If you drop me an email I can have a look for you

3. Cllr Herbert to the Executive Councillor for Customer Services and Resources

3a) What are the financial implications for the Council following the Council’s defeat in the Courts over its efforts to charge 4th year PhD students Council tax?

The High Court ruling was against a decision made by the Valuation Tribunal for England.
The Valuation Tribunal found in favour of the Council’s interpretation of the requirements for ‘attendance’, which was supported by a previous court of appeal decision R (Fayad) v London South East Valuation Admin court of appeal 2008.

The appeal hearing was in relation to the interpretation of‘attendance’at a particular place.

The High Court was of the view that the Valuation Tribunal erred in Law and that the Council Tax disregard should have been allowed.

3b) How much in repayments will the Council be making?

The Council is only required to pay the Court Costs,which are estimated to be £10,060.00.

Where there maybe a requirement to reimburse any students affected by this decision, it will be via an adjustment to a current or past Council Tax liability, which may necessitate a refund.
• It is estimated that only a small number may actually be affected by the ruling.

3c) Will the Council now communicate the position clearly to all colleges and
students organisations in the city?

With effect from 13 May 2011, the Government has amended the definition of a person undertaking a full-time course of education so that the requirement for attendance in relation to a full-time course is replaced by a requirement to undertake such a course.

The Council is studying the judgement carefully and the change in the legislation, and following internal legal advice will be amending current processes and guidelines appertaining to the establishment of student status.

New guidance will be forwarded onto the University Board of Graduate Studies and also placed on the Council’s website

Source - Written Q&A PDF, April 2011 Full Council

I think it is astonishing that the council has not proactivley issued refunds to those who paid up in response to the councils erroneous demands.

I think the government’s amendment to the definition of a student is a slight improvement, but they’ve still not got it right eg. the situation for research students has not really been clarified.

The amendment to the law was via the :
The Council Tax (Discount Disregards) (Amendment) Order 2011

I agree with you it sounds as if the council have yet again got this badly wrong.

If you live in the East of the City, or in the West/Central area you could bring this up at the area committees that are coming up
West /Central on the 21st of June, and East on the 23rd.

I am doing a 4 year course, at the beginning of the tax year I got a letter saying I was exempt for the whole year as I was a student. At the beginning of this month, right in the middle of exam term, I got a revised bill where the exemption ends the day after my third year grades get published.

They claim, my couse is a bachelors course with a seperate masters section and that the gap between my 3rd and 4th year course is taxable. This goes against all other government agencies and the university where it is all viewed as a single course.

I don’t graduate after this year, or get a degree, I get everything at the end of the fourth year, but they are still trying to claim I am not a student for all of 3 months!!!

That he won his case is no surprise to me.

If the Liberal Democrats responsible feel any accountability for their actions they ought resign. At the very least those directly involved, Cllrs Nimmo-Smith, Cantrill, McGovern and Reid should stand down and apologise.

As I reported in Comment 15 Cllr Nimmo-Smith at least knew he was doing wrong and he told me he didn’t think any of those he pursued through the courts had done anything wrong.

The council, despite proof of my registration as a full-time student and awareness of extenuating circumstances including illness, has disputed my student status on the grounds of my being past my 4th year.

I’m not clear that there’s anything I can do but pay up on this one, aside from anything else they have consumed enough of my time and caused me so much stress that I’m not sure I can cope with disputing it any longer. 1000 pounds is a lot of money but it’s cheap for my health and peace of mind. At the end of the day, the council have the resources and the will to run me into the ground if I don’t submit.

I just wanted to let you know that the Council haven’t changed their stance on ignoring national law and the University’s own certificates. I have been in communication with my MP and the CAB but I don’t hold out much hope anymore.

Clearly I don’t think post-doctoral researchers should be exempt from council tax.

An exemption from council tax is part of the current way the state funds those working towards a PhD. What I am objecting to is an individual council making up its own rules on council tax eligibility. I’m not defending the current arrangements.

I have previously outlined my view that it would be better if those funded by the UK state to work towards a PhD were given a salary, rather than a studentship, they would be in a better position with regards to:
*Employment law
*Status (resulting in training opportunities offered to staff).
*Accommodation (availability of both rental property and mortgages)

As a result I think the UK taxpayer would get a better return on their investment. I would want the salary set to be at such a level as to result in the same after-tax take-home pay as offered by current studentships.

Whilst idly flicking through another part of this site, I came across the following comment of yours from 11 September 2008 “I wonder if he was referring to PostDocs, and suggesting they “study”, I imagine most would be insulted by that insinuation, its bad enough calling those doing research intended to result in a PhD students!”.

If you don’t think they are - or should be called - students, why should the Council be expected to treat them as such for Council Tax purposes?

Just a thought.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/cam.misc/msg/aaf2324d3dc37fa8

This is astounding, and shocking.

