Council tax reduction scheme - Consultation results for CTR 2020/21

Analysis of the Consultation on the Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme Options 2020/21

Bassetlaw District Council opened this consultation on 25th September 2019 to seek the views of residents on the options available to the Council for the Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2020/21 and the potential impact. It was open for two months until 19th November 2019.

This is the analysis of the information gathered during that period.

The number of respondents up to 20th November 2019 was 134 in total. The breakdown shows that there were responses from across the district. 

Postcode

Area

No. Responses

%

DN10

Misterton

7

5

DN11

Harworth and Bircotes

11

7

DN22

Retford

52

37

NG20

Cuckney

1

0

NG22

Tuxford

4

2

NG23

Normanton – on Trent

1

0

S80

Worksop

20

14

S81

Worksop , Langold, and Carlton-in-Lindrick

31

21

No Postcode given

 

7

5

Total

 

134

 

 

Q1a. The council should continue to provide the Council Tax Reduction based on a means-tested application process.

  • Agree 120 (89%)
  • Disagree 10 (7%)

Q1b. If the Council was to review the maximum amount of CTR allowed do you think that it should:

 

Agree

Disagree

(i) Stay at the same rate as now (88%)

52%

36%

71

49

(ii) Be reduced to ensure that it is affordable

42%

41%

57

56

(iii) Be increased

22%

56%

30

76

 

If you have answered yes to (ii) or (iii) above, what do you think the percentage maximum CTR should be?

 Percentage Number who suggested this percentage
5 1
14 
15 
20 
50 
51 
60 
70 
75 
80 5
85 4
88 2
90 7
93 1
95 9
97 1
99 2
100 10

 

Q2a. Do you agree or disagree that the Council should continue to provide a higher rate of support for those residents who receive a sever disability premium (or the transitional protection for this under Universal Credit)?

  • Agree 113 (84%)
  • Disagree 19 (14%)

Q2b. If the Council was to review the maximum amount of CTR allowed for the severely disabled do you think that it should:

 

Agree

Disagree

(iv) Stay at the same rate as now (95%)

63%

28%

85

38

(v) Be reduced to ensure that it is affordable

33%

47%

45

63

(vi) Be increased

15%

58%

21

79

 

If you have answered yes to (v) or (vi) above, what do you think the percentage maximum CTR should be? (percent of the Council tax bill)

 Percentage Number who suggested this percentage
1 1
10 1
14 1
15 1
50 3
75 3
80 3
85 3
88 2
90 7
95 4
97 1
99 1
100 16

 

Q4a. Would you agree or disagree with the proposal to introduce an income banded scheme?

  • Agree 70 (52%)
  • Disagree 33 (24%)
  • Don’t Know 27 (20%)

Q5a. Would you agree or disagree with the proposal to introduce a discount scheme based on household rather than income?

  • Agree 50 (37%)
  • Disagree 55 (41%)
  • Don’t know 27 (20%)

Q6. If you have agreed to both proposals in questions 4 and 5, do you have a preference?

(vii) Discount based on household

33

24%

(viii) Discount based on income-bands

47

35%

 

Q7. The final question is about backdating claims. The current scheme has no provision for backdating a claim should there be a delay for whatever reason. In order for any new scheme to be effective the council proposes that a backdated period of entitlement could be awarded as long as the claimant has shown good cause for failing to make the claim at the appropriate time.

Do you agree or disagree that the scheme should include a discretionary backdate provision?

  • Agree 99 (73%)
  • Disagree 32 (23%)

Additional Comments - (please note this information is published in it's raw format)

3a If you have any comments about this please write them here

good idea

If your convicted of a crime or Drugs offense make them pay the lot. If they dont want to take part in Society then dont claim either from it.  Any Councilor should pay 200% of the Council Tax so they feel the pain of others like all socialists should

