Have my local authority acted legally?

sme0161

Hi, new to forum. Due to having a handicapped daughter we received a 25% reduction of council tax. Two of our grandsons who are in their 20s now live with us due to having issues at home? Both were unemployed so didn't contribute financially. It became apparent that returning home was not going to happen so my wife decided to do the right thing and registered them with the local authority which I agreed. We were aware that we would no longer get the reduction. As a result the local authority backdated this to the dates they moved in and then charge us £500.  The question is have they acted legally?  I've just read an article this morning regarding Dominic Cummings owing £50.000 in council tax which has been written off ????? MAKES ME WONDER IF ITS ONE RULE FOR THE RICH AND NOT FOR EVERYBODY ELSE.     Your comments please.

[Deleted User]

That all seems fine.

It doesn't really matter about Dominic Cummings, unless he's a member of your household, in which case you have my sympathies.

Penguin_

What date did your wife say the grandson's were moving in? 

dunstonh

I've just read an article this morning regarding Dominic Cummings owing £50.000 in council tax which has been written off ????? MAKES ME WONDER IF ITS ONE RULE FOR THE RICH AND NOT FOR EVERYBODY ELSE.     Your comments please.

The rules are the same for everyone.  I'm not sure of the wealth of Dominic Cummings parents (as it is their property, not his) but had you been in the same position then the same rules would have applied to you.       There is a time limit on enforcement action.  If his parents had been within that then they would need to pay.   

 As a result the local authority backdated this to the dates they moved in and then charge us £500.

Which is correct as you are within the time limit and not outside of it unless you are suggesting you are outside of the time limit as well?

lincroft1710

Presumably you and your wife were receiving the 25% discount as one of you was registered as the carer for your daughter. On the day that another person not entitled to be exempted or disregarded moves into your household, you are no longer entitled to the 25% discount as there is now more than one person not exempted or disregarded.

The council are correct in backdating.

Had you or your wife not informed the council of your grandsons being resident in your home, you would have been guilty of Council Tax fraud

sme0161

Much appreciated. Thanks for your comments and advice.

MatB

Unfortunately for your own circumstances it sounds like they've acted appropriately, although you'd have likely got away without the backdating with a better concocted letter.
Regarding the Dominic Cummings and family fiasco, they seem to have got off scot-free. Time expired for the planning and building control breaches maybe, but the Council Tax arrears ought to be backdated for at least five or six years and aren't actually statute time barred. But to be honest, he ought to be thrown in jail.

dunstonh

But to be honest, he ought to be thrown in jail.

You don't throw people in jail just because you don't like them.

lincroft1710

MatB said:

Unfortunately for your own circumstances it sounds like they've acted appropriately, although you'd have likely got away without the backdating with a better concocted letter.
Regarding the Dominic Cummings and family fiasco, they seem to have got off scot-free. Time expired for the planning and building control breaches maybe, but the Council Tax arrears ought to be backdated for at least five or six years and aren't actually statute time barred. But to be honest, he ought to be thrown in jail.

If the OP had not told the truth about the date on which the grandsons started living with them, they would have been guilty of Council Tax fraud.

Regarding Cummings, for each dwelling subject to CT, there is an effective date, which is the date from which CT needs to be paid. This is not an arbitrary date, how it is arrived at is set down in statute. Therefore Cummings' liability cannot just be backdated "for at least five or six years".

The exact date of when the buildings became dwellings is unknown and it seems the VOA are treating them as "annexes" for effective date purposes. Therefore there would be no backdating. There is an argument that this procedure is correct in these circumstances, I am not in possession of all the facts, but I am not 100% convinced that the VOA approach was correct.