Unfortunately, it appears that our local council are correct in how they are applying the ‘50% all resident disregard’ to my mother’s property - 25% to mum (SMI) and 25% to me (carer).
Carers UK have replied to my email. There seems to be an issue regarding the lack of clarity due to the government’s guide being “interpretation of the law but not legislation which can be complex.” I’m not a lawyer and don’t understand this. Why bother at all with that final sentence in Section 5?
However, the Carers UK representative has made some recommendations regarding future reading that might improve my understanding of the Council Tax.
I think you ought to ask that question of your MP, showing him the exact wording.
I’ve just had another look at section 5. I think it all hinges on the word “worker”.
It clearly states that there is not charge if there is someone with SMI and a care WORKER.
Once again, this question about whether or not the care a relative provides equates for work.
There are trainee barristers who operate on what they call a “pro bono” basis. Free in plain English.
This sounds like something one of them might be very interested in.
Pages 71-77 of the “Council Tax Guidance Manual” have been referred to me, to check different types of exempt properties.
This manual, however, “does not replace legislation but it is more detailed and comprehensive than the government website and is used by the Valuation Services Tribunal who hear appeals about council tax decisions.”
I’ll read what’s been recommended but I get the feeling it’s nothing but a wild-goose chase again as it appears to be nothing but interpretation (whatever that in itself actually means). If a council refuses to follow the government’s interpretation of the law…
If a trainee barrister thinks there is some contradictory guidance, it’s just the sort of thing to let them get their teeth into! Sorting it out for family carers would look good on a CV!
I agree. And to my untrained eye there does appear to be contradictory guidance.
But the comfortable tones with which the council employee explained the issue over the phone suggests they’re ready for just this sort of situation, should it present itself. After my new reading tasks, I’ll look into the legal side of things but, although an enthusiastic trainee barrister would like something public-spirited on their CV, let’s remember it’s their own careers they’re really interested in.
I still find what appears to me to be conflicting information very strange. The language itself.
I would ask the council employee to email the information.
I think of it as setting a little trap.
I have no hesitation in acting the dumb female on these occasions and use terms like “so I can get my head round it” or “so I can show my son/brother etc.etc.”
The end goal is to get what I want as quickly and as easily as possible, with things in writing that they cannot deny saying later.
I’ve had enough of Social Services telling lies!!!
The woman on the phone told me to send in an email for a clearer explanation. I’ll do that.
I think how they’re trying to sidestep the issue - assuming there is one (and I think there is) - is simply by directing the tax on to the property and not the people living in it. That’s fine, but why bother with all those ‘disregarded people’ who are ‘exempt’? I know this helps to describe the type of property but it seems unsuccessful in its very purpose.
I’ve very inexpertly trawled through a lot of legalese today and I’m still none the wiser.
I must agree with the Carer UK’s representative ‘E’ who believes that “the confusion comes from exemptions and discounts which are distinct” and it’s “dwellings rather than people” that are exempt.
In our domestic case, I think my being the carer invalidates the exemption for mum even though I’m “not counted”. Because your son, bowlingbun, lives alone, he is exempt.
A very, very poor explanation in “a plain English guide”.
It’s a pity Citizens Advice aren’t still available to talk with face to face but I’ll still send the council here that email.