You are deliberately taxing those who can least afford it and council tax reductions should never be related to or depend on any benefit claims, they should be purely on income. The DWP is targeted NOT to pay people, which you already know, and additionally put people through hell. As you well know, you have food banks across this council area, it is a shameful disgrace for any council to have any in their district.  There are also increasing numbers of employed people forced to use these food banks. The existence of food banks and people in poverty proves you and the government DWP are failing people and failing in your jobs. There should be NO NEED for any food banks and they confirm your failure. You also put your council tax over and above the most basic of survival needs of people, such as housing, food, water, heating and lighting.  This must stop. Your senior management are paid extortionate salaries, one of them over £135,000 per year.  If you are whinging about reduced budgets, think how unbelievably tough it is for those on low incomes.  But they are easy targets for you to extort money out of.  If you need to reduce costs then take it out of your staff salaries and pension schemes and if necessary make your staff redundant. That is the correct course of action. 

I think this scheme should be fairer to pensioners who's income from pensions is just above the threshold for claiming as these and the people who are on average incomes cannot claim any CTR other that the single occupancy if they are widowers, it can be unfair to people who work and have worked all there lives

Do not change it, further more decrease what those whom a disabled or in vulnerable situations (single mums/dads and those with poor incomes) have to pay, it is very unfair that the vulnerable are being expected to fork out on already very limited money which is putting a strain on the local economy as people just can't afford to spend and are choosing between utilities and food/clothing etc...

Disabled people and single parents out of work and people who genuinely can't work should still get 100 council tax paid ( single parents at least until the youngest child turns 5 as it is easier to work when children are at school usually less child care issues )

Claiming UC should class as intention to claim CTR even if UC is not awarded. Customer will have a month to apply no matter what the outcome of the UC application

I have no experience of claiming benefit and therefore cannot comprehend this will cause claimants difficulties.

Single pensioners who live on there own should only pay half the council tax not 25per cent off they should get  50 per cent off 

I think the disabled already have a lot of benefits and handouts and give very little back to society, largely speaking. (And most are large!!) I realise there are those who ARE genuinely unable to help themselves but those who claim obesity, drug or alcohol dependency or ME is a disability, ought to be taxed more and handed out a great deal less in order to motivate them. I suspect this may be a controversial view but those capable of common sense will likely agree.

CTR should be for those working on low incomes, regardless of individual ability.

This is how the benefits system has been and I think it’s reasonable to allow 4 weeks to apply, taking into account a variety of reasons for a potential delay.

it should be retained

I get confused about the criteria for reduction and have completed umpteen forms and provided information. We seem to have had several different reductions given.

No comments

I think it should be reviewed because alot of people are getting a discount on their council tax when really they are being paid more in benefits than myself who is in full time employment.The council should get relevant evidence from people who are claiming Universal Credit. I think if the government ups allowances and benefits then the council should reduce their council tax reduction because they are gettting more money therefore can afford to pay more in council tax. The government has reduced the councils funds so they have to find money from elsewhere to keep services.

council tax reduction should always be means tested. also those that live alone or without childrenand use less council resources should always pay less

If you receive benefits of any kind. Council tax is still unaffordable with the cost of living as a single person only getting 317 a month to pay all bills and food i survive on a bad diet of mainly beans and bread. Even when i was working i still struggled to pay my council tax as a single person working part time on a zero hours contract i never knew what i would get each month. Its really hard to live on and pay all other bills prescriptions dentist etc and that was with the 25% reduction. Life is really hard unless you earn a decent wage. Which most of us dont anymore. Especially in the bassetlaw area.

The Styrrup with Oldcotes Parish Council feels that no one on passported benefits should pay any Council Tax.

Should be income and people in the property related

Universal credit is the worse thing ever invented i have never been so hard up desperate for money than i am on this. because my 17 hour wage gets paid on the penultimate day of each month i do not get universal credit paid every 3 months or so as i get two wages paid in one assessment period!! then i only have enough money to pay my rent so what about the other bills.  I contact the council who say well you will get more next month, but how do i pay my bills this month!! and the amount you get the month after is not as much as you would get if you got both a wage and UC in the same month, so i think that CTR SHOULD BE PAID TO UC individuals who are not managing like myself because of this stupid assessment period rater than just going from the beginning to the end of each month

Seems a logical process to ensure relief is given in a timely manner.

