student council tax question

CIS

Sometimes full time students can be liable to pay coucil tax - for example if the full time student is the tenant and they sublet to a non f/t student. F/T student are not liable where they have equal status in the property with the non student - eg joint tenants.

In theory yes, in practice you very rarely see it happen -Ive seen maybe once or twice in the last year.

The case above would be correct as long as the F/T student was resident in the property they where subletting.

jules1213

Student Advisor - I would disagree, I don't think the Uni's have the right to decide who is classed as a f/t student under the CT regs - the CT regs define what a full time student is, ie, the student has not abandoned, completed their course. Although there are differences for post grads who are thesis pending - in which case it will depend upon the University and whether they are registered as a f/t student or not. Certainly in Notts we do not have problem with the Uni's or the councils with this issue of exemptions during suspension - although thesis pending students - thats a different matter. I would challenge Leeds Uni and the council if a suspended student was made liable for CT. Also, if a council refused to accept that a student taking time out of their course should be exempt, we would push the point that in that case it would follow that they should be able to claim CTB - which of course they could not unless they were in an eligible group - they cannot interpret the legislation in two different ways.

CIS - I have come across a few times, perhaps most common situation is where a lone parent lives with their adult child - adult child attract the charge and the f/t student parent becomes liable to pay at the rate of 75% - very unfortunate.

RatInMeKitchen

Thought i would tag onto this thread rather than start afresh. I am in a difficult situation in that i am actually doing what amounts to 2 part-time courses and thus doesn\'t necessary qualify as a \'full time course\' in the classic sense of the word. I study 16 hours a week and have just signed a contract and moved into a new student house. Now i am a bit worried about the council tax, as on top of the rent, course and living costs i will not be able to afford to pay any. Furthermore, having spoken to my house-mates who are all on these so-called \'full time courses\', the most hours a week any of them study is 18, and one is only doing 9. Like i said, i study 16 hours a week and plan to get a job for around the same number of hours a week and with that i will just about to be able to manage my time and break even financially (if i have no social life to boot). Surely i am one of these students that falls between the cracks? is there any way i can get around this problem? Could i claim benefits instead? I would rather work part-time, but the system in this country seems to reward lazy people rather than those who actually want to try and do something with their time and lives. Please help.

jules1213

Check with your college to see if you are registered as a full time student or not 1st. Sometimes a course can be full time although the actual contact hours are less than 21 hrs per week.

If you are part time - then you may be eligble for benefits.

Council Tax Benefit can be claimed by someone who has no or is on a low income - you do not have to be seeking work etc.

You may also be able to claim housing benefit- same as above.

Also as a part time student you may be able to get Job seekers allowance - but must be available and seeking work etc. Also there are rules about restricting hour available for work etc - so you would need to be careful when completing the forms to ensure you meet the rules.

Seek advice from Citizens Advice Bureaux or your college Advice Service if their is one.

Good luck with your study's

Steve-o

holly_vegas wrote: »

The council have told me that the exemption for council tax (as a student) only comes into effect from November (presumably I have to pay till then).
I was also told that the second person does not qualify for the single person discount (being the only person now paying council tax) as they do not allow two discounts to run at once.

By that criteria there is no discount at all: they make you exempt, but the other person has to pay the original total amount??

You need to contact your local council, and politely tell them that they [STRIKE]are talking crap[/STRIKE] have made a mistake.

CIS

I was also told that the second person does not qualify for the single person discount (being the only person now paying council tax) as they do not allow two discounts to run at once.

Technically right as it appears a discount has already been awarded.

You can't have a 25% single person discount , instead there will be a student disregard awarded of 25% - same result different terminology.

[Deleted User]

If you are temporarily withdrawn from a course you DO NOT pay council tax. Here is the legislative framework and guidance note references (in the form of the letter I wrote for our intercalating students to use if they have a problem with this)

Dear Sir/Madam.
We would like to clarify this student’s status and his qualification for exemption from the Council Tax.

He is intercalating, that is, he is currently temporarily withdrawn for a year and will be returning to study on a full-time basis after that year.

A intercalating student should be regarded as a student for council tax purposes by virtue of the definition of “student” as provided by article 4, paragraph 3 and 4 of Schedule 1 to the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992, as amended by the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1996. Article 4 provides that “student” means a person who is to be regarded as (among other things) a person undertaking a full-time course of education, as according to paragraph 3 and 4 of Schedule 1 to the Order.

Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992 defines full-time study thus:
A full time course of education is… one (a) which subsists of at least one academic year of the educational establishments concerned or, in the case of an educational establishment which does not have academic years, for at least one calendar year, (b) which persons undertaking it are normally required by the educational establishment concerned to attend (whether at premises of the establishment or otherwise) for periods of at least 24 weeks in each academic year or calendar year… during which it subsists, and (c) the nature of which is such that a person undertaking it would normally require to undertake periods of study, tuition or work experience which together amount in each such academic year to an average of 21 hours a week during the periods of attendance mentioned in… (b)… in the year.

The potential argument that the period and length of attendance required (24 weeks and 21 hours) mean that intercalating students do not fall into the definition of student is a simplistic reading of the above: the key word in paragraph 4 is ‘normally’.

Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the above Order (as amended by the subsequent Order of 1996) states that a person is to be regarded as undertaking a full-time course of education on a particular day if:

(a) on that day he is enrolled for the purpose of attending such a course with [a university] and (b) the day falls within the period beginning with the day on which he begins the course and ending with the day on which he ceases to undertake it, and a person is to be regarded as ceasing to undertake a course of education for the purpose of this paragraph if he has completed it, abandoned it or is no longer permitted by the educational establishment to attend it.

As an intercalating student, he has not completed his course, and nor has he abandoned it or in any way been prevented by the university from attending, it follows that he is still undertaking a full time course of education. Indeed, the explanatory note to paragraph 3(b) of Schedule 1 (as given in the amended form above) states that “the amendment… enables students to qualify even during a period where they are not attending the course”.

I hope this clarifies any potential confusion about his student status.


The above is also the case for students taking a period of part-time study within a full-time course (part-time repeating)

I hope this helps someone

monkeysavers

Shivster wrote: »

(a) on that day he is enrolled for the purpose of attending such a course with [a university] and (b) the day falls within the period beginning with the day on which he begins the course and ending with the day on which he ceases to undertake it, and a person is to be regarded as ceasing to undertake a course of education for the purpose of this paragraph if he has completed it, abandoned it or is no longer permitted by the educational establishment to attend it.

...paragraph 3(b) of Schedule 1 (as given in the amended form above) states that “the amendment… enables students to qualify even during a period where they are not attending the course”.

My lovely neighbour has been a full-time student with full exemption but had to defer final qualification exams by approximately 2 months (ie, few weeks later the same summer, in the same academic year) due to emergency hospitalization of her infant. University secretaries were only able to provide documentation stating the published date/duration of the course and when she completed her exams. In the interim, she continued to prepare full time for her exams and has not worked at all.
The council refuses to accept that her studies were extended, and relies only on the published date of the duration of the course. But nothing whatsover changed in the activities, circumstances or educational involvement of the student between the published duration and when she actually completed the course.
Would Par 3(b) above or anything that you know of, apply in the student's defense against the Council's inflexibility, to help show that the student did not complete the course yet (despite the published term dates)?

CIS

She needs to provide the council with a letter from the Uni which confirms that the course has been extended and that should be sufficent proof - we would accept it , althoug we may contact the uni to confirm.

monkeysavers

The uni confirmed that the exams (which in their rescheduled form were not re-takes but actually first time sits for this student) were deferred by a few weeks, but the Council is insisting on relying on the published standard course end date. TThe Council will not recognize the deferred examination date as an extension of studies, althbough in actual verifiable fact the student literally and actively continued to study full time during the period in question to prepare for her original final examinations. The council phoned the uni to ask the duration of the course and were told the bog-standard course duration scheduled dates, and is applying it out of context in relation to this student.
There seems to be a gray area here that the council refuses to aknowledge: officially the course itself ended when it was published to have ended; but the student could not possibly have completed the course until a few weeks later when the final exam was given to her at the first opportunity. Clearly, the published end date of the course did not apply to the student as the uni allowed the student to sit the exams and end the course a few weeks later. The student is now stressed because with a small child did not budget for council tax payments before finishing her exams (and is not eligible for benefits).
The Council is effectively insisting that the course had ended before the student would have had the opportunity of sitting the final examinations, despite the fact that the Uni deferred the examinations for this student. Quite ruthless and insensitive for a local government of a country that puts its good men and women in harm's way in pursuit of regime change elsewhere.
Anyway the Council is threatening to go for a Liability Order and ask for costs to add to the Council Tax Bill. If the student reaches the Magistrate Court stage and the Magistrate finds that the Council did not consider the issue properly or make a decision on proper grounds, can the student ask for costs including expenses and preparation costs?