Assess each Council Tax Reduction claim under its own family's scheme and exemption

[MaxGhenis]

Fixes #2157

#2009 merged on 2026-10-04 (eeb8108f6), so this PR now targets main. It merges main at 6b366b281 (merge commit 37a00dcc5); four later commits address CI and the after-merge reviews. That brings in #2006's joint-claim machinery, #1944's reg 3 pensioner test and #1907's qualifying age.

What this does on top of main

Main already assesses a joint claim on the applicant's own family. Since #2006, where families share the rent, council_tax_reduction_claim_pensioner and council_tax_reduction_claim_scheme_supported follow each family, and the councils apply each joint applicant's own exemption. Every other claim still reads the household flags council_tax_reduction_household_has_pensioner and council_tax_reduction_household_has_non_dep_exemption.

This PR makes one rule for every claim, joint or not, and fixes three outcomes that main still gets wrong.

One rule.

• A claim's scheme follows its own family's council_tax_reduction_pensioner.
• Its non-dependant exemption follows its own council_tax_reduction_applicant_has_non_dep_exemption.
• Both read the claim's applicant and partner, not the benefit unit's claimant and partner (below).

Deleted:

• both household flags;
• Give sharers, boarders and lodgers their own rent, tenure and LHA category #2006's council_tax_reduction_claim_pensioner and council_tax_reduction_claim_scheme_supported;
• _legacy.single_claim_is_pensioner.

council_tax_reduction_scheme_supported becomes a BenUnit variable. No CTR formula now reads a household-level pensioner or exemption flag.

What changes for households, relative to main. Main is 6b366b281; each case is 2026 with no capital.

Case	Main	This PR
Maidstone, £1,800 bill. A pension-age head with no income and a working-age sharer, jointly liable, each for half. The sharer reports £1,500.	£900 simulated plus the sharer's £1,500 report: £2,400, more than the bill	The report is capped at the sharer's half, £900: £1,800
Maidstone, £1,800 bill. An 80-year-old grandmother heads the household and is liable. Her benefit unit's claimant and partner are 17-year-old parents; the mother gets PIP daily living.	Not a pensioner, because the young parents are the claimant and partner. Maidstone's working-age scheme is not simulated: £0. Main's exemption flag counts the mother's PIP.	The grandmother is the applicant and a pensioner: £1,800 under the pensioner scheme. The mother's PIP is not the applicant's or her partner's, so no exemption.
Cardiff, £1,800 bill. The only resident is 17 (the head) and reports £500, so no family can claim.	The household's Welsh scheme counts as simulated, so the family gets the simulated nil: £0	Nothing in the household is simulated, so it keeps its report: £500

In the first case, the cap rests on SI 2012/2885 Sch 1 para 7(3)-(4): a jointly liable applicant's maximum reduction is on their share of the bill. It applies only beside a simulated claim that pays something, and not where the share may count a student para 7(5) leaves out (see "Reconciliation" below). In the second case, the young parents' Income Support, income-based JSA, income-related ESA or Universal Credit does not stop the grandmother being a pensioner: those are their awards, not hers.

Run on main, 20 of this PR's 24 YAML cases pass, and they pin the per-family behaviour this PR keeps. The four that fail are:

• the first two rows above;
• the grandmother case with the young parents on Income Support;
• the cap again, with a 20-year-old sharer.

Eight of the passing cases failed on #2009's head (4b84ea069) and were fixed on main by #2006 and #1944: the seven Oxford, Merton, Maidstone and Newham sharer cases, and the working-age couple whose family includes a pension-age grandmother.