I think it is essential that a claimant be able to claim ctr as soon as they claim uc

Good idea

Seems a much fairer way of applying CTR, if a council tax payer is unemployed,  it is difficult to meet household bills without having to wait for up to one month for relief.

If the process were integrated into current systems, pursuant to GDPR, this might simplify the process for CTR, which is important for the most vulnerable.

This should be increased as the rollout of Universal Credit is highly flawed and in some cases people won't have the claim sorted thus any evidence for quite some time after the initial claim.

it should stay as it is.

Any updating of allowances should only be done if MIG is also updated, if not then no.

By increasing the maximum rebate for the majority, the severely disabled could receive a full rebate on CT.

the 'one month rule' is an absolute shambles - for so many people needing to provide additional supporting information, gathering and collating this information often takes far far longer, even with the assistance of outside agencies ( Citizen's advice, mental health nurses, support workers etc), people like myself find that we arein perpetual battle, are entitled to support but falling off the processing because we are unable to meet a draconian boundary

UC needs sorting out so payments don't take so long to process.  Claims should always be backdated to the date need arises as declared via UC application or CTR claim. Backdating should not be limited to 1 month. Any delay in payment decision making should mean that an interim loan / payment is made to ensure people do not suffer financially from Council administrative inefficiency

Sounds reasonable

I’m a single parent I think I should still get % reduced for single occupancy

I personally do not see where council tax money is being spent, Retford is not looked after/cared for.

Means testing benefits is not the fairest way to help hard working families. every one should get a reduction if one person qualifies like winter fuel payments for the elderly. if no person qualifies then every one should pay. middle income families are hit whatever government is in power.

GREAT IDEA. Will improve take up

If in receipt of UC then CTR should be automatic. Evidence should not need to be provided as it has all been provided in order to be awarded the UC. I was unaware that I would receive it and it took a while for me to become aware. It is a huge benefit when on a low income and helps so much.

This seems fair so long as people are given the relevant information

It should always be means tested.

I am a resident of Beckingham. Not included on your list.

I feel providing allowances are fully clarified and evidenced those in difficulty should have support entitlement.

My only reservation is does our system allow for such confirmation albeit the failure of the system should not detract from those requiring he support. 

I agree with the common sense amendment proposed to accept the date of claim for UC as a claim for CTR as long as UC is awarded.

I think that if people are recieving benefits including DLA or PIP and no other income then they should only be paying the lowest amount if they are in Band A or B properties. Due to my child's DLA my council tax was increased as my benefit went over the lower limit.

Give more time to complete form

Council to decide disabilities etc as they know more people.Maintain current levels.It is allowed fairly.

Seems a reasonable amendment.

I agree with the above.

None

Speed the process up

no comments

4b Are there any comments you would like to make about the income-band scheme proposal?

Start the Council Tax at the same rate as the old Rates. Used to pay £34 a year, got my dustbins collected weekly from the back of my house, police on ourstreets, roads were repaired and Car parks were not run by Highway Men

It’s a very massive change in support for earning only £1 more having such harsh cut offs doesn’t help, earnings £1000 rather than £999 won’t pay the difference in council tax. It should be a graduated system.

You should not be charging ANY of those people any council tax - with incomes as low as that you are putting your council tax charges over and above their basic survival needs such as housing, water, food, heating and lighting. THIS MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY.

You are deliberately taxing those who can least afford it and council tax reductions should never be related to or depend on any benefit claims, they should be purely on income. The DWP is targeted NOT to pay people, which you already know, and additionally put people through hell. As you well know, you have food banks across this council area, it is a shameful disgrace for any council to have any in their district.  There are also increasing numbers of employed people forced to use these food banks. The existence of food banks and people in poverty proves you and the government DWP are failing people and failing in your jobs. There should be NO NEED for any food banks and they confirm your failure. You also put your council tax over and above the most basic of survival needs of people, such as housing, food, water, heating and lighting.  This must stop. Your senior management are paid extortionate salaries, one of them over £135,000 per year.  If you are whinging about reduced budgets, think how unbelievably tough it is for those on low incomes!  But they are easy targets for you to extort money out of.  If you need to reduce costs then take it out of your staff salaries and pension schemes and if necessary make your staff redundant. That is the correct course of action. 

