council tax single occupancy reduction when paid by church

etienneg

This is a niche enquiry but I know there are a few council tax experts on here who may be able to help.

Where a house is provided by a church for a minister of religion the church is responsible for paying the council tax rather than the occupant. Where the minister is the sole person occupying the house (no family living there), is the church entitled to the 25% single occupancy discount? I know the church has received the discount in the past, but this may have been discretionary. The council is now refusing the discount, saying that it is only applicable when the occupant is the one paying the council tax, so I need to find out the regulatory position on this.

If anyone can provide a link to the appropriate regulation or other document, I would be very grateful. Nothing I have found so far addresses this particular point.

Jeremy535897

See https://www.fareham.gov.uk/council_tax/discounts_and_exemptions/exemptions/ministersofreligion.aspx but a lot is generally applicable.
See also
https://www.gov.uk/council-tax/who-has-to-pay (unhelpfully does not list ministers in the people who don't count as occupants). Also see https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/805403/190530_-_Paying_the_Right_Level_of_Council_Tax_FINAL_Clean.pdf which says that a member of a religious community on limited income is not counted (per another site this means no income other than an occupational pension or from personal capital).

It seems that the rules for working out council tax deductions regarding the number of occupants, and whether they count, are unaffected by who is liable for the council tax.

harpee

I agree and you should contact the council again to appeal the bill. The relevant legislation is s11 of lgfa 1992. Sorry I can't post a link as I'm new but you can find it online easily on the legislation dot gov website or Google it.
The discount is 25% when one adult has their sole or main residence in a property, including where the liable person is the non-resident owner.

lincroft1710

I am wondering if the council in the OP's case are taking the line that the church is the occupier rather than an individual and so there would be no 25% SPD.

CIS' input would be most welcome

harpee

If the property has a resident who is a minister living there to perform their duties then the church are liable per the Council Tax (liability for owners) regulations 1992. If there is one adult resident the 25% discount still applies, even though in this case it is the owner who is liable and not the resident. The church are the liable party, the person living there is the resident. Usually the resident is liable for council tax but there are exceptions where the owner of the occupied property is liable instead such as in this case. 

CIS

etienneg said:

This is a niche enquiry but I know there are a few council tax experts on here who may be able to help.

Where a house is provided by a church for a minister of religion the church is responsible for paying the council tax rather than the occupant. Where the minister is the sole person occupying the house (no family living there), is the church entitled to the 25% single occupancy discount? I know the church has received the discount in the past, but this may have been discretionary. The council is now refusing the discount, saying that it is only applicable when the occupant is the one paying the council tax, so I need to find out the regulatory position on this.

If anyone can provide a link to the appropriate regulation or other document, I would be very grateful. Nothing I have found so far addresses this particular point.

As long as the minister is resident in the property then all normal discounts/exemptions apply - the council have simply made a error of assuming that the change of liability under s8 of the LGFA 1992 negates a discount. It's a common error but not one that should be being made.It's not discretionary, the single occupancy discount should still apply..

The legislative argument is easy to make , not more so than several dozen similar arguments I make every year for HMOs, but trying to get a council to actually listen is another matter (There's not just one part of legislation you can point to to explain the point).

MalMonroe

Failing all else, would it be possible for the occupant to be named as the person living there, and therefore responsible for CT, and then the church could in turn issue a refund to the occupant?

Then the church would pay the same amount as if the discount had been applied to their payment had it been direct. 

Makes perfect sense to me but then again, I know how councils can be!

lincroft1710

MalMonroe said:

Failing all else, would it be possible for the occupant to be named as the person living there, and therefore responsible for CT, and then the church could in turn issue a refund to the occupant?

Then the church would pay the same amount as if the discount had been applied to their payment had it been direct. 

Makes perfect sense to me but then again, I know how councils can be!

In such circumstances, the church is the occupier in the hierarchy of occupation, not the actual minister Thus the church is responsible for the CT.  The council are simply misinterpreting the legislation.

CIS

Slight correction - the church are the liable party, the minister is the resident. Same outcome though, the church are liable with any applicable discounts based on the resident.

Makes perfect sense to me but then again, I know how councils can be!

The council are bound by legislation, they're just making a error in how they are applying it.