My son is moving in to a house with 3 students next year (he is unemployed at the moment). He has been told he will get a 25% reduction on the £2000 council tax bill. Students don't pay council tax, so my son will have to pay £1500. Is this right? He is effectively paying the tax for the other 3. Surely he should give the landlord £500 towards his share.
Households where everyone’s a full-time student don’t have to pay Council Tax. If you do get a bill, you can apply for an exemption.
To count as a full-time student, your course must:
last at least 1 year
involve at least 21 hours study per week
If you study for a qualification up to A level and you’re under 20, your course must:
last at least 3 months
involve at least 12 hours study per week
You will get a Council Tax bill if there’s someone in your household who’s not a full-time student, but your household might still qualify for a discount.
It looks like he gets the single occupancy reduction so the students as exempts are ignored. It doesn't seem right, but I guess the tenancy terms are what governs this. Is it the council who have told him this, or the landlord; if the latter then perhaps he could check with the council.
I don't know why students don't pay council tax. I guess the landlords pay for the property. The local council have told him he will get a 25% reduction of the total bill. Seems crazy to me. Surely he should only be paying 25% as his share.
Sadly it is the case. It's the reason I won't rent my spare room out to students. If he is unemplyed though, maybe he would be entitled to some kind of benefit such as Council Tax benefit or housing benefit? I'm not sure how it works but if he speaks to his local council they should be able to help him.
This is correct as students are not liable for Council Tax. Sometimes the landlord pays the Council tax and includes it in all of the rent anyway. Sometimes the students agree to contribute anyway. Sometimes the lone worker pays it all. Depends on how accommodating the students and the landlord are but as far as the Council is concerned he is liable for 75% of the full rate. Best idea would be not to move in with students!
This is a 'watch out' warning to any student in this situation: if you are sharing a house with non-students. the council will levy the appropriate CT rate on the house - one non-student and the 25% rebate applies, more than one non-student, all the CT is payable. HOWEVER, the liability to pay is technically on ALL the occupants of the house - jointly and severally. But the bill will go to one person who is registered at the Council.
Trouble is though, if he wasn't moving in and the house was just students then no council tax would be payable (provided all were eligible students) so it is only because of him that any council tax is payable so it seems a little unfair to expect them to bear part of it unless they are willing to do so for him to move in.
Eve - I agree it's totally unfair but its how it is for some reason. On the flipside, I was the sole student in an otherwise non-student house so the full whack was payable. I offered to pay 25% but the other three wouldn't let me, even though it would have been cheaper for them to have let the room to a non-student. It all depends on who you live with and what they'll agree to but if the proverbial hits the fan the named non student is liable.
Yeah, the greater problem to watch out for is if they all start out as students and then one of them drops out mid-year and starts working. He's still got the balance of a 12 month tenancy in place but suddenly the house has a gained a liability to pay some CT.
students are exempt from council tax and landlords do not pay either. it is a tax on the people in the property, not the property itself. ergo....your son is liable as it is his tax. he is lucky to get the 25% off because of the students, i don't and i am paying for my university course!
Government authorities like to pretend it is a tax on the people not the property but it's all lies. As is the norm it seems. Trying keeping a property unoccupied and see how long it stays at £0. Never trust government authorities they'll get you every time.
It's a tax on the services provided, Geezer, and its the people that need and use the services - so it should be a tax on the people.
However, as we all know, any attempt to tax the people (Poll Tax) doesn't work, as the people can't be trusted to pay and keep moving around - making them a nightmare to track. Properties don't in general shift their roots, so easier to track, and hence charge.
The trouble with poll tax is that it is flat rate so doesn't take into consideration a persons ability to contribute. All the more reason to scrap a bad system and put it on income tax then. Ah: but government likes to reduce that fractionally, claim they have reduced your tax bill hoping you'll look favourably on them, and hope you don't notice the larger increases in indirect taxes such as on spending. So that suggestion will go down like a lead balloon.
the probl;em is, when you tax based on income, person a pays £2 to have their bin emptied and person b (who earns more) pays more, to receive exactly the same service provided by exctly the same people in exactly the same way. It only seems fair if you're person a
But that is precisely the reason for things being funded from a public kitty. Folk contribute to a common good, rather than insist they sort themselves out and the others must do the same. Otherwise we may as well all pay our our private bin collectors and let the folk down the road stink the place out with their 6 monthly collection (and regular fly tipping outside your back gate).