I would be interested in knowing what percentage of the 'larger families' who will be benefiting work or have ever worked - what is child benefit, why should people get it, how much could be saved without it?  If you can't afford to have kids then DON'T

It is a good think when used correctly and everyone in time of need benefits but normal people have to jump through hoops when help is needed so they don't tend to bother

It just seems like a way of scraping the barrel and getting a little bit of money where possible off the poor, stop scraping the barrel with the poor/vulnerable and hit the rich and big businesses with higher rates

In some ways it sounds like a good idea I believe everyone on low income deserves help aswell... every is often to hard to understand to do with benefits for alot of people..a straight forward scheme could be helpful if it works

CHB & maintenance should be taken into account in the income calculation

Having read the proposals above I’ve pressed agree but wavering on unsure due to being double amputee an spina bifida ,I think some people pay way to much like my mum 77 this year and her bill is 1,000 £81 a month which is way to much to me

Agree fully with working non dependent contribution

However severely disabled CTR discount should be lowered to 88% provided the disability assessment process be more fairly conducted to ensure that severely disabled people are not inappropriately disadvantaged by a poor assessment process.

No I think it should just remain as a means tested benefit based on income received.

Child benefit and maintenance should not be disregarded as an income.

No comments

I think Band 2 is very high for 2652 households.

323 households would see an increase in support is a high number. I dont think you should be penalised if you do not have children, i dont think this is fair.

Its all to complicated. I think it should be if your household earns less than 550 a month you shouldnt pay council tax at all because noone takes into consideration the cost of living. I dont think anyone on benefits should have to pay because the money you get anyway is constantly keeping you in poverty

Whilst the Parish Council of Styrrup with Oldcotes agrees with the non-passported benefits sliding scale scheme it feels that no one on passported benefits should pay any Council Tax. 100% reduction should apply.

Definitely agree but,those on uc should get 75% not 88%

those on severe disability should get same as those on uc,jsa etc

Two thirds of um manage to smoke,drink and have carabvans at coast

but get discounted for it

CTR discount should be reduced for all bands.

The principle of all occupants in a household contributing to Council Tax is one I very much agree with, but wasn't Maggie Thatcher hounded over this when she proposed the "Poll Tax"?

Plus, it all depends on claimants making up to date and accurate returns of how many non dependants are in the household.  Looks hard to administer.

Appears to be a simpler system

Too complicated to take in

The  past ported benefits percentages should be tmore than what is been have

.so income of 300-599 should be 70percent

600-999 , 65 percent

1000, to 1300 , should be 50 percent

At the same time. those earning over 60K a years should pay more

This doesn't account for Universal Credit being something that can change month to month. I am currently working a 10 hour contract but have been lucky enough to be able to do extra hours. These aren't guaranteed, so the amount of top up UC will change. This has just happened to me so I went from £20 a month to £130 because of extra hours (also a tax rebait), I had to alter my DD to make it more affordable. The whole system has flaws and this won't help in this form the bands should be severe disability (95% discount), max benefits (88%), then non income tax payers (65%) and income tax payers (20%). Going on the above numbers will punish low earners for doing regular overtime (I thought the council would want to help all businesses, especially in times when things such as illness makes them temporarily shorthanded). I know someone who doesn't do overtime so their council tax bill doesn't change.

Band 2 should also receive 95% discount, as a large amount of these people receive less money than those in Band 1. 

I think people over the age of sixty who have taken early retirement and live alone should have more benefit apart from just the single persons allowance.

Self employed people will be the ones who lose ctr and will end up living in poverty so layabouts can keep sponging

What if the person who doesn't work is disabled or a carer or both then charging is unfair.