The law

Read on legislation.gov.uk on 2026-10-01 (revised text):

• "Pensioner" is per person and partner. SI 2012/2885 reg 3(1): a person is a pensioner if "he has attained the qualifying age for state pension credit" and neither he nor, "if he has a partner, his partner" is on IS, income-based JSA, income-related ESA or UC. This is the same in SI 2012/2886 Sch para 3(2), WSI 2013/3029 reg 3(1), SSI 2021/249 reg 3(1) and SSI 2012/319 reg 12(1).
• The applicant is the person liable. Every class of person entitled to a reduction is limited to people liable for the council tax. Jointly liable people apply separately, each in a class of their own (LGFA 1992 s.6(3) and s.75(3); SI 2012/2885 reg 11 and Sch 1 para 1; WSI 2013/3029 regs 22-25). Each applicant's maximum reduction is on their share of the council tax (SI 2012/2885 Sch 1 para 7(3)-(4)). The divisor leaves out the students para 7(5) excludes.
• The non-dependant exemption is the applicant's. "No deduction is to be made in respect of any non-dependants occupying an applicant's dwelling if the applicant or his partner is" blind, or receives in respect of himself Attendance Allowance, the DLA care component, the PIP daily living component, AFIP, or the Scottish and ADP equivalents. The same words are in:
  • SI 2012/2885 Sch 1 para 8(6);
  • SI 2012/2886 Sch para 30(6);
  • WSI 2013/3029 Sch 1 para 3(6) and Sch 6 para 5(6);
  • SSI 2021/249 reg 90(6) and SSI 2012/319 reg 48(6).

Changes

• Whose circumstances. is_council_tax_reduction_applicant_or_partner (Person) and council_tax_reduction_head_applies_alone (BenUnit) are copied byte for byte from Means-test the Council Tax Reduction applicant and partner, not the benefit unit's claimant #2078, which needs the same people for the means test.
  • Where the family's liable person (council_tax_reduction_liable_person) is its claimant or partner, these are the claimant and partner, whatever their ages.
  • Where the liable person is a household head who is not the family's claimant or partner, it is the head alone. An example is the grandmother above.
  • In a family that cannot claim, they are its claimant and partner.
• council_tax_reduction_pensioner keeps Apply the benefit cap to mixed-age couples on Universal Credit, and keep them off pensioner Council Tax Reduction #1944's reg 3 formula on those members: Use the State Pension Credit qualifying age, and start-of-year status for Class 4 NI #1907's qualifying age for State Pension Credit, no IS/JSA/ESA, and no UC award with a member under that age. Where the head applies alone, the benefit unit's IS/JSA/ESA and UC are its claimant and partner's, not the applicant's, so they do not count (as Means-test the Council Tax Reduction applicant and partner, not the benefit unit's claimant #2078 does in council_tax_reduction_relevant_income_based_benefit).
• council_tax_reduction_applicant_has_non_dep_exemption: the same conditions as main, on those members.
• Scheme selection. The national scheme (simulated_council_tax_reduction_benunit), the four _legacy councils and Oxford take each claim's own council_tax_reduction_pensioner. council_tax_reduction_scheme_supported is that claim's scheme.
• Councils' non-dependant deductions.
  • The person-level amounts (*_council_tax_reduction_individual_non_dep_deduction) depend only on the non-dependant and the council area (config.is_*_area).
  • local_non_dep_deductions applies each applicant's own exemption.
  • normal_gross_income_non_dep_deduction no longer takes any household exemption.
• Reconciliation (council_tax_benefit). One bill can carry both simulated and reported reductions.
  • A claiming family gets its simulated reduction where its own scheme is simulated, and its reported reduction otherwise.
  • Beside a simulated claim in the household that pays something, a jointly liable claimant's report is capped at its share of the council tax. That share is the one the simulated claim uses, so the two cannot together exceed the bill.
  • Give sharers, boarders and lodgers their own rent, tenure and LHA category #2006's share leaves out only people in higher education (in_HE). Where a jointly liable person it counts may be a student para 7(5) leaves out, the share may be too small, so the report is kept and the household bound is not guaranteed. task_20e2dfa8 corrects the divisor itself.
    • "May be a student" is the model's student test for non-dependants (current_education other than not in education), or in_FE.
    • In the enhanced FRS, current_education is an observed input. Neither file has in_HE or in_FE, so their shares leave out no one.
    • With no education input, current_education defaults to tertiary at 18 and 19. A jointly liable 18- or 19-year-old therefore keeps the cap off; a YAML case pins a £1,500 report kept beside a £900 simulated claim on an £1,800 bill. The same default already makes such a person a student for non-dependant deductions.
    • Part-time students, and students para 75(2) brings back in, are treated the same way.
    • Where the cap is off, the outcome is main's.
  • Otherwise reports are kept as reported.
  • A family that cannot claim keeps a report only where no claim in its household is simulated (new Household council_tax_reduction_household_has_simulated_claim). On main, outside shared-rent households, it followed the household's scheme, which is the head's family's.
• council_tax_reduction_claims_are_joint stays; council_tax_reduction_claimant_benunit still uses it for the excluded-student rule.
• Tests on main that read the deleted flags now read the per-family ones:
  • council_tax_reduction_pensioner.yaml, joint_liability.yaml and state_pension_credit_qualifying_age.yaml;
  • test_state_pension_credit_qualifying_age.py, test_council_tax_reduction_pension_credit_properties.py (the claimant family's flag, indexed per family);
  • test_rent_of_sharers_boarders_and_lodgers_properties.py. Each shared-rent claim's scheme is simulated exactly when its own family is a pensioner (Maidstone). In a household without sharers, the head's family is the one claim, and every family is simulated or reported as that claim's scheme is.
  • test_benefit_cap_and_ctr_pension_age_properties.py. Its "before Apply the benefit cap to mixed-age couples on Universal Credit, and keep them off pensioner Council Tax Reduction #1944" reference was a reform of the household flag; it is now a reform of council_tax_reduction_pensioner to the age test alone, on the same members (P3, P4). That test also sets the CTR applicable amount, so P5 (Welsh and Scottish CTR moves only through UC) now compares against a reform of the cap exception alone.
• A changelog fragment.

