Backdating a Council tax single occupancy discount

Bookworm105

statute law is, as mentioned, silent on the matter of retrospective claims for council tax single person discount. 

The legislation requires councils to perform "reasonable" checks of a claim for the financial year. It does not state which financial year, nor does it explicitly deal with when/how a year is "closed", it does not, for example, use the  wording current year.

As such it is down to the discretion of each council to process a retrospective claim in the light of the fact that there is information made available every year to bill payers listing what discounts and relief can be claimed by them. Ignorance is never a defence.

There is nothing stopping a retrospective claim, but it is not a "right" and if they make it awkward you'd need to be willing to escalate, even as far as a Tribunal as mentioned above.

Albermarle

Probably many councils have become reluctant to backdate discount claims, as they are so strapped for cash.

lincroft1710

mybestattempt said:

This is just my view, but I can't see that legislation imposing any time limits for backdating SPD.

I found this article which appears to confirm:

https://www.mytaxaccountant.co.uk/post/single-person-discount-council-tax


I also think that although a council may vigorously resist a claim to backdate if it came to an appeal to the valuation tribunal, at the hearing the council would have to produce evidence that someone else was living at the property.

 

The argument councils will use is that as the legislation is silent on backdating they are not legally oblige to backdate. This argument that the legislation is silent has been very successfully used by councils where interest has been claimed by a CT payer who has had a refund following a reduced CT band. The councils just dig their heels in and refuse to pay any interest.


32 years later our legislators have still not sought to clarify or amend the legislation

Turtle669

Bookworm105 said:

the council can simply ask the neighbours who lives there.
Obviously they cannot force them to reply, nor can the prevent a misleading reply, but it gives a strong indication even in these days of not knowing the name of the person next door.

Actually, in this case, asking the neighbors would really not work.

I live in the suburbs of London, in a big apartment block. The density of apartments per floor is such that I can say for a fact that hardly no one knows about the whereabouts of each other, not to mention their status or how many people live in the property. On top of that, the sound insulation is pretty good, making it very difficult to know even if the adjacent flats are even occupied or not. The property doesn't even have parking to verify how many cars would be parked either for example.

In fact, I would probably know my neighbours at a random hotel better than in this apartment block. That's unfortunately the reality of living in a dense apartment block, very different from more slow paced and personalized areas of the country I guess.

Bookworm105 said:

Yes a "declaration of honour" is the main means for ongoing monitoring. You must return a signed form confirming your status, you commit an offence if you are subsequently found to have lied.

Ok thank you I see. I understand there is not really any ongoing factual monitoring in most situations, unless the council has reasonable doubts to think that the Council tax payer has been lying.

As part of the evidence I am gathering, I have also found new pieces of evidence (not direct proof for sure, as it can't exist, but facts that could play in my favour).

I would like to get your opinions on how likely the council would accept these as part of the overall sole occupancy context I'm trying to demonstrate to them:

- My tenancy agreement only lists me as the only occupier.

- The apartment is rented unfurnished, so I had to buy all the furniture when I moved in. I kept a record of the IKEA invoice, where I actually bought things like a single-person size bed.

- During the occupancy period, at the request of the landlord, the letting agency that is managing the property, organised 2 property inspections at 2 different times. During those inspections, photos were taken by the letting agent, showing clearly (in my opinion) that most probably only 1 person was still living there (funny thing is one of the 2 chairs I initially bought actually has never been opened/assembled, as I have in fact never invited anyone at home, the apartment being too small to comfortably invite friends anyway). Following each visit, a report was most probably sent out to the landlords along with the photos. I am still trying to get hold of those reports though.

Many thanks for your opinions, and play devil's advocate, as I'm sure you will.

It helps me a lot to anticipate the type of pushback from the council.

mybestattempt

Since I last posted on this thread I've read some tribunal decisions  where single person discount (SPD) was in issue.

It seems that even where it's agreed that SPD applied (and could be backdated) a council will resist backdating on the basis that it took "reasonable steps" to ascertain that SPD was due for earlier periods.

If the tribunal then goes on to find a council has, by putting information about SPD on postal output and it's website during that earlier period, met it's obligation to take "reasonable steps"  backdating will be refused.

So, it appears to me, it may be not just about establishing sole occupancy but also convincing the tribunal the council didn't take "reasonable steps" to ascertain SDP was due.