Those on non-passportec benefits could less help - 30% reduction on a £1300 salary is generous.

the banding is inappropriate - 95% reduction simply does not cover the cost of maintaining services and leads to shortfall of budget for the area. I receive full CTR but can pay £20  as a means-tested option, so reducing the total CTR would help alleviate budget deficits and aid with the care commitment budget

The people most likely to need help from this scheme may be on zero hours contracts etc with volatile incomes, it would add another layer of complexity just as UC has done

1. Severely disabled persons receive higher income therefore most can afford to receive less discount

2. There are people who think that having more children will bring in extra money. There should be a limit on how many children count when applying discount

From what l can understand from your proposals the level of CTR would be based on the total household income, not affect severely disabled claimants and reflect where there are children involved. This seems reasonable

we need better services, so collect more council tax

more focus on admin than customer needs

The bands are too big. There is a huge difference between earning £1000 and £1300 for example and the reduction rate should not be the same for both. Banding would make it easier but there should be a lot of bands, probably in increments of £100.

It is still unclear to me how this works with UC as full benefits are awarded and earnings from employment are taken away by them.

It seems like a more transparent scheme but I worry that people on low income who do not have passported benefits could be a lot worse off.

I am on ESA but I do not know whether it is the maximum and therefore a passport benefit . So I cannot comment.

 

If the TOTAL income for a household is low then they should get the maximum benefit.  If TOTAL income for that household is higher then they should get less benefit.

Only that the system becomes able to ensure those in need are genuinely claiming the allowance.

What consideration is given regarding home size and occupancy to those requesting a council tax deduction

I do not feel that there is enough detail and the proposals have been over simplified.  I appreciate getting the balance right is difficult because too much information can confuse the issue

If those on Full UC get the full reduction (unlike now)

 

There should also be a hardship/special case considerarion as sometime one size does not fit all. BE HUMAN!

Discount should be given on eating per month not averaged

mjaintain current levels

no

Looks a fair system.

None

Speed it up

no comment

5b Are there any comments you would like to make about the discount scheme proposal?

You should not be charging ANY of those people any council tax - with incomes as low as that you are putting your council tax charges over and above their basic survival needs such as housing, water, food, heating and lighting. THIS MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY.

You are deliberately taxing those who can least afford it and council tax reductions should never be related to or depend on any benefit claims, they should be purely on income. The DWP is targeted NOT to pay people, which you already know, and additionally put people through hell. As you well know, you have food banks across this council area, it is a shameful disgrace for any council to have any in their district.  There are also increasing numbers of employed people forced to use these food banks. The existence of food banks and people in poverty proves you and the government DWP are failing people and failing in your jobs. There should be NO NEED for any food banks and they confirm your failure. You also put your council tax over and above the most basic of survival needs of people, such as housing, food, water, heating and lighting.  This must stop. Your senior management are paid extortionate salaries, one of them over £135,000 per year.  If you are whinging about reduced budgets, think how unbelievably tough it is for those on low incomes!  But they are easy targets for you to extort money out of.  If you need to reduce costs then take it out of your staff salaries and pension schemes and if necessary make your staff redundant. That is the correct course of action. 

Definitely seems a bit fairer

yet again, read previous comment, leave those with no income or disabled alone full stop

I think it should be meanstested to be a fair scheem

Does not take into account people with no children on low income such as when I’m sick pay etc

I think this would most certainly help most people in and around Bassetlaw especially myself

This appears to simplify the administration of the scheme which I would expect to be welcomed by both claimants and council. Targeting those with children seems a sensible approach

I personally don’t agree with this scheme as I’m only living in a higher band property as my council property was so damp and could/would not be remedied

Why is this so complicated I've let three people read it and can't understand it can't figure it out

I still believe it should be a means tested system based on income. Only making income disregards for certain benefits.

Not disregarding maintenance and child benefits

People need educating on how to manage money properly rather than always assuming they cannot pay..

I think it shold be means tested those on higher income and benefits should contribute more than those that do not have alot and dont earn much

WISH I UNDER STOOD IT ALL SORRY

I think your over complicating the situation. If you want more money charge higher for the bands that can afford it not the lower end

Bands 1 and 2 should have 100% Council Tax Relief

charge per person then it will stop all the scrupulous home owner landlords letting 10 or more immigrants live in it

totally disagree with band 3 88% no kids and Full Payments

This framework tying in with receipt of benefits looks a lot clearer and easier to administer, possibly fairer as well.