National schemes and the exemption (for #2007)

The national schemes (England pensioners, Wales, Scotland) still apply no applicant exemption on main; only the councils' schemes do. #2007 adds it and reads both deleted flags. When it merges after this PR:

1. council_tax_reduction_non_dep_deductions: applicant_exempt reads the claim's own council_tax_reduction_applicant_has_non_dep_exemption.
2. Wales's both-members rule (WSI 2013/3029 Sch 6 para 5(3)) turns on the applicant's scheme. each_member_deducted is evaluated on the non-dependant's family, so the family flag cannot go there.
   • Build two household pools of the non-dependant families' deductions: the higher member's, and the sum for a non-dependant couple with a UC award.
   • Each claimant takes the sum pool when it is in Wales and its own council_tax_reduction_pensioner is false, and the higher-member pool otherwise.
3. council_tax_reduction_individual_non_dep_deduction and council_tax_reduction_non_dep_deduction_exempt select England's pensioner parameters by country only, as the councils' amounts do here. Apply Housing Benefit and national Council Tax Reduction non-dependant deductions as legislated #2007's two tests pinning "no national deduction in English working-age households" then check that the working-age award is unaffected.
4. Its tests that read the deleted flags move to the per-family ones, indexed per benefit unit:
   • non_dependant_deduction_review_cases.yaml (three outputs);
   • test_non_dependant_deduction_properties.py (the English scale choice, the Welsh couple rule and the exemption oracles);
   • the pension-credit property test, which this PR has already migrated on main.

Invariants (property-tested)

policyengine_uk/tests/test_council_tax_reduction_claimant_family_scheme_properties.py uses Hypothesis.

• Populations have up to 6 households. Each has a flagged head's family, up to two sharer families and at most one non-dependant.
• All eight scheme types appear (Maidstone, the five councils, Edinburgh and Cardiff). Ages straddle State Pension age, and disability inputs cover all five exempting conditions. Families may claim Universal Credit and carry random reported reductions. About a third of adults are enrolled in further education, by current_education or by in_FE.
• Derandomized, 20 examples each.

