Electoral Register.... Does it matter?

DVardysShadow

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

"A person’s name may appear on the electoral register only if they reside at an address within the electoral area. Residence is not defined in law, but it has been held by the courts to entail a ‘considerable degree of permanence’. Based on this criteria, it is possible for a person to be registered to vote in two different electoral areas. A person with two homes who spends about the same amount of time in each can be lawfully registered at both addresses. However, it is unlikely that ownership of a second home that is used only for recreational purposes would meet the residency qualification. Ownership of a second home that a voter pays council tax on but is not resident in does not qualify them for electoral registration in that area. It is for the local Electoral Registration Officer to decide in the light of an individual voter's circumstances whether they may be said to be resident at an address, and therefore eligible for registration. Electoral Registration Officers are required to consider each case on its own merits."

Bold is my emphasis

http://www.electoralcommission.org.u...both-addresses

Red my emphasis.

We don't know how or why OP and gf split. For all we know they had split and were living 'happily' under the same roof until a flood made a bedroom unavailable? Unlikely, I know. But regardless, if my house was flooded out and I moved in with parents, I would still expect to register at the address I was paying a mortgage on.

What is amusing me is the apparent strength of feeling from Cheeky_Monkey against the idea that OP could remain registered at his house.

SandC

OP if you are not living there I fail to see why you would want to deny your ex the right that she has to claim 25% discount from the council tax - you may be paying half the mortgage but are you still contributing towards the council tax?

If you are still on the electoral register as living there and she has completed the single person's form for the council she could encounter problems with continuing with the discount.

Cheeky_Monkey

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Red my emphasis.

We don't know how or why OP and gf split. For all we know they had split and were living 'happily' under the same roof until a flood made a bedroom unavailable? Unlikely, I know. But regardless, if my house was flooded out and I moved in with parents, I would still expect to register at the address I was paying a mortgage on.

What is amusing me is the apparent strength of feeling from Cheeky_Monkey against the idea that OP could remain registered at his house.

It fair warms the cockles of my heart to know that I am amusing you
However, having an opinion does not mean that I actually care one way or the other. I merely think that it's a bit unfair that his ex-g/f won't be able to claim the 25% single occupancy discount if he does remain on the register at that address.

You seem fixated on the fact that the OP should be able to remain on the register at that address simply because he still pays his share of the mortgage. How far would that notion go? Would you still be advocating that if the OP hadn't lived there for a year if they still owned the property?

DVardysShadow

Cheeky_Monkey wrote: »

It fair warms the cockles of my heart to know that I am amusing you
However, having an opinion does not mean that I actually care one way or the other. I merely think that it's a bit unfair that his ex-g/f won't be able to claim the 25% single occupancy discount if he does remain on the register at that address.

You seem fixated on the fact that the OP should be able to remain on the register at that address simply because he still pays his share of the mortgage. How far would that notion go? Would you still be advocating that if the OP hadn't lived there for a year if they still owned the property?

We don't know the whole situation, so I think you are a little previous deciding it is unfair that ex gf should not get single person discount. It seems to me equally valid to say it is unfair that ex gf gets the whole house to herself with OP paying half the mortgage.

I am arguing not that the mortgage itself is sufficient, but that it is also a question of whether he maintains a presence there. As I see it, if he has a right to be there, and the price of him being registered on the electoral roll is that the ex gf loses single person discount, then that is her tough luck, particularly as her taking hi off the register might not look so good for his credit record.