Exemption on the property, thus making it exempt, why do the Owners then have to pay? Please can you explain this. Sorry if I am being obtuse, but like Class N, which makes the property exempt, or any other exemption, what kicks in to make it the owner's liability, when the hierarchy dictates that residents are higher up the pecking order? Where is the override?

I cannot find anywhere stating that if you have a Class S exemption for Under 18 residents that the non-resident freeholder has to pay? Why have the exemption, just state it reverts to the owner? Or is that too simple?

Sorry to be harping on about this still, but I would appreciate the input of your superior knowledge?

I am sooo confused! :doh:

JQ

CIS

Sorry my error - I should have quoted that the council tax (exempt dwellings) order 1992 as amended in respect of the Class S exemption for the property being occupied solely by persons under the age of 18 years old.

The liability falls on the owners in a bit of a round about way :

Liability for the council tax due on a property falls based on the hierarchy of liability - section 6(2) of the local government finance act 1992 - however liability also falls under the requirement of 6(5):

*
“resident”, in relation to any dwelling, means an individual who has attained the age of 18 years and has his sole or main residence in the dwelling.

If you follow through section 6(2) (and taking in to account an under 18 cannot be classed as a resident) you will see that liability falls on the owner if there are no other residents.

Liability falls on the owners but liability does not mean the same as having to pay council tax - the liabiliy is the owners but the council tax charge is nil due to the exemption.

educatingmyself

CIS wrote: »

Sorry my error - I should have quoted that the council tax (exempt dwellings) order 1992 as amended in respect of the Class S exemption for the property being occupied solely by persons under the age of 18 years old.

The liability falls on the owners in a bit of a round about way :

Liability for the council tax due on a property falls based on the hierarchy of liability - section 6(2) of the local government finance act 1992 - however liability also falls under the requirement of 6(5):

If you follow through section 6(2) (and taking in to account an under 18 cannot be classed as a resident) you will see that liability falls on the owner if there are no other residents.

Liability falls on the owners but liability does not mean the same as having to pay council tax - the liabiliy is the owners but the council tax charge is nil due to the exemption.

Thank you very much CIS

Now I understand. I thought liability was having to pay. That makes it clear.

Perhaps you could clarify for me the two sole/main residences dilemma I have? I have been living in a property for which I have paid full council tax, whilst my daughter, a full time student, lived in my former home, exempted in my view under Class S or N. I have not lived there since March 06, but it is being deemed (by Tribunal) that I had "intention to return" even though I have not and they are expecting me to pay. When or how does one's sole/main residence for which one is paying, overridden by an intention to return? Also, when does the intention to return end, can I be charged forever and a day due to intention to return? I have read the Williams v Horsham case and think this should be applied in my case, ie, an onlooker would see that my sole/main residence is where I am sleeping, have all my belongings, work, I am the freeholder and I am paying in full, which is not in my former home where my daughter lived!

Thank you for taking the trouble to read and respond.

EM