There is a West/Central Area committee meeting at 19.30 on the 10th of December at the Castle End Mission, Pound Hill, Cambridge, CB3 0AE The meeting includes an open forum for members of the public to speak and would be an appriopriate place to go to ask the Liberal Democrat councillors what they’re up to.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_652422.html

It appears Cllr Cantrill is slightly relaxing the stance he is taking against post-fourth year students:

The council intends to contact students effected [sic] to indicate that all 4th year graduate students will be exempt or receive a discount from council tax and to emphasise that the authority will continue as it has always done to look at exceptional cases where a student’s course may go beyond the 4th year.

For comparison his previous response, which specifically limited exceptional cases to illness and scientific equipment failure, can be found in comment 8. The “as it has always done” line, is like much of the content of the press release, a cynical and scurrilous attempt to rewrite the history of this situation. In the press release he wrote: “I welcome the council’s prompt action to clarify the position” apparantly trying to distance himself from the council’s actions which he is responsible for.

Cllr Cantrill doesn’t appear to have grasped the problem is with research students, not those on courses; he’s making painfully slow progress, but at least it’s in the right direction.

Cllr Ward wrote:

The “fourth year is OK, fifth year isn’t” compromise sounds like a ludicrous fudge to me.

It’s a pity Cllr Ward didn’t come to this view earlier; I hope he will be lobbying his fellow ruling Liberal Democrats to try and get them to change their view too.

Dear Mr Howarth,

I am writing to draw your attention to the fact that last week Cambridge City Council decided to invent its own rules on council tax liability for research students. I hope you will agree with me that bodies such as the Cambridge City Council shouldn’t be creating their own rules on council tax liability, but the position should be made clear and consistent at a national level.

I understand, having spoken to the council leader Ian Nimmo-Smith, that the council considers it has been left with no choice but to invent its own rules this as a result of a lack of clarity in the legal position. The current problems have arisen as a result of a number of legal judgements which have, while struggling to make sense of poorly drafted regulations, just made the position more confused.

I believe the easiest way of solving the current problem would be to update the The Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992 to make it clearer that the exemption from council tax applies to research students. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1992/Uksi_19920548_en_1.htm Are you able to do anything to seek such an order? The fact councils and judges find it difficult to work with the current position clearly shows it is needed.

The council’s new rules can be seen in the written answers provided at last week’s full council meeting:
http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/councillors/minutes/2009/1022CNLwQ.pdf

The council claims to be, in part, simply taking belated action following a judgement which states “the College must normally require attendance of students on the material course at some identified place”. If the council chose that element to base its new rules on it would be preventing many research students in Cambridge, particularly those working in subjects other than those which involve laboratory work, from gaining an exemption from council tax. [There is no element of the judgement which directly corresponds with the council's new 4 year limit.] I have placed a copy of the judgement on my website at:
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/pdf/research_student_council_tax_judgement.pdf

Regards,

One of the key elements in the judgement is:

I am wholly satisfied that sub-paragraph (b) means that the College must normally
require attendance of students on the material course at some identified place. Since, as
Mr Fayad rightly concedes, he was not required to attend at a particular place when
writing up his thesis, he is not, for the very special purposes of these provisions, to be
regarded as engaged in a full-time course of education, and therefore cannot benefit
from the discount arrangements.

However many research students, particularly in subjects such as History or English very rarely have to attend at a “particular place”.

“Answers to oral question put at the meeting will, from now on form part of the main meeting and as such will be minuted. ”

It was a surprise to me that answers to oral questions didn’t form part of the “main meeting” in his view.

Unfortunately, I am just starting my 5th year of my PhD, though finishing soon.
As a foreign student, I am not entitled to work, nor council tax relief for a low income (obviously). To me, this would seem an exceptional case.

Interestingly, yesterday I just received a letter dated early Oct, along with my council tax bill dated the 20th (though clearly sent later), saying post 3rd year research students are liable.
Not sure why they waited to send it out, especially in light of the new decision.

It’s difficult to say whether the Lib Dems are acting for or against anyone if they fail to give answers to legitimate questions.

It is interesting that you think the Liberal Democrats are acting against the interests of students in a general sense. That would seem odd, given the proportion of the electorate made up by students. In fact, it is generally odd that such a high proportion of the local electorate (I assume at least 25%) is made up of relatively short-term residents who consume local services but - as you have been pointing out - do not pay for them. (Even if they paid for them via Council Tax Benefit, given the low incomes of many of them, there would presumably be a greater benefit to the Council’s coffers). Do you not think there is something of a “democratic deficit” here?

Embargo: Immediate
October 24, 2009

GRADUATE STUDENTS REASSURED
BY COUNCIL POSITION ON COUNCIL TAX ELIGIBILITY

• Cambridge City Council has reassured 4th year Ph.D. students in the city that they will continue to be treated as full-time students for the purposes of Council Tax. This means that they will continue to receive either a discount or exemption from the Council Tax

• In addition, the council has emphasised that it will continue to look at students whose period of study exceeds the four years due to exceptional circumstances (such as illness)

• The council’s initial position arose as a result of some uncertainties, which had recently arisen, regarding the eligibility of 4th year graduate students.

