Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
Council Tax support in shared ownership
My client co-owns her property with her parents on a 75/25 split. Her parents are not entitled to CTS due to income. I will be advising my client to claim CTS as she receives IR-ESA. Would she be entitled to a discount on 75% of the bill or just 50%? I would expect the former but I can’t find much information on it.
Thank you
Don’t think the ownership shares affect the CT liability - if all three people live there and own the property, then all three are jointly liable to would imagine it’s 33% for your client.
Thanks Paul, that’s appreciated.
If the client is deemed SMI and one of her parents received carer’s reduction, would the discount still be 25%?
Someone who is SMI cannot be jointly liable with others, so liability would fall wholly to the parents and with only one “visible” (non-disregarded) resident the bill would be discounted by 25%.
Someone who is SMI cannot be jointly liable with others, so liability would fall wholly to the parents and with only one “visible” (non-disregarded) resident the bill would be discounted by 25%.
I take it she would not then be eligible for Council Tax support as she has no liability, which means they would be worse off?
The rules on discounts are separate from the rules on liability. This means there can be situations where a person who is invisible for Council Tax themselves is still liable to pay the Council Tax bill.
If your client and the carer parent are both discounted, then the remaining parent means it’s a 25% discount from their overall CT liability.
Your client would remain liable for 33% of that liability and could claim CTS for that portion is how I understand it should work.
Someone who is SMI cannot be jointly liable with others, so liability would fall wholly to the parents and with only one “visible” (non-disregarded) resident the bill would be discounted by 25%.
I take it she would not then be eligible for Council Tax support as she has no liability, which means they would be worse off?
Correct, the non-liable SMI resident would not be able to claim CTS, only the liable parents could do that and they don’t qualify because of their income. That means they could be better off over all with 100% liability, no SMI discount and your client getting a CTS rebate for 33%, compared with a 25% discount and no CTS if she is SMI. But be careful: many working age schemes cap liability at a band or a percentage or both, and it may be that her capped/restricted CTS on 33% liability works out less than a 25% discount.