1. Own members. A family is a pensioner exactly when its claimant or partner has reached the qualifying age for State Pension Credit and neither has IS, income-based JSA, income-related ESA or a UC award. A UC award needs one of them under that age. It is exempt exactly when its claimant or partner is blind or gets AA, DLA care, PIP daily living or AFIP. This is a differential check against a direct computation. Every adult in these populations is 20 or over and the head is a claimant, so applicant and partner are claimant and partner here; the YAML covers a head who applies alone.
2. As if alone. Each family's pensioner flag, exemption and simulated-scheme flag are what they would be if it lived alone with its own benefit awards. A family's UC award depends on the rent it pays, which changes when it lives alone, and reg 3 follows the award. So the alone simulation is given the family's own UC, IS, JSA and ESA.
3. Scheme. A family's scheme is simulated exactly when it is in Scotland or Wales, is a pensioner, or is in a modelled council. In England only pensioner families are paid by the national scheme, and only working-age families by a council's.
4. Others do not matter. Replace the ages and disability benefits of every other claiming family, holding each family's applicable amount and income as they were. A family's flags, its councils' awards, its joint-liability share and its simulated award are unchanged. So is its council_tax_benefit, wherever property 5's reconciliation is the same before and after; the intended exception is a family falling back to a report, when whether a simulated claim beside it pays something changes.
   • The means test is held fixed because main's severe disability premium counts the other adults in the household (has_non_dependant_for_severe_disability_premium), joint occupiers included. Their ages and benefits can therefore change a family's applicable amount whatever its scheme. CI found one such case.
5. Fallback. council_tax_benefit is exactly the reconciliation rule above, for every family.
6. Bounds. A family that cannot claim gets no simulated reduction. A household whose simulated claims pay something, and whose share counts no one who may be a student, never gets more than its council tax.
7. The exemption is the applicant's own. A working-age head and a sharer live under each modelled council, with a non-dependant in remunerative work, so both claims bear a deduction.
   • Giving one claimant an exempting benefit removes that claimant's deductions.
   • It leaves the other claim's exemption, deductions, council award and council_tax_benefit unchanged.

Tests

• YAML. claimant_family_scheme.yaml has 24 cases. They pin the scheme and the exemption per family, the reconciliation rules, and whose circumstances count (applicant and partner).
  • Run on main (6b366b281) with the outputs main cannot evaluate removed (council_tax_reduction_scheme_supported, a Household variable there, and three branch-only variables): 20 pass and 4 fail, as listed above.
  • Cases added after review fail on the head they correct and pass here:
    • a further-education student in the share, shown by current_education (fails on 2b5ffe38d) or by in_FE (fails on 38364ca49);
    • the grandmother head beside the parents' Income Support (fails on 2b5ffe38d).
  • Two more pin the age boundary of the student guard at 19 and 20.
  • The no-claimant case above was run on both models: main pays £0 in Cardiff and keeps the £500 in Maidstone.
• Locally:
  • on a9466b871, the local-authority YAML passed (161 cases);
  • on 37a00dcc5, the 11 other YAML files that read CTR variables passed (112 cases);
  • ruff format --check and ruff check are clean;
  • properties 1-6 passed on CI's failing property-4 population and on two student variants.
  • The host was too loaded to finish the property suites; CI runs them.
• CI on a9466b871: run 37370040784 (running).

Enhanced FRS impact

These are real Microsimulation runs of main (6b366b281) against this PR (a9466b871) on the same datasets, six runs in all. Comparisons at the earlier heads 37a00dcc5 and 38364ca49 also showed no change anywhere. Aggregates only; any cell behind fewer than 10 survey households is suppressed, along with any cell from which it could be recovered.