Bookworm105

mybestattempt said:

So, it appears to me, it may be not just about establishing sole occupancy but also convincing the tribunal the council didn't take "reasonable steps" to ascertain SDP was due.

as previously mentioned, the legislation requires them to take reasonable steps, nothing more, nothing less. As you have found tribunals have "clarified" what that means in practice.

taxpayers failing to inform themselves of the rules is no defence for "didn't know I could claim" when the info is there for reading.

Doubtless the back of the paper bill contains info about a) how to pay it b) obtaining council tax support (unemployed) and c) a prominent section on discounts, exemptions and premiums....
But then no one ever reads anything these days, they turn to the internet after the event instead. 

lincroft1710

Turtle669 said:

Bookworm105 said:

the council can simply ask the neighbours who lives there.
Obviously they cannot force them to reply, nor can the prevent a misleading reply, but it gives a strong indication even in these days of not knowing the name of the person next door.

Bookworm105 said:

Yes a "declaration of honour" is the main means for ongoing monitoring. You must return a signed form confirming your status, you commit an offence if you are subsequently found to have lied.

As part of the evidence I am gathering, I have also found new pieces of evidence (not direct proof for sure, as it can't exist, but facts that could play in my favour).

I would like to get your opinions on how likely the council would accept these as part of the overall sole occupancy context I'm trying to demonstrate to them:

- My tenancy agreement only lists me as the only occupier.

You could have moved someone in against the tenancy rules, not unknown

- The apartment is rented unfurnished, so I had to buy all the furniture when I moved in. I kept a record of the IKEA invoice, where I actually bought things like a single-person size bed.

All that proves is that you purchased a single bed on a certain date. You could have purchased another single bed or a sofa bed from a retailer the following day.

- During the occupancy period, at the request of the landlord, the letting agency that is managing the property, organised 2 property inspections at 2 different times. During those inspections, photos were taken by the letting agent, showing clearly (in my opinion) that most probably only 1 person was still living there (funny thing is one of the 2 chairs I initially bought actually has never been opened/assembled, as I have in fact never invited anyone at home, the apartment being too small to comfortably invite friends anyway). Following each visit, a report was most probably sent out to the landlords along with the photos. I am still trying to get hold of those reports though.


I'd doubt the landlord or the agent would co-operate

Many thanks for your opinions, and play devil's advocate, as I'm sure you will.

It helps me a lot to anticipate the type of pushback from the council.

See above..

Turtle669

@mybestattempt said:

It seems that even where it's agreed that SPD applied (and could be backdated) a council will resist backdating on the basis that it took "reasonable steps" to ascertain that SPD was due for earlier periods.

Thank you so much for the research. That's very good information for me to prepare evidence if it comes to it.

Bookworm105 said:

Doubtless the back of the paper bill contains info about a) how to pay it b) obtaining council tax support (unemployed) and c) a prominent section on discounts, exemptions and premiums....

I've had a careful re-read of the paper bills that were issued since I moved in.

The back of each bill contains an extensive informational section about how to pay, how to contact them, and how to manage my account online.
But I actually can't see any explicit discount section listed. The only sentence mentioning a discount is the following:

"Making a claim for Council Tax support, a discount, exemption or an appeal against your liability does not allow you to withhold payment."

I am not sure if there is a standard form for Council tax bills, but mine from my council only shows the above sentence regarding discount.

Bookworm105 said:

But then no one ever reads anything these days, they turn to the internet after the event instead. 

Yes exactly. Doubtless that back in the day, people would always read all and everything and never miss a thing. That probably explains why this kind of web forum didn't exist back then, because not needed.
Unfortunately, it appears people are not infallible anymore these days, and do sometime miss information despite reading documents. That is why I am grateful that this kind of Moneysaving forums do exist today, where people can ask for advice without fear of being judged.


Thank you @lincroft1710 for your analyses of the different items. I now have a much better view how to present those different elements of context (even if not bulletproof for sure).

@lincroft1710 said:

I'd doubt the landlord or the agent would co-operate


The landlord has rejected indeed to send me the report. However, the agency have confirmed they are happy to get contacted by the Council upon request, and would confirm to them that the 2 reports provided good visual evidence that the terms of the tenancy were respected, in particular with regard to single occupancy, at the times the visits were carried out.

lincroft1710

My CT bill plus additional info sheets total 6 sides of A4, but refers you to the council website for details of discounts/reductions etc.