Too complicated to take in

its  not fair at all, how can someone living on 57 per week, afford to pay 55percent of the council tax, thats just asking for trouble

I would alter the percentages slightly, it seems unfair that the difference between households on benefits based on children is 3% when every other household's difference is 10%. I would change the band percentages to 95%,88%, 85%, 58%, 55%.

I think people in work, but on low wage, should be helped the most.  Families with over two children should not receive more than a family with two children.  They chose to have big families and it is not up to the state to support them.

The discount should be based on the income, otherwise low income household could lose out and be worse off!

I think households with children should receive a higher rebate than those without.  That way the council are contributing towards reducing child poverty

Anything that simplifies the formula for application/meeting need would be beneficial - my experience of the current formula has had a near intolerable detrimental toll on my existing mental health. It is overburdened by the need to communicate between four different departments which benefit employees may be trained to understand but leaves mebers of the public aghast at how something can ever have become so inefficient

It is disgusting to penalise people just because they do not have children.

Any discount should be based on income as a primary factor

I would agree if claimants are seeking significant CTR (ie 55% and above) when they are residing in a house which could be deemed too large for their needs but it may be difficult to implement as it may prove a subjective exercise.

collect more council tax is better for everyone

More about admin for Bassetlaw DC staff than customer needs

The people with no children and on low income would lose out again.

MOST PEOPLE RECEIVING ESA DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THEY ARE ON THE MAXIMUM LEVEL NEEDED TO QUALIFY FOR THE 88% DISCOUNT.

THEREFORE THIS PROPOSAL IS A RIDICULOUS TRICK QUESTION FROM THE COUNCIL. YOU MUST INFORM ALL CLAIMANTS FIRST IF THEY ARE MAXIMUM OR NOT. THEN YOU CAN ASK THE QUESTION.

It is crucial to chose the most effective system that can also reduce 'overheads' in terms of administration. This might do that.

What savings would be achieved by removing band 2 and replacing with the band 3 discount of 85%?

I do not feel there is enough detail to support this proposal

Low income families lose out leading to a two tier society

Having children should not make a difference. In come should be a factor.

 

If you don't have children you should get same % as people with children

agree if only but divice between.its depends whats income! Discount as usual.

I assume detailed means tests have already been carried out to claim the various benefits in the first place so the household circumstances discount scheme seems to provide a different way to consider the issues.

Again looks fair.

more help for the worse off

6a Please enter any further comments on these proposals here?

Make Able people who have not worked for the past 10 years pay the full amount

You should not be charging ANY of those people any council tax - with incomes as low as that you are putting your council tax charges over and above their basic survival needs such as housing, water, food, heating and lighting. THIS MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY.

You are deliberately taxing those who can least afford it and council tax reductions should never be related to or depend on any benefit claims, they should be purely on income. The DWP is targeted NOT to pay people, which you already know, and additionally put people through hell. As you well know, you have food banks across this council area, it is a shameful disgrace for any council to have any in their district.  There are also increasing numbers of employed people forced to use these food banks. The existence of food banks and people in poverty proves you and the government DWP are failing people and failing in your jobs. There should be NO NEED for any food banks and they confirm your failure. You also put your council tax over and above the most basic of survival needs of people, such as housing, food, water, heating and lighting.  This must stop. Your senior management are paid extortionate salaries, one of them over £135,000 per year.  If you are whinging about reduced budgets, think how unbelievably tough it is for those on low incomes!  But they are easy targets for you to extort money out of.  If you need to reduce costs then take it out of your staff salaries and pension schemes and if necessary make your staff redundant. That is the correct course of action. 