	Production enhanced FRS 2024-25 (e433e532…), 2026-27	#2006's companion build (efrs_payer.h5, ed1a29912656…), 2025-26 and 2026-27
CTR, main and this PR	£2.3366bn	£2.0971bn and £2.1650bn
Change, any household or family	none	none
People entering or leaving poverty (BHC, AHC)	none	none

Why nothing moves:

• Scheme and exemption flags. In both files, no claiming family's scheme or exemption flag differs from its own status, on main or here. Main already applies each joint claim's own flags. No family's pensioner status or exemption differs between its claimant and partner and its applicant and partner.
• The cap. It bites only where a jointly liable claimant reports more than its share, beside a simulated claim that pays and with no one who may be a student counted in the share. Fewer than 10 survey households in the payer build have a jointly liable claimant reporting more than its share at all; the production file has no sharers. No award changes.
• Families that cannot claim. Their reported reductions are unchanged in both files.
• Bounds. No household whose simulated claims pay something gets more than its council tax.

Not caused by this PR: on main in 2026, about 523k households (221 survey households) in the payer build, and 498k (221) in the production file, already receive more CTR than their modelled council tax, because their reported CTR exceeds it. None has a simulated claim that pays. A follow-up task (task_84c4759d) is looking for the cause.

Review

• r1, of ae3e5e0ea: REQUEST_CHANGES. Five findings: reports added on top of a simulated claim, incomplete complementary suppression, two wrong mechanism claims, a weak exemption property, and a missed Apply Housing Benefit and national Council Tax Reduction non-dependant deductions as legislated #2007 consumer. r2 confirmed 1, 2 and 4 resolved; 3 and 5 carried into r2's findings 2 and 4.
• r2, of 7ac22effc: REQUEST_CHANGES. It confirmed r1's findings 1, 2 and 4 resolved, and the legal reading.
  1. The share cap could discard a lawful report through para 7(5)'s students. The cap now applies only beside a simulated claim that pays.
  2. Impact claims were too broad.
  3. The body described a later head.
  4. Apply Housing Benefit and national Council Tax Reduction non-dependant deductions as legislated #2007's test migration was incomplete.
• r3, of cc4d9aeb9: never completed; all three attempts hit session limits.
• After the merge, of 2b5ffe38d (GPT-6.1 Sol): REQUEST_CHANGES. It found no lost main hunk in the 16 conflict resolutions, no remaining reader of a deleted variable, and the Means-test the Council Tax Reduction applicant and partner, not the benefit unit's claimant #2078 files byte for byte. It confirmed r2's findings 2-4 resolved. Four should-fix findings:
  1. The cap still used a share that can count a further-education student. Reports are now kept there.
  2. The grandmother's pensioner test read the young parents' IS/JSA/ESA. It no longer does.
  3. The migrated P5 comparator also moved the CTR allowance. P5 now has its own cap-only reform.
  4. Property 2's non-empty filter could reject valid populations. Awards are now pinned instead.
• Re-review of 38364ca49 (GPT-6.1 Sol): REQUEST_CHANGES. It confirmed the head-alone mask, P5's comparator, property 2's pinned awards, and property 4's explanation. Two should-fix findings and a nit:
  1. The student guard missed in_FE. It now reads it.
  2. current_education's age default turns the guard on at 18 and 19 with no education input. This is kept deliberately, as explained under "Reconciliation", and now documented and pinned at 19 and 20.
  3. The body lacked the template's first line and the axiom blocker. Council Tax Reduction: assess every claim's scheme and exemption on its own applicant #2157 now tracks this change, and the blocker is recorded on rulespec-uk#410.
• Re-review of a9466b871 (GPT-6.1 Sol): APPROVE. It found the two should-fix findings resolved or adequately answered, all 24 YAML expectations right by hand, the generator's student facts independent of the model, and no regression. Its one nit was this metadata: the template's first line, and recording the blocker on Fix child benefit bug #410 itself. Both are done.

