Our LA have told us there is no provision in CTB equivalent to HB Reg 7(6)(c) which allows for HB on both properties where a large family is accommodated in two units - and when I looked I couldn't find one either.

Can anyone point me towards any such provision? Or do we have to rely on the s76 Local Government Act 2003 power to reduce liability for one of the properties to nil?

Wed 25-Apr-07 01:27 PM by plumduff

Not knowing about HB regs... but interested in an answer, I found this...

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/housingbenefit/training/1/1_2_4b.asp#a

Number 3....

Yes. Exactly. They cover the liability for rent on two homes, but don't appear to have covered the Council Tax for them.

I feel a Victor Meldrew cry coming on...

Are the two parts of the family not two seperate households for CTB and able to claim in their own rights?

That would seem to be the answer to me, all you need to do is identyfy who is the liable person in the second property and get them to claim the CTB.

It does seem odd, but then perhaps the rationale is that the liability for rent could be under tenancy agreements in one persons name, perhaps even under the same tenancy agreement, wheras the person at the top of the CT liability tree is the adult occupier (I think). Another thought is that if the family were 2 adults plus numerous children and one adult occupies each property, they would presumably be entitled to the 25 single occupancy discount.

Yes, the same person can be liable for rent at two properties at the same time, but cant have two sole or main residences for CTAX purposes at the same time so can't be liable on both.

There is case law which I will try to dig out which says that two separate dwellings occupied by one family can be treated as one dwelling, depending, of course, on the circumstances. How this works for council tax I don't know off the top of my head. I'm sure others will know though.

The court of appeal in Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Miah 2003 decided that a dwelling could be split over two separate sites. This was for JSA and very fact specific. For example the claimant had to show that he normally occupied both houses as his home and not, say only lived in one of them while other family members lived in the other.

Section 131(3) of the SSC&B Act 1992 says that CTB is payable for a "dwelling of which he is a resident".

Therefore, it is clear that both houses can be one dwelling so the question is, is a person resident in a dwelling which comprises one or two houses. If he lived in one house exclusively while other family members lived in the other then there would probably be two separate dwellings and he would only be resident in one.

If, however, he lived in both houses then there would be one dwelling and, therefore, could he be said to be resident in a dwelling which comprised of two houses?

The above assumes that "dwelling" has the same meaning for CTAX purposes. Unfortunately, my CTAX knowledge isn't strong enough to help - any takers?

Fri 27-Apr-07 11:30 AM by ken

Edited to correct link

The meaning of "dwelling" for CT purposes is contained in

s3 Local Government Finance Act 1992

A prize to anyone who can make much sense of it!

Also see

http://www.voa.gov.uk/council_tax/what_is_a_dwelling.htm

The original post concerned CTB. Section 137 of the SSC&B Act defines dwelling as: -

"dwelling" means any residential accommodation, whether or not consisting of the whole or part of a building and whether or not comprising separate and self-contained premises;

In the JSA Regs dwelling is defined as: -

"dwelling occupied as the home" means the dwelling together with any garage, garden and outbuildings, normally occupied by the claimant as his home including any premises not so occupied which it is impracticable or unreasonable to sell separately, in particular, in Scotland, any croft land on which the dwelling is situated;

The original post concerned CTB. Section 137 of the SSC&B Act defines dwelling as: -

"dwelling" means any residential accommodation, whether or not consisting of the whole or part of a building and whether or not comprising separate and self-contained premises;

In the JSA Regs dwelling is defined as: -

"dwelling occupied as the home" means the dwelling together with any garage, garden and outbuildings, normally occupied by the claimant as his home including any premises not so occupied which it is impracticable or unreasonable to sell separately, in particular, in Scotland, any croft land on which the dwelling is situated;

Thank you all for your thoughts.

I confess that there might not be a problem here, but I'm trying to arm myself with arguments in case there is! The case was initially taken on by a colleague who is now on sick leave, and I fielded a phone call from the HB dept on Tuesday.

The family in this case are in a very similar position to the family in Miah cited by Paul above. The properties are two (non-adjacent) flats in the same building, and the whole family seem to use both at different times. The building is a RSL property and the family were placed there by council nomination. Father is on IS and is the tenant of both flats. Benefits have said they are able to pay HB for both rents, but that only one dwelling can be occupied as the home so CTB only for one. But they have asked the City Treasury to use the power introduced in the 2003 LG Finance Act to reduce the actual money liability to nil. If they do, fine; no liability means no CTB (and no need for CTB) and no problem. But if they refuse, I don't think a Valuation Tribunal can consider an appeal against that refusal - any challenge would have to be JR I think. And I'd rather find a way of taking the benefit refusal to tribunal...

Miah seems to support the proposition that both units can be regarded as one dwelling, but the definitions are a bit different.

CTB Reg 2 gives "dwelling" the same meaning as in the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which in turn refers back to the definition of a hereditament under the old domestic rates legislation - and that's where I lose the trail. But if Miah principles can be applied to the CTB definition - and I think it looks promising - then that's the way in.

jmembery, I'm not convinced that arguing for no liability on the second unit because its not their "sole or main" residence works. Surely a resident tenant who is resident for only part of the time can be liable if there's no-one higher in the liability hierarchy, even though his "sole or main" residence for CTB purposes would be elsewhere?

Thanks again for all your contributions. I was going to hope that I haven't wasted your time - but time spent exercising the brain is never wasted, as my old Latin master used to say.

Out of complete nosiness, I asked this question (hypothetically) to a council tax unit and got this response... in two parts off two different people...

" Where the family has been placed in two units of accommodation by the housing authority (and therefore usually in council property), we can pay HB on the combined rent of the two. I've no idea about the Council Tax Benefit position, because it will usually follow the liability. I'm guessing that you can't be liable for two properties as normally resident so the two would have to be counted as one (which sounds difficult, particularly if they are not adjoining) or treated as having a second home (which doesn't sound appropriate). "

and then...

"If it is two distinct properties I cannot see the valuation office combining them and so we have two bandable units for Ctax and the liability for each would need to be addressed on the basis of the hierarchy of liability just as in all other cases.

So, for starters

what are the two addresses

How is the family made up (adults/children under 18)

who is/are the tenants of each address-(can the same person be the tenant of two properties?)

at which address does the adult(s) live (ctax legislation says that no one can be resident in two places at the same time). "

Hmmmm.....

And finally, unless appealed, the answer is yes!

This isn't your case is it?

This recent CD (same case?) will be of interest:

CH/3933/2006
www.osscsc.gov.uk/aspx/view.aspx?id=2227

Thanks Kevin I totally forgot to post the reference. I think I'll go and lie down now!

Thanks all. No this isn't the case I posted about - but its practically identical!

The council here had said they couldn't pay benefit but were asking Revenue section to use a discretionary power to reduce the CT bill to zero for the second unit. We told the client this, and said he should get in touch if they still chased him for CT and refused benefit; intending to appeal the benefit refusal on Miah-type grounds if necessary...

But no further contact, so I assume they've nilled the bill.

Now I wonder whether there are subsidy related reasons for drawing the council's attention to this CD, and suggesting they charge the bill but also allow benefit. But that's not really my job, is it?