The Great Hunt: Have you got the 'severely mentally impaired' council tax discount?

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

nannytone wrote: »

to be fair, it needs looking at!

the intention was that those incapable of managing their own day to day lives, should be exempt from council tax.
not those with mild depression that can get their GP to sign a form!

Yup - meaning it will end up harder for all - includung the genuine cases to get the disregard.

Benefits have got so hard now that genuine cases have to fight at court while the fiddlers know how to make the system work for them.:mad:

CIS

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

Yup - meaning it will end up harder for all - includung the genuine cases to get the disregard.

Benefits have got so hard now that genuine cases have to fight at court while the fiddlers know how to make the system work for them.:mad:

The original intention makes no real difference when it comes down to the actual application of the disregard. There's no discretion in the regulations for the council so as long as someone meets the criteria they qualify, irrespective of how and why their neighbour did. It's not something that can be 'fiddled' unless a person's Doctor is 'in on it'.

SandraScarlett

After my late husband had suffered with Alzheimer's Disease for many years, I read about this little-known discount on here. I applied, and because I had a letter from the consultant, confirming my husband's diagnosis, dated several years previously, the 25% refund was back dated accordingly.


It only took a couple of weeks for the claim to be approved and we received over £2,000 very promptly. That paid for many extra hours of care for him, as I had to pay £9 per hour for him to attend a Day Centre.


I've advised several people about this discount. Nobody knew about it, and everyone has been successful in their application.

nannytone_2

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

Yup - meaning it will end up harder for all - includung the genuine cases to get the disregard.

Benefits have got so hard now that genuine cases have to fight at court while the fiddlers know how to make the system work for them.:mad:

i totally agree but the answer isn't to pay everyone that puts in a claim because they have a compliant GP.

i am disabld and know first hand how much more difficult and unreasonable the system has become in order to try to deter the fraudsters and ut isn't having the desired effect.

but i don't support paying the knowledgeable regardless because it may harm the genuine.

just make the system work in the wy it should in the first place!
those who actually qualify receive their entitlement and this trying it on get criminal records

CIS

nannytone wrote: »

i totally agree but the answer isn't to pay everyone that puts in a claim because they have a compliant GP.

i am disabld and know first hand how much more difficult and unreasonable the system has become in order to try to deter the fraudsters and ut isn't having the desired effect.

but i don't support paying the knowledgeable regardless because it may harm the genuine.

just make the system work in the wy it should in the first place!
those who actually qualify receive their entitlement and this trying it on get criminal records

The SMI disregard system for Council Tax hasn't changed since 1993 - there's no major issues with any fraud in respect of the SMI disregard because it's one of the few things that needs an outside verification. There may be some Drs out there who sign for them without looking or to get a person out of the door but that's in the very small minority of all the claims.

Whether the wording of the legislation meets the original intention is another matter but that is down to the secretary of state to sort - until he does so then the current wording has to be applied regardless.

Craig

Confuseddot

CIS wrote: »

The SMI disregard system for Council Tax hasn't changed since 1993 - there's no major issues with any fraud in respect of the SMI disregard because it's one of the few things that needs an outside verification. There may be some Drs out there who sign for them without looking or to get a person out of the door but that's in the very small minority of all the claims.

Whether the wording of the legislation meets the original intention is another matter but that is down to the secretary of state to sort - until he does so then the current wording has to be applied regardless.

Craig

In post 46 you talk about it being an issue that gps were signing the form without reading the "and" part which doesn't dove with what you say above.

Shame that again the intention to help those most in need hasn't really been carried out Hopefully it will be clarified and looked at again.

CIS

Confuseddot wrote: »

In post 46 you talk about it being an issue that gps were signing the form without reading the "and" part which doesn't dove with what you say above.

Shame that again the intention to help those most in need hasn't really been carried out Hopefully it will be clarified and looked at again.

There is an issue in the 'interpretation' of the wording sometimes as it's open to the Dr as to how they interpret it - what there isn't, as the posters earlier suggested, is a widescale fraud with the disregard.

Until the legislation is re-worded then there will always be the difference in interpretation between what it was meant to achieve and what it does achieve.