Our client is the owner of a house which is also occupied by her mother. Daughter/owner is schizophrenic, receives IB and DLA and has certificate stating she is "severely mentally impaired". Mother who is presumably a licencee in the property, receives AA. Daughter has applied for Council Tax Benefit but the Council refused to even accept the claim form on the ground that her mother was the person who was liable for CT.

Since daughter owns the house, they are NOT "jointly and severally liable" for CT. Assuming the heirachy system for CT liability operates then surely daughter/leaseholder is liable rather than the licencee, but she is smi so no tax due? Or is the Council right?

First of all, Owner occupier is normally liable for CT - in this case She is SMI, and recieves DLA and therefore no CT is payable on both counts.

Mike
Could you please look back on the thread I started 20.1.06 - Council Tax Benefit - severe mental impairment. It seems to me that case was similar to this one - sole owner with SMI and another adult in the home, the difference being that in this case the other adult is getting AA and therefore no NDD would apply. Your reply to this case is saying there is no liability, but the conclusion I had reached from the replies to my case (and from CPAG) is that there is a liability.

In view of what you have said I am now wondering if I am wrong and would appreciate it if you could comment on my case - either to confirm I've got it wrong or to differentiate it from this one. Many thanks.

Here is the link to the earlier 20/1/06 council tax discussion thread started by Derek -

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2733&mode=full

I would suggest it should be looked at like this:

If the owner/daughter was the sole occupier, the dwelling would be exempt, as it would be solely occupied by someone who is severely mentally impaired. However, as there is a second occupier it cannot be exempt.

The owner/daughter is liable under the hierarchy rules. She cannot be jointly & severally liable with her mother, as her mother is below her in the hierarchy. Therefore, the rules covering severe mental impairment and joint liability cannot apply.

The owner/daughter attracts a 25% status discount, as she is severely mentally impaired.

If the owner/daughter gets the Highest Rate Care Component of DLA, then the mother could be regarded as a carer, and she would therefore also attract a 25% status discount.

This would leave a 50% liability, which would fall on the owner/daughter. She could, of course, claim Council Tax Benefit, and there would be no non-dependent deduction (as she is getting DLA).

Our Council has now backed down, agreed that daughter has CT liability, processed her claim for CTB and sent an apology. Thanks to all contributors to this thread.