Severe mental impairment

CIS

Jan5511 wrote: »

Hi - my first ever post/question so hope someone can help me. I applied to my council on a SevereIy mentally impaired form for my mother who was diagnosed in 2013 a letter came back saying she would get back her payments from 2013 which they advised was £5194 now after sending forms they asked for, my power of attorney, and confirmation of Attendence Allowance that she has only been receiving since September 2017 - I didn’t know about this benefit before last year - the council have now said my mum will only receive a refund from date of Att Allowance and not date of diagnosis - £684 against £5,194 - does anyone know if this is correct? ML has previously said that the person does not need to be receiving the benefit only entitled to them. Which date should the council pay from? Many thanks if anyone can help.

The entitlement only occurs for the period where a person meets all of the criteria - you are correct in that a period where a person is entitled to a benefit then it is the same as receiving it, as far as the criteria are concerned, but the proof of this is the difficult part.

Jan5511

Many thanks for your comments I will contact the council on Monday & get them to explain their rules.

Stuckinarut

I work within council tax and as well as a doctor certifying that a person is deemed to be severally mentally impaired they also have to be in receipt of qualifying benefits.

Jan5511

Thanks for the info - not according to Martin - he says on the site “some councils wrongly tell people they need to be receiving these benefits, that’s not correct - the law simply says you need to be eligible for them”

Maybe it depends on the council.

CIS

Jan5511 wrote: »

Thanks for the info - not according to Martin - he says on the site “some councils wrongly tell people they need to be receiving these benefits, that’s not correct - the law simply says you need to be eligible for them”

Maybe it depends on the council.

Which local authority is it ?

Stuckinarut wrote: »

I work within council tax and as well as a doctor certifying that a person is deemed to be severally mentally impaired they also have to be in receipt of qualifying benefits.

The SMI disregard is not a delegated power- the local authority has not power to alter or vary the rules.

The legislation is clear that it is an entitlement to a benefit - there does not have to be an actual payment of the benefit.

Article 3(1) of the Council Tax (discount disregards) order 1992, as amended, provides that (my emphasis):

“The condition prescribed for the purposes of paragraph 2(1)(c) of Schedule 1 to the Act is that the person in question is entitled to one of the qualifying benefits…“.

Jan5511

Local authority is Horsham District Council - if I hadn’t been told two different things by the same council I would not be querying this. One amount was given from diagnosis - the second amount from 4 years later due to “ Class U exemption is awarded at the later date of either diagnosis 2013 or award of Attendence Allowance September 2017, therefore the account has been amended to start Class U from September 17”

who decides the dates? My mother could have been entitled to the Attendence Allowance sooner if I had been aware to existed.

marliepanda

I’d imagine they could ask the doctor. Many of the conditions which qualify people for SMI are progressive so diagnosis may not necessarily mean exemption. Also many of the illnesses MAY qualify you, but may not (such as Parkinson’s. Many have it without any mental impairments)

CIS

Jan5511 wrote: »

Local authority is Horsham District Council - if I hadn’t been told two different things by the same council I would not be querying this. One amount was given from diagnosis - the second amount from 4 years later due to “ Class U exemption is awarded at the later date of either diagnosis 2013 or award of Attendence Allowance September 2017, therefore the account has been amended to start Class U from September 17”

who decides the dates? My mother could have been entitled to the Attendence Allowance sooner if I had been aware to existed.

Legislation sets the date - the date is the earliest date that the person would meet all of the relevant criteria however in real terms the local authority makes the day to day determination of which date is the correct one under legislation and they will only do so where they feel the facts show that a person met those criteria.

It is because the local authority make the decision, based on the facts as they see them when applied to the legislation, that the right to appeal to a valuation tribunal exists.

The valuation tribunal will apply the same tests as required in legislation but they would need to be satisfied that the facts show an entitlement to an earlier date before they would overrule the local authority. In real terms the tribunal will work on a 'balance of probabilities' basis when deciding any evidence regarding the 'entitlement'. Providing evidence is the difficult part, to prove the entitlement you'd need to demonstrate all of the aspects of entitlement, other than having received the money, were met - far easier said than done.

Mersey_2

Stuckinarut wrote: »

I work within council tax and as well as a doctor certifying that a person is deemed to be severally mentally impaired they also have to be in receipt of qualifying benefits.

Untrue.


That was Martin Lewis's very point on the MLMS - Council staff are wrongly advising residents and relatives.


There is no requirement at all to have been in receipt of benefits in order to claim/reclaim smi CT rebates.

Jan5511

Many thanks for your comments, an update - after emailing the council and asking for an explanation and mentioning Martin Lewis’ post, I have received an email to say that the claim will be paid from date of diagnosis, not the date the Attendence Allowance started, with apologises for how the claim was dealt with and upset caused. No explanation on why they have changed their minds again but a very sincere apology.