The ones that get it right

We have spent enough time pointing out councils that misrepresent council tax discounts and the way they work.

This Blog page is for examples of good practice, statements by councils and other bodies which fairly and accurately represent the legal position of both council tax departments and council tax payers.

The CAB's guide is good, but not detailed enough to support people being caused distress by legally inaccurate advice from the council.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/tax_e/tax_council_tax_ew/council_tax.htm

Brighton has good advice in one leaflet

• If your circumstances change and you are no longer entitled to the

discount or exemption, what should you do?

You must tell the council within 21 days of the change.  If you do not, you could be

penalised. Contact Local Taxation Services, P O Box 2929, Priory House, Brighton

BN1 1PS or telephone (01273) 291291 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            (01273) 291291      end_of_the_skype_highlighting.

However Brighton spoils it all by putting an incorrect and threatening demand for information the taxpayer has no duty to supply on the application forms.

Preston

If, after disregarding a person, the number of adults resident is only one, a 25% discount is given. If all the residents are disregarded, a 50% discount is given. The types of people who are not counted are listed below.

So far, so good.  

However Preston spoils it by listing what are in fact discount categories as different discounts.

It also includes false information in a 'fact sheet'. 


If you receive a discount/exemption and your circumstances change you must tell
Preston City Council within 21 days.

Nonsense!

If anybody can find a council which does provide accurate information throughout its facts sheets and documents I should be very glad to hear of it.

valuation tribunal appeals on 'sole occupant discounts'

The Valuation Tribunal Service is putting edited accounts of tribunal cases on line.  These include some where entitlement to a discount of the appropriate amount has been an issue. 

People faced with cancelled discounts as a result of councils use of credit reference information in an attempt to decide whether any discount applies may find these useful, though they do not set  precedents as higher court cases do.  

I have put some even shorter accounts here.  These are of course  summaries of summaries, and while every effort has been made to represent all parties in  the VT reports fairly, readers should check for themselves.

I would also suggest that some comments by the tribunals misrepresent council tax law, and that therefore these summaries should not be thought to be reliable sources on that matter. 

For example, one report refers to a requirement to 'register' for council tax, when the requirement to 'register' was abolished along with the community charge register.  Indeed, a  Local Government Ombudsman report recently rebuked a council specifically for telling a person he had failed in a duty to register for council tax when no such obligation existed in law.

The accounts are therefore somewhat depressing in terms of the quality of evidence and argument that they present, but let that pass.  

The originals are available here

http://info.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/Decision_query.asp?Mode=1&Decision=liability



APPEAL NUMBER: 0116M87053/176C  Appeal Allowed

http://info.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/Decision_Documents/documents/CT_England/0116M87053176C.pdf

The issue was whether a person identified as Mr W resided at the property.

The electoral register was used as evidence by the council.  Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the council was using this for a statutory purpose related to law enforcement and crime prevention, since acting otherwise would not be proper.  However this was a civil process and the issue was ostensibly the residence of Mr W and the amount of tax payable, which is a civil, not a criminal matter.  The tribunal does not appear to have considered this evidential issue.   However the VT has said that this is a matter which the courts might in future address as a point of law: would the purposes of the tribunal be a statutory function related to crime prevention and law enforcement? 

The appellant was unable to provide evidence of an alternative address for Mr W, though the tribunal was of the opinion that it was 'reasonable' to ask the appellant for such information.  

However, the view of the tribunal was that the council had failed to provide sufficient evidence that Mr W was resident at the property.  

This shows that both parties have an evidential burden.  

This case is rather like the one reported by the Guardian Consumer journalists recently.

Appeal allowed.

Appeal: 4310M85557/254C  Appeal Not Allowed

http://info.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/decision_document.asp?Decision=liability&appeal=%2Fdecision_documents%2Fdocuments%2FCT_England%2F4310M85557%2F254C


The issue here was the sole or main residence of the appellant's sister.  

The appeal was not allowed. 

Among the pieces of evidence considered were the place where the appellant's sister  kept her cat.  It was kept at the appeal address. 

 http://info.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/decision_document.asp?Decision=liability&appeal=%2Fdecision_documents%2Fdocuments%2FCT_England%2F0910M86854%2F254C

The tribunal report states that: 


'In cases of this nature, the persuasive or legal burden of proof was on the appellant to satisfy 
the panel that his daughter’s main residence was at another place.'

I feel that this assertion is somewhat controversial.  There is a difference between having a persuasive burden and a burden of proof which the report does not reflect.

The comment in this report appears to be slightly at odds with the comment in case
APPEAL NUMBER: 0116M87053/176C

It would appear that both parties have to provide evidence, not just the appellant.  However, the nature of the evidence in each case is different. 

APPEAL NUMBER: 2735M65890/244C  APPEAL ALLOWED

http://info.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/decision_document.asp?Decision=liability&appeal=%2Fdecision_documents%2Fdocuments%2FCT_England%2F2735M65890%2F244C

In this case, a council tried to argue that an apprentice disregard did not apply because the apprentice earned extra money from overtime and this took him above the earnings limit.

One has to congratulate the tribunal for refusing to accept this nonsense.

It looked up the word 'salary' in a dictionary and came to a conclusion on that basis.

This case shows the detail in terms of private personal information which may be obtained and used for unfair purposes by councils seeking not to deduct the appropriate amount from council tax bills.  Given that the private information about overtime was not relevant to the taxation decision, I wonder whether the use made of that information was unlawful in terms of the Data Protection Act, which has a taxation exemption as well as a crime exemption.