Coordination with other open PRs

• Merged since the last version: Give Council Tax Reduction to the household head's family, not the oldest adult's #2009, Give sharers, boarders and lodgers their own rent, tenure and LHA category #2006, Apply the benefit cap to mixed-age couples on Universal Credit, and keep them off pensioner Council Tax Reduction #1944 and Use the State Pension Credit qualifying age, and start-of-year status for Class 4 NI #1907. Their conflicts are resolved here as described under "Changes".
• Give Scotland and Wales working-age council tax reduction their own rules (UC routes, passport, child amounts) #1966 (Welsh and Scottish working-age rules). Its simulated_council_tax_reduction_benunit line for England should read benunit("council_tax_reduction_pensioner", period). Its council_tax_reduction_devolved_working_age already reads the per-family flag.
• Apply Housing Benefit and national Council Tax Reduction non-dependant deductions as legislated #2007. See "National schemes and the exemption" above.
• Charge non-dependant deductions for non-dependants within the claimant's benefit unit #2017 and Charge in-unit non-dependants in the local Council Tax Reduction schemes #2077 (in-unit non-dependants).
  • Charge non-dependant deductions for non-dependants within the claimant's benefit unit #2017 rewrites council_tax_reduction_non_dep_deductions as claims × share × household pool. To compose, multiply by the claim's own ~council_tax_reduction_applicant_has_non_dep_exemption, and choose Wales's pool per claim as above.
  • Charge in-unit non-dependants in the local Council Tax Reduction schemes #2077 changes local_non_dep_deductions. origin/local-ctr-in-unit-non-deps-on-2015 (20bbf36) is its author's tested composition with this PR's earlier head. Keep the claim's own exemption around the return, and take this PR's in_scheme_area and its removal of the household exemption.
• Means-test the Council Tax Reduction applicant and partner, not the benefit unit's claimant #2078 (CTR applicant means test) was stacked on this branch. It is retargeted to main before this branch is deleted. It already uses this PR's per-family flags.
• Read one resolved household head in every programme #2062 (one resolved household head) deletes council_tax_reduction_household_head, which the shared applicant files read. Whichever lands second switches them to is_resolved_household_head.

axiom: TheAxiomFoundation/rulespec-uk#410 queued (pe-parity; the signed encoder run awaits approval)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[MaxGhenis]

Coordination note from #2062 (issue #2059), also stacked on #2009.

This PR's council_tax_reduction_head_applies_alone and is_council_tax_reduction_applicant_or_partner read council_tax_reduction_household_head. #2062 removes that variable and adds is_resolved_household_head, with the same formula (the eldest flagged member, else the eldest member; exactly one per household), which every programme now reads.

Whichever of the two PRs lands second renames those reads to is_resolved_household_head and changes nothing else. #2078 adds the same two files and has agreed the same with #2062. A missed read fails as VariableNotFound, so it cannot pass CI. #2062's landing job does the rename if this PR lands first.

[MaxGhenis]

Composition note from #1966 (Scotland/Wales working-age CTR), now based on main at a5e5a73.

#1966 routes the devolved working-age rules on council_tax_reduction_claim_pensioner, the per-claim scheme flag from #2006. Its only read is in working_age/council_tax_reduction_devolved_working_age.py, so any redefinition here carries through.

Whichever lands second, please rerun council_tax_reduction_devolved_working_age.yaml, which has 24 cases.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[vahid-ahmadi]

Thanks Max. Reviewed at cc4d9ae: not ready.

Choosing the scheme and the non-dependant exemption per claiming family is right (SI 2012/2885 Sch 1 paras 2–3, 8(6)), and the five councils are wired consistently.