• Council officers entered into discussions with the University of Cambridge and the Colleges earlier in the year to try to agree a common understanding of the criteria in relation to these students, which were initially unsuccessful. Agreement has now been reached with the University on the eligibility of such students.

• The council now intends to contact students explaining the position

Coun Rod Cantrill, Executive City Councillor for Customer Services and Resources, commented:

“The City Council has a legal obligation and a duty to the tax paying residents of Cambridge to ensure that only people who are eligible are exempted from council tax.

The council also recognises that Cambridge is a leading centre of learning and the importance of this to the local economy

I know that the issue has caused undue concern and stress for students. I welcome the council’s prompt action to clarify the position. I hope that this step will have the support of the universities and colleges in the city”

ENDS

My view of this is that the use of “continue to…” is astoundingly cynical; it completely fails to accept there has been a problem, that the council got it wrong, and has only very belatedly, after having had its attention draw to the problem in July changed its mind in mid-October. To describe the action the council has taken as “prompt” is simply false.

*He said he did not think any of the students the council were pursuing to the courts were in the wrong. [I asked him why, in that case, he didn't put a stop to what was happening; he had no answer to that].

*He defended the council’s stance of making up its own rules on council tax liability for students; saying the law was too vague and changed too often. He said he had made the city’s MP, David Howarth aware of the council’s view and new stance.

*He stated that there was no link between pursing graduate students and the headline collection rate figure.

*He said there he and his colleagues had given no political leadership / direction to the council tax officers to prompt the recent events.

*He was not receptive to my suggestion that the council should not create its own rules on council tax liability. He argued that as the council collects tax to pass on to central government, central government, specifically the DWP, would pursue the council for losses if it did not collect the money owed. He said the council’s rules were aimed at preventing such a claim from central government arising.

From: "Tim Ward"
Date: 23 October 2009 10:36:48 BST
To: "'Richard Taylor'"
Subject: RE: Council Tax Questions at Full Council

>I think my question of what political direction
>has been given to the council's council tax
>collection officers was a  reasonable one which >ought be answered.

I can give you a face-to-face spoken answer to that but I'm not going to
write anything down.

Tim Ward
Brett Ward Limited - http://www.brettward.co.uk  

When writing to Cllr Ward I said:
“I think it is worth pursuing Cllr Cantrill for an explanation as to why, under his leadership, the council is making up its own rules on council tax liability and not simply following the law.

It is not only with respect to research students that the council takes a position at odds with the legislation; as I have raised a number of times at the North Area committee the council wrongly makes landlords rather than tenants liable for council tax in shared houses.

I think my question of what political direction has been given to the council’s council tax collection officers was a reasonable one which ought be answered. Have they been instructed to improve the headline collection percentage at all costs, with no regard to the relatively unusual make up of the city’s housing which given its large proportion of students and house sharers which may well, quite legitimately, affect that figure [making it appear to be poor with respect to national averages].”

Cllr McPherson,

I am writing to make a couple of comments and suggestions relating to your charing of yesterday’s full council meeting.

* Previously I have observed council meetings where dealing with oral questions reaches the 30 minute time limit with tabled questions still left to be answered and the chair has asked executive councillors to respond by email to those who have asked the questions.

- I note that yesterday, with ten outstanding questions, you failed to give this direction. Are you able to do anything in retrospect about that and make sure you do it in the future?
- Even when written responses to the outstanding oral questions are produced, they are not proactively published by the council. I have in the past made an FOI request to access them. I am writing to you to ask you to join me in lobbying for answers given at the meeting to be minuted (they are not) and for answers given in writing afterwards to be published.

* As when I asked a public question I was told it would be addressed when the related oral question was reached I was disappointed when you stopped the oral questions before that point was reached. Could you not have used some of the remaining public question time to allow Cllr Cantrill the opportunity to answer both my and Cllr Ward’s questions on the council’s approach to pursing graduate students for council tax? I don’t think the written answers on the subject addressed all the points raised. Neither Cllr Ward or I got our opportunities to respond to Cllr Cantrill’s replies as he never did substantively reply in person.

I hope you can see these as reasonable and constructive suggestions.

Regards,

As Cllr Cantrill had said he would address my public question at this point he never did address it. I think not answering a public question asked at a full council is unprecedented and arrogant.

Sometimes the mayor asks executive councillors to write to councillors who have asked oral questions which have not been reached to provide written responses. He did not do this at during the October council meeting.

It is awful that a matter raised in a tabled oral question, two written questions, and a public question did not get addressed at all during the council meeting.

I think the council should follow the law with respect to council tax liability and not create its own “gold-plated” policies. All those who meet the legal requirement for an exemption should have their bills cancelled.

While only 60 students may have contacted the council; many many more will be affected. His answer is highly misleading in this regard.

The claim that only 8,200 students in the city are exempt/disregarded from council tax is bizarre as there are many more full time students than that in the city and all are exempt from council tax.