I don't agree with either but had to pick one, have a sensible system that listens to the individuals circumstances rather than putting people in brackets

Discounted scheme would definitely benefit a lot of people

I think income bands is more relative to council tax than household circumstances, especially for those working.  Maybe ensure extra benefits paid for those in need are disregarded as income so they have that additional support but it's clear what level they should be at. 

see previous comment

Bands 1 and 2 should have 100% relief

stop landlords holeing 10 or more and they then have to register who is there...stops illegals getting away with it

The household bands should include if income tax is payable as someone can do some extra hours at work, not pay income tax on the increased wages but then lose top up UC for that one month and have a large increase in the monthly payment. This can come as a shock and mess up budgets etc. even if the payment goes back to normal the following month.

I strongly disagree with both

Not having used the current scheme it is hard for me to understand how it works and what a new scheme would achieve. Overall the most vulnerable must be protected and those that can pay should make contributions. No situation is black and white though so no scheme is going to suit everyone. I imagine higher rate council tax payers will also not want to see an increase to support those who could be making more of a contribution.

I think these proposals will put too many people in difficulty having to pay more council tax.

IT MUST ALWAYS BE INCOME BASED.

Disagree

n/a

Possible help needed remember "low income"

Speed it up ! Next time include a pre-paid envelope .

no comment

Any final comments about the Council Tax Reduction Scheme that you would like the Council to take into account when setting its scheme for the coming year?

Council are Crap cant wait to vote the lot of you out

It makes sense to backdate claims especially in cases of disability as it can take long times for UC etc to be processed

You should not be charging ANY of those people any council tax - with incomes as low as that you are putting your council tax charges over and above their basic survival needs such as housing, water, food, heating and lighting. THIS MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY.

You are deliberately taxing those who can least afford it and council tax reductions should never be related to or depend on any benefit claims, they should be purely on income. The DWP is targeted NOT to pay people, which you already know, and additionally put people through hell. As you well know, you have food banks across this council area, it is a shameful disgrace for any council to have any in their district.  There are also increasing numbers of employed people forced to use these food banks. The existence of food banks and people in poverty proves you and the government DWP are failing people and failing in your jobs. There should be NO NEED for any food banks and they confirm your failure. You also put your council tax over and above the most basic of survival needs of people, such as housing, food, water, heating and lighting.  This must stop. Your senior management are paid extortionate salaries, one of them over £135,000 per year.  If you are whinging about reduced budgets, think how unbelievably tough it is for those on low incomes!  But they are easy targets for you to extort money out of.  If you need to reduce costs then take it out of your staff salaries and pension schemes and if necessary make your staff redundant. That is the correct course of action. 

I would be interested in knowing how many people are able to claim but don't know they can I feel there should be a clear guide to help people consider there options

As I said previously don't expect those with no incomes single parents/severely disabled to fork out towards this, we are in situations where we are already struggling to make ends meet and survive, I couldn't even afford a school uniform for my child and was refused a payment to help towards costs! I had to rely on charity handouts and beg for family help - disgraceful!!!!

Mixed aged couples rules should be taken into account to match new HB rules

I think they should look at the elderly and what they pay my mum gets statutory pension each week but she still has a council tax bill of a £1,000 £81 a month plus full rent a week with no reductions and it’s a lot to pay out her pension

Pensioners who live on there own get only 25 per cent discount they should get 50 per cent discount as there on there own  that's half there pension away a week on council tax

I believe in fairness and it should not be assumed that people who work are better off than those who don't. However people's circumstances do change and it should be their responsibility to keep you updated. Severely disabled people should receive appropriate benefits but they do also receive council services and should contribute a fair amount.

Backdating should be strict.

Re consider the current disregarded benefits in payment. So include child benefit and maintenance in the calculation

Continue to use a means tested benefit

Invest the excess time in staff educating people on how to manage money proper . Do not always assume people can’t pay - often they choose not to pay and pay for other ‘non priority’ bills instead. Such as HP/cars/TV etc, instead of the CT.

Education is the key!.

No comments

I do think you have to take into account the income coming into the household and the type of house (the band), perhaps it may be worth while revisiting the banding as some people have extended their homes and probably should go up to a higher band.

People that claim benefits should provide evidence to you to show they should get a council tax discount and I dont think always think whether you have children or not should come into it. More people have children to get more benefits out of the system.