1. Blocking: this needs a rebase, and the current head drops the UC limb.
   • #2009's head has merged main (#2006, #1899, #1907, #1940, #1944). A trial merge gives 16 conflicts, including add/add on council_tax_reduction_pensioner.py.
   • At council_tax_reduction_pensioner.py:28-36 the PR uses is_SP_age and leaves out the UC limb. A 70/50 couple on UC in Maidstone gets £1,800 of pensioner CTR here, against £0 on #2009's head.
   • Reg 3(1)(a)(ii): "his partner is not— … (bb) a person with an award of universal credit".
   • Fix: keep main's reg 3 test (has_attained_state_pension_credit_qualifying_age plus the IS/JSA/ESA/UC limb) and change only the members it reads, to is_council_tax_reduction_applicant_or_partner.
2. Should fix: add a mixed-age UC couple case that pins £0. Every pensioner case today is 70/40 with no UC.
3. Should fix: rewrite the body against the current base.
   • 17 of the 19 new cases already pass there, because main assesses joint claims per family.
   • What this PR adds is the other two cases:
     • a sharer limited to their share (council_tax_benefit is [900, 1500] against [900, 900]);
     • a pension-age head with young parents.
   • Say plainly that the PR chooses "always per family" over main's "per family only for joint claims".
4. Nit: council_tax_reduction_applicant_has_non_dep_exemption.py:38-44 leaves out pension age disability payment and ADP, which para 8(6) now lists. Main has the same gap.
5. Nit: remove the stale "CI (running)" and r3 lines from the body.

Verified:

• Tests at cc4d9ae: 42/42 new YAML, 3/3 property tests and 82/82 local-authority YAML pass.
• The dispatched code-changes run passed, but against the old base.
• The body gives aggregates only.

[MaxGhenis]

#2062 is now on main (merge commit c4659aa), so council_tax_reduction_household_head is gone from main. Its reads become is_resolved_household_head, which has the identical formula (the eldest member the is_household_head input flags, else the eldest member; a tie in age goes to the member listed first). Rename the reads and change nothing else. In this PR they are in:

• policyengine_uk/variables/gov/local_authorities/council_tax_reduction/council_tax_reduction_head_applies_alone.py
• policyengine_uk/variables/gov/local_authorities/council_tax_reduction/is_council_tax_reduction_applicant_or_partner.py

Until they are renamed, those variables fail with VariableNotFound once this branch has main merged in.

[vahid-ahmadi]

Review pass (Claude Code, on Vahid's behalf) at ad1c2be7, round 2

APPROVE. My round-1 blocker is fixed, and the rest is handled or cosmetic.

Round-1 items:

1. Blocking (rebase and UC limb): closed. The branch has merged main. council_tax_reduction_pensioner.py keeps main's reg 3 test (has_attained_state_pension_credit_qualifying_age plus the IS, JSA(IB), ESA(IR) and UC limbs) and changes only whose circumstances it reads, to is_council_tax_reduction_applicant_or_partner. The UC award counts only where the applicant or partner is under the qualifying age, and not where the head applies alone. That matches SI 2012/2885 reg 3(1)(a)(ii)(bb).
2. The mixed-age UC case: closed. council_tax_reduction_pensioner.yaml pins English and Newham mixed-age couples on UC to the working-age scheme.
3. The description: closed. It now says what main already does (per-family assessment of joint claims) and what this PR adds: one rule for every claim, plus the three outcomes main still gets wrong.
4. PADP/ADP in the non-dependant exemption: still open. council_tax_reduction_applicant_has_non_dep_exemption.py:40-42 lists AA, PIP daily living and DLA care, but not Pension Age Disability Payment or Adult Disability Payment, which para 8(6) now names. Main has the same gap; fine as a follow-up.
5. Stale review-history lines in the description: mostly cleaned. One line about an incomplete "r3" remains.

Checked locally (merged with main at b7a73267, 22 commits ahead; clean):

• Local-authority YAML: 163 passed.
• test_council_tax_reduction_claimant_family_scheme_properties.py and test_council_tax_reduction_pension_credit_properties.py: 11 passed.
• CI is green at this head.

Stack: #2078 is based on this branch and retargets to main once it merges. #1966 asked that its 24 devolved working-age cases be rerun after whichever lands second; they're in the local-authority suite above and pass.