Students and council tax.

I'm pretty sure they would be classed for council tax purposes as effectively living alone, and get the 25% discount as students do not as far as i know pay this tax.

If the student is on a full time, recognised course (for example, studying full time with Open University is NOT considered eligible) then there is a 'second adult rebate' of 25%. If the person who is the non-student and who is therefore liable to pay the coucil tax is on a low income, they may be eligible for Council Tax Benefit.

Only one of the above may be claimed, and will usually be the higher of the two.

Not technically true ... I think studying ful time via distance learning probably won't qualify you (though it strikes me as patently unfair). I got student exemption as a full time, campus based Open University student.

Thom

If the house is inhabited solely by students, then council tax is not payable. But if there is one non-student in the house, then everyone has to pay council tax. This was on a letter sent out by my university to registered students in digs, and I remember thinking at the time how odd it was, and just simply make the non-student pay all the council tax and have students exempt. Following this, I don't think the 25% discount would apply in this case, but I would like to know for the reference.

Marcus

This is not necessarily true. It boils down to what would happen if the students were not there, i.e. then the sole non-student would need to pay 75%. This can arise as a result of the place being the non-student's responsibility anyway, and the students only being lodgers. But it could also arise as a result of one person in an otherwise student-only house suddenly losing student status, in which case it seems unfair not to share the burden. On the other hand, if the non-student has more money coming in, since losing student status tends to mean getting a job, it seems fair for that person to pay the lion's share.

Why do you think this is odd? I think the background is that if you have a family (a single-parent family since with two adult parents resident no discount would apply anyway), then when (one or more of) the child(ren) become students but stay at home, then the bill should not rise from 75% to 100% simply because the child has become an adult. Mind you, once the student status is lost, the bill will rise to 100% and they will have to come to an arrangement.

Yes it would. Students don't come into the equation when you count the number of adults for the purposes of determining whether there is only one person resident (75% payable) or two or more (100% payable).

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Some would say that "... it seems unfair *to* share the burden" !

The other students may have gone to the student-only house expecting not to pay any council tax. If one of the students then loses student status, due to their own actions (and not to do with any of the others' actions), then why should the others be penalised as well as the one whose 'fault' it is??!

I know. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

They face the dilemma that if they kick out their ex-colleague, they lose his share of the rent, and if they expect him to pick up the tax on his own, it's tantamount to kicking him out.

Life's a bitch.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

... and gain rent instead from someone else in the "queue" to get into the house!

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

They could easily set up an agreement before they move in, that anyone causing CT to be paid (ie losing student status) will pay the entire amount (split between any number which lose the status). Then the "rogue 'student' " should expect to pay, and can hardly class it as "kicking him out" (BTW, where else could he live & not pay CT?).

All very well if there is such a queue, and if it contains people they'll get on with.

Also the timing could be problematic. The status change from student to earner is likely to be at the end of term, prior to the summer hols. The remaining students will be peeved enough having to pay rent just to keep the place available for the next academeic year (even though they will themselves probably be going back home, or swanning around the Himalayas or some such), but the queue of replacement takers is likely to be non-existant until nearer term.

Yep.

Unless he goes back to parents, there's probably nowhere he'd pay nothing, but anywhere else he'd probably have to pay less. Typically he would share a place with at least one other CT payer, so instead of 75% would be paying at most 50%.