I don't have the CPAG Council Tax Handbook so need info on retrospective awards of the 25% discount ? Our LA tell me their policy is to now restrict it to the start of the current financial year. They used to award it as far back as applicable but are now asking for good cause. If we have to give this I can't see why they can't accept the fact that claimants have obviously disclosed their family status on any HB/CTB claim form.
Cheers
Sue

Sue

I don't think that they can do this. They seem to be confusing the CTB regs with the reduction scheme. A reduction for single occupancy is allowed under section 11(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which states that: -

11.—(1) The amount of council tax payable in respect of any chargeable dwelling and any day shall be subject to a discount equal to the appropriate percentage of that amount if on that day—
(a) there is only one resident of the dwelling and he does not fall to be disregarded for the purposes of discount; or
(b) there are two or more residents of the dwelling and each of them except one falls to be disregarded for those purposes.

There is no limit on retrospectivity if single occupancy on any given day is an accepted fact. P55 of this years Disability Rights Handbook also confirms this.

Regards
Paul

This must be the best website in the world !! Prompt and belting responses. Many thanks Paul

Paul, I've put these arguments to the council and they look to be conceding but are using the same blanket policy as all Councils within Greater Manchester under the guise of best practice. They've now agreed he has 'proved' his status as he always applied for benefit as a single person but want 'good cause' for him not applying before 1996. If he provides this they'll be "happy" to consider his request for backdating!! I'm about the write to let them know that policy can't override the Act and that statute prevails.

I'm sure there'll be other councils not only those the Gtr Manchester area which have adopted this policy.

Sue

If we are right, and I'm pretty sure we are, then I would be tempted to write a letter before action threatening them with judicial review, seeking an enforcement order(previously known as an order of mandamus)obliging them to carry out their statutory duty). The letter should indicate that a copy has gone to its legal department.

If the council are wrong its legal department usually moves things along.

Keep us posted.

Regards
Paul

Cheers Paul. That's what I intend to do today as I'm sure it will persuade them of the error of their ways without having to actually seek leave. I'm always amazed that councils don't confer more with their own legal depts before it even gets to threatening jr. They've been stung more times than I care to think about when stubbornly adhering to their own various policies rather than carrying out their statutory duties. Unnecessary time is wasted for the client, advisors and the other party and of course funding (from whatever source) which could well be utilized elsewhere.
Apologies for ranting.
Sue