Thank you for asking for the council tax payers opinion. No matter what you decide there will always be some people which are not happy with it.

PLEASE try to keep the paperwork to a minimum!

I think your in fear of adding to austerity and i would watch this because bassetlaw is already a deprived area getting worse. This will inpact on other services such as social services if people cant feed thier kids. Police if their is a rise in crime due to poverty. Health issues relating to stress and poor diet and homeless ness because people cannot pay their bills.

We understand the principal of everyone should pay but penalising those with passported benefits and placing them in court when they have failed to pay is unjustified when they have already qualified for help and assistance.

should only be paid from day its received,again stops all the illegals and save a fortune

I think that you should be able to backdate a claim to a reasonable time because not everyone knows about the scheme

Many working families have a monthly net income less than those receiving full benefits and get no CTR. 

UC can be a top up benefit too and anytime it is not awarded could only be for a month, the amount on the bill shouldn't be changed unless the non receiving of UC becomes regular occurrence. Also as in my own situation a tax rebate should factor into monthly income if it wouldn't've affected the benefits if it wasn't taken from me in the first place (I was taxed on the first 3 payslips as I was on emergency tax. If it was sorted straightaway the money from the correct payment wouldn't affect anything but as it came in a month where I had done some overtime my council tax bill shot up.

I believe too many people think it is their rite to be kept by the state.Only those who have paid in should be able to receive benefits, except the severely disabled.

In reference to question 7:- any failing on behalf of the claimant should not be penalised. Neither should the Council delay any payments knowing that the claiment will be ultimately awarded the correct amount.

Low income households appear to receive less in benefits than the disabled and pensioners, yet those on low income do not get as much discount as the disabled and pensioners. This, in my opinion, is wrong, as the lower income households need more help to be able to pay any council tax. How can they be expected to pay 12% of the council tax bill when they are really struggling financially, more so than pensioners and the disabled, due to being on a lot less income than them.

Backdating of any form of benefit is complex and open to costly and lengthy appeals.

It is impossible to proscribe in regulations every eventuality that may be considered as good cause.  This discretion means that decision makers cone to different decisions on the same/similar cases. 

Would the backdating criteria mirror DWP regulations or would it be based on an arbitrary set of criteria specific to the council?  If the latter you will get queries as appeals if DWP allow backdating if social security benefits and the council disallow .   Has the cost of applying backdated payments and subsequent administration and appeals been factored in to the cost benefit analysis?   Take up of this will be much higher than anticipated - Citizen’s Advice, Shelter, CPAG etc will be all over if advising on how to backdate. 

People in expensive houses with high incomes should pay far more tax.

Some low income households already struggle to make ends meet, so processing their claim as early as possible is paramount. If delays are inevitable then backdating should be implemented.

Not having used the current scheme it is hard for me to understand how it works and what a new scheme would achieve. Overall the most vulnerable must be protected and those that can pay should make contributions. No situation is black and white though so no scheme is going to suit everyone. I imagine higher rate council tax payers will also not want to see an increase to support those who could be making more of a contribution.

No

The council should be able to gain its information directly from UC making the system much more automated and not reliant upon individuals providing information or updating changes to circumstances.

All vulnerable people should be able to claim council tax reduction regardless of how many children they have. It would be unfair to expect these people to pay more.

YOU CAN MAKE EVERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLD PAY SLIGHTLY MORE. BUT IT MUST ALWAYS BE BASED ON THE TOTAL INCOME THAT EACH HOUSEHOLD HAS COMING IN EVERY MONTH.

I am from a low income family, and i constantly worry with regard to this, it should go to people that need it the most, but i also understand that some things need to be amanded.

Overall providing 'good cause' is applied robustly and vigorously yet fairly either pathway is it seems reasonable in the current economic climate.

Backdating only if this is due to a delay outside of the claimants control.

If people are telling you they can't afford food then what can be done?

discretionary backdate provision good idea if it can be implemented?

Give the poorest the biggest support.

You'll do what you want anyway, so its a waste of my time !

 

 


Last Updated on Wednesday, April 1, 2020