my Father has recently been diagnosed and I was advised that he should seek a reduction in his council tax. I started making enquiries and today he received a letter to say that they had been informed that someone at the address was “severely mentally impaired”. As you can imagine he has not taken this very well and I am rather cross. I rang to complain and said that it was not appropriate wording for people who are already feeling vulnerable but the answer was that it has been called that for a long time but I had a right to complain in writing(which I shall be doing) . Just wanted to warn people to watch for the wording!!
Council tax
- Thread starter Trix104
- Start date
The phrase is necessary to get the council tax disregard
For the purposes of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 a person is Severely Mentally Impaired if he/she has a severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning (however caused) which appears to be permanent.
It's an unfortunate legal statement, it's not a statement of insanity, its a statement that the person cannot function sociably, inability to follow and participate in a fast moving conversation would qualify.
For the purposes of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 a person is Severely Mentally Impaired if he/she has a severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning (however caused) which appears to be permanent.
It's an unfortunate legal statement, it's not a statement of insanity, its a statement that the person cannot function sociably, inability to follow and participate in a fast moving conversation would qualify.
Hi Trix, welcome to TP
Sadly, it is as nitram says to satisfy the 1992 Act's legal requirement a person must be diagnosed as having an SMI, a diagnosis of AZ is not enough it must be "severe" that's the criterion that has to be met.
The LA will want this confirming and the award of certain benefits or verification from a medical professional will be needed too.
If he is getting Attendance allowance (over 65's only) PIP, DLA and some others at the required level and awarded for his mental impairment then these are passport benefits to getting the reduction either that or a letter from the doctors using the magic phrase SMI.
To be honest if someone can still read and understand a letter you may have a job meeting the test for severe, severe is defined as nitram has said an impairment of intelligence and social functioning.
You could complain about the use of the phrase but all the council are doing is quote the 1992 Act's wording and it may be that it's what they have to do to keep it legal so I doubt it it would get you anywhere, the letter of the law...and all that.
K
Sadly, it is as nitram says to satisfy the 1992 Act's legal requirement a person must be diagnosed as having an SMI, a diagnosis of AZ is not enough it must be "severe" that's the criterion that has to be met.
The LA will want this confirming and the award of certain benefits or verification from a medical professional will be needed too.
If he is getting Attendance allowance (over 65's only) PIP, DLA and some others at the required level and awarded for his mental impairment then these are passport benefits to getting the reduction either that or a letter from the doctors using the magic phrase SMI.
To be honest if someone can still read and understand a letter you may have a job meeting the test for severe, severe is defined as nitram has said an impairment of intelligence and social functioning.
You could complain about the use of the phrase but all the council are doing is quote the 1992 Act's wording and it may be that it's what they have to do to keep it legal so I doubt it it would get you anywhere, the letter of the law...and all that.
K
- 11th May 18, 9:33 AM
However, come November2017, I came across it again and decided now is the time, and as Mum (SMI - dementia sufferer) and I were passing my local council offices, we called in and asked for the forms. Readily available at Reception.
Completed and submitted them in person on 7 Nov, and immediate disregard was applied there and then from that date for the rest of the financial year. I said while grateful, we expected more than half a year, and that we would appeal, and so they seemed to accept appeal as lodged, and we waited until early December, but heard nothing further, until we called in again.
We were told we had to provide GP's certificate for further restitution of tax paid, and so we got certificate that A) cerebrallar stroke in 2008; B) impairment of mental abilities from that date to the present date; C) further exacerbation by other medical issues since, and in the first week of January 2018 we presented to the Council, again in person, along with the two DWP letters dated 2008 and 2017 notifying award of attendance allowance. Within a week or so a new Tax Demand Notice for each of the years from 2008 until 2017 came through the post showing total refund for each year.
Within days the full amount - over £7008 (seven thousand and eight pounds) - was credited to Mum's bank account. This is comprised of 50% discount of her share of the tax while Dad was alive until 2012, and 100% disregard thereafter, as she lives alone.
Once the Council got onto the right track, there was no resistance to the claim and the appeal, and although not bending over backwards to help, it was straightforward and without rancour. From start to finish, it was less than two months to resolve
First and foremost, this is not a windfall, like the Lottery, this is restitution of monies unlawfully demanded by the Taxation Authority while the statute says the payer is disregarded, and it is bordering on fraudulent for the Authority to keep it. The Taxation Authority is collecting taxes in your name and my name, and cannot be seen to collect unlawfully at the expense of SMI persons.
Second, and this is my personal opinion only, the full amount has to be repaid without statutory limitation because it has been unlawfully demanded, and the amounts demanded are all recorded however long ago is applicable, and thus can be restituted, i.e. the tax band values must easily be found in the Council's audited accounts. This is converse of the limitation on Tax backdated demand, because it is presumed that it has occurred by an oversight of the Authority, and where it is not easy to certify the correct amount for too great a period.
Third, this money now allows Mum to continue to live in the security and safety of her own home without being a drain on the NHS/social welfare system.
Last edited by a moderator:
The council have to be advised of SMI and be provided with evidence of date of the diagnosis. Until they get this then they have the right to collect the tax.
No, only where a suitably qualified person defines them as having a "Severe Mental Impairment", that's the legal phrase they have to diagnose.
A diagnosis of AZ, a mild cognative impairment or even moderate impairment isn't enough the doctor or consultant has to sign a form saying it is an SMI and they're not always willing to do this because defining what is severe is a matter of opinion.
The actual legal definition is "a person is severely mentally impaired if he has a severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning (however caused) which appears to be permanent."
If only 2 people live in the house and one has an SMI then they are "disregarded" (don't ask for a discount, that's a different thing) and the person will be assed as if they live alone so get a 25% discount.
K