Council Tax Benefit - does someone understand this regulation?

minimadtrix

DeeT wrote: »

I did this when they asked me to send my financial detalis to them. They said that it is possible for a couple to live apart and still pay 2 separate CT bills.

Yes, it is, but that's usualky when a couple are forced to live apart, perhaps through work commitments, but they still consider themselves a couple in every other aspect, and there is an intention to return. That doesn't sound like it's the case here, or have I misunderstood?

Once the house is sold, we will be resuming as a couple (I think ... it's been 7 months now ... life on my own without his annoying ways is quite nice ). I will not be going back to the house before it is sold.

DeeT_2

Ah, so they are taking the stance that the absence is forced by work commitments, and you are still regarded as a couple, since the intention is that you will resume living together albeit not in that property. I think in that case, the decision is correct - you should be assessed as a couple.

minimadtrix

:TWow, that was a good thrashing debate , albeit not perhaps the final answer I would have liked. Nevertheless, the definition of 'couple' still intrigues me!

Thanks for all the comments - more sitll welcome if anyone has any other opinion

real1314

minimadtrix wrote: »

Once the house is sold, we will be resuming as a couple (I think ... it's been 7 months now ... life on my own without his annoying ways is quite nice ). I will not be going back to the house before it is sold.

iirc Household does not mean house.

I could move to Saudi, leaving the wife and kids here, but I'd still be part of their household, just temporarily living in different places. Just as you are.
I'd still be liable to be treated as part of the same household (certainly morally, almost certainly legally)

grumpyoldwoman41

minimadtrix wrote: »

Nevertheless, the definition of 'couple' still intrigues me!

Thanks for all the comments - more sitll welcome if anyone has any other opinion

Ermmm you 2 are married. You did not separate as such planning a divorce - you just live and work somewhere else. You plan to live together again as marrie dpeople do.

You 2 are a couple - what do you find confusing?

:A

Kimitatsu

The decision IS correct - you are married and you contribute to the household financially as you pay the mortgage. That means that you are financially linked and so you are assessed as a couple.

From the DWP:

A couple includes a husband, wife or partner. A partner (or cohabitee) can be a member of the opposite sex or, from 5th December 2005, a member of the same sex.

If you were seperated or planning to get divorced and you were only paying the mortgage until the house was sold then you could appeal the decision but you would have to prove that was the case.

HTH

minimadtrix

grumpyoldwoman41 wrote: »

Ermmm you 2 are married. You did not separate as such planning a divorce - you just live and work somewhere else. You plan to live together again as marrie dpeople do.

You 2 are a couple - what do you find confusing?

:A

The fact that when OH asked the Council Tax benefit office they said yes he could be assessed alone (even though he fully explained our situation) and are now changing their mind (hence my first post).

THe regulations are a minefield to read, but I'm only going on what it written in that.

minimadtrix

Kimitatsu wrote: »

The decision IS correct - you are married and you contribute to the household financially as you pay the mortgage. That means that you are financially linked and so you are assessed as a couple.

From the DWP:



If you were seperated or planning to get divorced and you were only paying the mortgage until the house was sold then you could appeal the decision but you would have to prove that was the case.

HTH

Thanks for the quote, but as I've found out, our situation specifically applies to Council Tax regulations only. I could get pedantic and say that a landlord does not class as part of a family household, even though it's his property, but I won't.

As I say I'm happy to take any advice anyone has and can give.

real1314

minimadtrix wrote: »

Thanks for the quote, but as I've found out, our situation specifically applies to Council Tax regulations only. I could get pedantic and say that a landlord does not class as part of a family household, even though it's his property, but I won't.

As I say I'm happy to take any advice anyone has and can give.

That comment only adds to the view that you are mis-reading the term "household". The regs on what consitutes a household cross all means tested benefits.

real1314

minimadtrix wrote: »

Are there any Council Tax Benefit Wizards on here that understand the following regulations please?

Regulation 11 Circumstances in which a person is to be treated as being or not being a member of the household

(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the claimant and any partner (and, where the claimant or his partner is treated as responsible by virtue of regulation 10 (circumstances in which a person is to be treated as responsible or not responsible for another) for a child or young person, that child or young person and any child of that child or young person,) shall be treated as members of the same household notwithstanding that any of them is temporarily absent from that household.

(2) A child or young person shall not be treated as a member of the claimant's household where he is—
(a) placed with the claimant or his partner by a local authority under section 23(2)(a) of the Children Act 1989 or by a voluntary organisation under section 59(1)(a) of that Act, or in Scotland boarded out with the claimant or his partner under a relevant enactment; or
(b) placed, or in Scotland boarded out, with the claimant or his partner prior to adoption; or
(c) placed for adoption with the claimant or his partner in accordance with the Adoption and Children Act 2002 or the Adoption Agencies (Scotland) Regulations 1996.

(3) Subject to paragraph (4), paragraph (1) shall not apply to a child or young person who is not living with the claimant and he—
(a) is being looked after by, or in Scotland is in the care of, a local authority under a relevant enactment; or
(b) has been placed, or in Scotland boarded out, with a person other than the claimant prior to adoption; or
(c) has been placed for adoption in accordance with the Adoption and Children Act 2002 or the Adoption Agencies (Scotland) Regulations 1996.

For information Regulation 10 is:-

Circumstances in which a person is to be treated as responsible or not responsible for another

(1) Subject to the following provisions of this regulation a person shall be treated as responsible for a child or young person who is normally living with him and this includes a child or young person to whom paragraph (3) of regulation 9 applies.

(2) Where a child or young person spends equal amounts of time in different households, or where there is a question as to which household he is living in, the child or young person shall be treated for the purposes of paragraph (1) as normally living with—
(a) the person who is receiving child benefit in respect of him; or
(b) if there is no such person—
(i) where only one claim for child benefit has been made in respect of him, the person who made that claim; or
(ii) in any other case the person who has the primary responsibility for him.

(3) For the purposes of these Regulations a child or young person shall be the responsibility of only one person in any benefit week and any person other than the one treated as responsible for the child or young person under this regulation shall be treated as not so responsible.

Does this mean that if someone i.e. a partner, is not responsible for children and is not living in the household, that they are not to be classed as a member of said household?

No; Just to make it clear, the bits you can read are the relevant bits. The rest is a set of sub-clauses about when a child may or may not be treated as part of the household.