Council tax discounts for ‘severe mental impairment’
Options
Comments
-
marliepanda wrote: »SMI is awarded on the basis that he would have no 'say' in what his Ctax was spent on, such as in the voting for local counsellors and voting for the one who he felt would serve his needs best (whether that is followed through is another political argument)
Its not about having mental health issues, its an impairment of intelligence such that he would have no idea what he was voting for his money to be spent on.
Thats the difficult part, he has huge debts as he can't wrap his head around the idea he has debt, on top of the £50 a month he pays £30 a month arrears, and has about £20 000 in debt from the past from a combination of after a stroke he was out of work for a while, he was victim of identity fraud from his brother but didn't get him arrested etc its a struggle to get him to pay even his basic debts as one was going to get wiped next year by debt management if he paid minimum amounts but he overspends as he forgets and lacks the capacity then has a panic attack and blocks out the world if not makes it worse as he spends money he doesn't have drinking.0 -
Thats the difficult part, he has huge debts as he can't wrap his head around the idea he has debt, on top of the £50 a month he pays £30 a month arrears, and has about £20 000 in debt from the past from a combination of after a stroke he was out of work for a while, he was victim of identity fraud from his brother but didn't get him arrested etc its a struggle to get him to pay even his basic debts as one was going to get wiped next year by debt management if he paid minimum amounts but he overspends as he forgets and lacks the capacity then has a panic attack and blocks out the world if not makes it worse as he spends money he doesn't have drinking.
I'm not a doctor, but I would be surprised if someone got SMI for this as he clearly seems to have some control and intelligence over his actions (choosing not to get his brother in trouble etc)
It sounds more like he needs someone to take control of his finances for him as he is not managing his money.
Again, I am not a doctor, they worse that will happen if he applies is they say no.0 -
marliepanda wrote: »Its highly unlikely CT would be only £50 a month without CTR. Lowest bandings are usually around £100 a month.
I agree it would be surprisingly low if CTR was not already in place but I also though that for someone on UC with a single person discount and CTR it could be a bit high. Obviously we don't know the OP's earnings, their CT band or the rules of the local authority scheme so it seemed better to offer the advice just in case.Information I post is for England unless otherwise stated. Some rules may be different in other parts of UK.0 -
marliepanda wrote: »I'm not a doctor, but I would be surprised if someone got SMI for this as he clearly seems to have some control and intelligence over his actions (choosing not to get his brother in trouble etc)
It sounds more like he needs someone to take control of his finances for him as he is not managing his money.
Again, I am not a doctor, they worse that will happen if he applies is they say no.
Its a difficult one, he has a habit of wandering off and not telling people where he is, not answering his phone, has had seizures in public where he is rushed to hospital, and speaks to anyone and is easily influenced like he will approach junkies and be friendly with them and they will rob him or use his flat as a drug den, he also though not as much now punches holes in walls its very rare he has his moment of clarity most of time hes not all there.
He already has people do pretty much everything for him, it was other people who applied for UC, council flat, benefits etc for him as he just spaces out and goes blank and if you speak to him his speech is almost always slurred.0 -
marliepanda wrote: »Its highly unlikely CT would be only £50 a month without CTR. Lowest bandings are usually around £100 a month.
Mine's around £70 a month after single person discount is applied. Two bed council flat in a terrible area. That's paid over ten months, so less than that over twelve.Unless I say otherwise 'you' means the general you not you specifically.0 -
marliepanda wrote: »You say lived with 'us' so I am assuming you and your wife.
If you lived there with your wife as 2 adults, along with your MIL with dementia, there wouldn't be a discount for SMI as there are two adults. SMI is in effect a different approach to a single persons discount.
Thats not true - both my husband and myself are disregaurded because of our daughter .Our CT is reduced by 50% to £50 a month0 -
Thats not true - both my husband and myself are disregaurded because of our daughter .Our CT is reduced by 50% to £50 a month
Why are you and your husband disregarded?
This could work if one of you is disregarded as her carer and your daughter was disregarded as SMI.
If all three of you were disregarded then there would be no council tax at all.0 -
Thats not true - both my husband and myself are disregaurded because of our daughter .Our CT is reduced by 50% to £50 a month
A 50% discount indicates a double disregard (which is relatively unusual) - I would expect it's down to 2 adults and an adult child where the child was disregarded as SMI and both parents are disregarded carers.
In the case that was highlighted only the MIL was disregarded but for a 50% discount each of the two other adults would also need to be disregarded. If the MIL was disregarded and only one of the two other adults then a 25% discount would apply on the basis there was still one adult who was not disregarded.
Think of exemptions as special cases - if all occupiers are disregarded then in some cases an exemption can take over and apply. In the case of a mixed household of carers and SMI then no exemption can apply and the 50% is the highest council tax discount than can apply under S11(2)(b) of the LGFA 1992.I no longer work in Council Tax Recovery but instead work as a specialist Council Tax paralegal assisting landlords and Council Tax payers with council tax disputes and valuation tribunals. My views are my own reading of the law and you should always check with the local authority in question.0 -
We are both disreguarded because we both care for her over 35 hrs a week.
Liabilities £1,200.95
Discounts -£600.480 -
Hi,
I wonder if you could advise if we can appeal against the local council who are saying they are unable to backdate the 25% disregard from an earlier date beyond when my Mum started receiving attendance allowance.
Sadly, my Mum was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in July 2012 but we only realised we could claim for Attendance Allowance in July 2015 so the council have backdated the 25% disregard until that date but their letter says 'We are unable to award this disregard from an earlier date without proof that she was in receipt of one of the qualifying benefits (e.g. Attendance Allowance) prior to this date'.
From reading the information on your website and other website I understood that you only needed to be eligible for at least one of the benefits (but NOT necessarily actually receiving it). We have medical letters showing my Mum's diagnosis which have been sent to the council so I just would like to know what we can do and if we can we appeal against their decision. If so, can we just prove Mum's eligibility to receive attendance allowance would have applied back to her diagnosis and therefore the letters will suffice? Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks David0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards