I wasn't sure where this belongs,I'm sure it can be moved if need be,

As all those who have been claiming Council Tax benefit from their Local Authority will know that as of April 13, the majority of LA's in the UK will no longer be paying council Tax Benefit, This is because of Government cuts to LA's in part, Those LA's who are still paying council tax benefit to their residents who qualify are now a minority,The rest of LA's are demanding payment of 20%+ of the council tax bill, as their reduction scheme leaves this shortfall meaning that the claimant is now liable for council tax

How can Government or LA's get away with this,? surely it's a breech of our human rights, as it could be seen as another way to persecute the poor and vulnerable & likely to cause them severe hardship which is unnecessary, Currently there are a couple of options available to those who now find themselves in debt to their LA's most operate a Discretionary HousingPayments /Exceptional Hardship Funds, Where they may ammend the ammount you are liable for,but payments from this fund will be limitedm

the other alternative is to appeal the decision to your LA, if they refuse to uphold the appeal you can then take your appeal to the Valuation Tribunal http://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk

/CTReduction.aspx Their scope is limited but they can rule that you should only pay say £10.00 per year instead of several hundred pounds

The only other option would be for a large group of people who are affected by this to bring a judicial review at the high court, as in particular if you are claiming ESA or JSA the ammount that you recieve is what the law says that you need to live off, now define "live off" to me it means to meet day to day living costs, such as food,fuel to cook that food ,ect ect, and doesn't include council tax

Two threads merged and tidied

do you think this could actually work though?

I wasn't sure where this belongs,I'm sure it can be moved if need be,

 

As all those who have been claiming Council Tax benefit from their Local Authority will know that as of April 13, the majority of LA's in the UK will no longer be paying council Tax Benefit, This is because of Government cuts to LA's in part, Those LA's who are still paying council tax benefit to their residents who qualify are now a minority,The rest of LA's are demanding payment of 20%+ of the council tax bill, as their reduction scheme leaves this shortfall meaning that the claimant is now liable for council tax

The CTB scheme ceased to exist on 1 April 2013 for all LAs, from that date each LA has implemented a local reduction scheme, these individual schemes do vary widely

How can Government or LA's get away with this,? surely it's a breech of our human rights, as it could be seen as another way to persecute the poor and vulnerable & likely to cause them severe hardship which is unnecessary, Currently there are a couple of options available to those who now find themselves in debt to their LA's most operate a Discretionary HousingPayments /Exceptional Hardship Funds, Where they may ammend the ammount you are liable for,but payments from this fund will be limitedm

Discretionary Housing Payments only apply to rental costs and cannot be paid towards council tax costs, although LAs do have a discretion to reduce any CT payer's council tax bill further, however as the LA is not being provided with any moneys to fund this, it is unlikely to be used in many circumstances

the other alternative is to appeal the decision to your LA, if they refuse to uphold the appeal you can then take your appeal to the Valuation Tribunal http://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk

/CTReduction.aspx Their scope is limited but they can rule that you should only pay say £10.00 per year instead of several hundred pounds

the VT will have to follow the rules of your LA's local scheme, so they can only change the reduction if the LA has made a mistake in calculating your reduction, they can't ignore the LA's rules

The only other option would be for a large group of people who are affected by this to bring a judicial review at the high court, as in particular if you are claiming ESA or JSA the ammount that you recieve is what the law says that you need to live off, now define "live off" to me it means to meet day to day living costs, such as food,fuel to cook that food ,ect ect, and doesn't include council tax

there have already been 2 JR challenges - Haringey and Sheffield - both have failed

http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2013/02/10/judge-rules-against-council-tax-challenge-by-single-mum-plunged-into-abject-poverty-in-haringey/

http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/node/15575

http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13540%3Aclaimants-seek-to-take-council-tax-reduction-challenge-to-supreme-court&catid=56%3Alitigation-articles&Itemid=24

do you think this could actually work though?

My view would be no, and the cases id6052 mentions support this. By removing CTB, the government has, in effect, changed "the amount of money the law says you need to live on."

The applicable amount for benefit purposes is meant to cover a person's needs, and those needs include paying the bills. That's why, for example, someone may need to pay £5 per week in child support, or a few pounds towards gas or electricity debts.

Don't get me wrong - I think this is odious. But I do think that the "amount the law says you need to live on" is variable and includes the payment of taxes.

Well there are several councils that are protecting their most vulnerable & the percentage that each council is expecting their most needy & vulnerable to pay also varies too, With a system like this this has to be very wrong,

Also it's a very ill thought out scheme, as the majority of those who are affected by the changes, there will probably be only a small proportion of them paying it, most can't or wont pay,

They probably wouldn't have goods for a bailiff to sell to settle the debt, that's assuming they where able to gain access in the first place, then you have all the legal fees which would be substantially more than the original debt that they are disputing , This so far has been a very short sighted /blinkered approach by those clowns we have for a government , this could very easily fail within the 12mths if people stick to their guns and refuse to pay councils will start to write the debts off as uncollectable

http://www.guardian.co.uk/local-government-network/2013/mar/20/council-tax-benefit-reform-who-what-where

I don't know why that article is saying Scotland and Wales are fully funded under the new scheme because that's not true. I'm in Scotland and received my first CTB Reduction bill last month. It was 30% of what would be the full amount.

I don't know why that article is saying Scotland and Wales are fully funded under the new scheme because that's not true. I'm in Scotland and received my first CTB Reduction bill last month. It was 30% of what would be the full amount.

In Scotland, there is a proportion of the Council Tax that covers water charges, because water provision is not privatised here. That is not covered by CTR, and was not covered by the old CTB either.

It makes sense if you think about it: people in England pay water bills whereas we do not - it's rolled into our Council Tax. Of course, our CT is correspondingly higher, but it would seem unfair that Scottish people on benefits get their water costs paid but English people do not. I have no knowledge of how the system works in Wales.

Well either way it works out around the same percentage, is called "the reduction scheme" and is not fully funded regardless of whether it's for water or whatever else

Well either way it works out around the same percentage, is called "the reduction scheme" and is not fully funded regardless of whether it's for water or whatever else

It's "fully funded" to the extent that everything that was covered before the change is still covered after it. The SG hasn't actually increased the funding, but it has maintained it.

I buggered up my first installment of the council tax shortfall by absent mindedly paying the required amount into the arrears account for my last tenancy, this came to light today when I received a demand letter from my LA for two installments on penalty of an eventual summons.

I am trying to get through to the relevant department to see if they will transfer the payment, but I'm not holding my breath.

EDIT, just got an e mail response from my LA 'due to the high volume of e mails we are receiving at present, please allow 20 days for a response' oh well, back on to the phone then.

The guardian article also says that some LA'Sare asking for £3.55 per week for a property in council tax band C, I know of people in my town that are expected to pay around that amount who live in a Band A property , and I know of a neighbouring LA that is charging more,

On another note that is sort of related, I think that LA's should value rented properties differently,and introduce a new CT band that would mean a huge price drop in the CT rate for those who cannot get on the property ladder thank's to thatcher's legacy,

further examples of how this scheme is unfair and needs scrapping ASAP and if a change in law is required then so be it, all because the Con dims are so out of touch with the real world around them,safe in the little bubble paid for by the tax payer talk about waste of resources they need to take a long hard look at themselves, and ask are they really fit for purpose? maybe the public should be given a vote on that like next week or month, not the next general election, that will be too late,

Your average Con Dem minister would take a long hard look............and then pat themselves on the back for doing such a stirling job. These people are so removed from the reality of everyday life they might as well hail from a distant galaxy.

Cameron surrounds himself with old Etonians so he can swap flagellation techniques with his chums ' theres nothing like a damn good thrashing to focus the mind dear boy!' IDS sees himself as a latter day Flashman holding the backside of welfare against a roaring fire, it's a shame mater and pater did not have the funds to dress little Ian up in top hat and tails and send him to the 'right' schools which no doubt accounts for his inferiority complex.