Council Tax Benefit How many are aware of this?

[Simon7685]

I stumbled across an article today about changes to council tax benefit from April 2013. I do not remember having seen this before and it is going to effect millions of the already most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in the country.

 

From April 2013 the Government is making each local authority responsible for the running of its own council tax benefit system. The Govt will give each council the money it pays out in benefit less 10%. Each authority will then have to implement a new system for payments to people but make up the shortfall themselves from savings or cutting back on other things.

 

A number of councils including my own are implementing the same system as follows;

 

People will be divided into 2 groups, pensioners and people of working age.

 

Pensioners are protected by the Government and will continue to receive 100% of their CTB entitlement each year, essentially no change.

 

All people of working age will be required to pay between 10 & 20% of their own council tax bill. This applies to those on benfits, low wage or anyone else.

 

There will be certain circumstances where claimants will still continue to receive 100% CTB, like those with an entitlement to the disability element of tax credits.

 

Everybody else will be required to pay up to 20% of their bill. In my area for a band A property that means paying £200 per year out of already stretched finances.

 

Other factors include the way your income is calculated with things like Child benefit being taken into account as earnings, which reduce the amount of benefit payable. They are also reducing the amount of savings you are permitted from £16k (I wish) to £6k (still wishing).

 

So the bulk of people who are in receipt of CTB are going to see their amount of benefit reduced from 2013 and be expected to fund up to 20% of their bill regardless, which means you will have more to pay.

 

People who don't pay will be subjected to recovery action as is the case now. So once again the people with the least to live on are to be made even worse off.

 

I found out that my council are running a consultation exercise:lol: from now until the end of October. However I was not aware of it and only found it by digging through the councils website where it was hidden away. Not that the results will make a difference to the outcome.

 

What the odds on Housing Benefit being next on the list in 2014????

[Nystagmite]

I think there has been discussion about this on here. Where I am, there will be no protection for disabled people. If you have savings over £3k, you'll have to pay towards your council tax.

[shortieb]

Where I live, Dumfries and Galloway, it's happening already even if you have no savings whatsoever. And those on full benefits, who don't pay the 10 per cent CT demanded of them, are taken to court (without being notified first because it's Scotland) and the debt is passed to collectors to pick up with a 10 per cent for the collectors on top!!!

[abc123def]

Yes I was aware of this, its been in the media for some time now.

[antone]

Where I live, Dumfries and Galloway, it's happening already even if you have no savings whatsoever. And those on full benefits, who don't pay the 10 per cent CT demanded of them, are taken to court (without being notified first because it's Scotland) and the debt is passed to collectors to pick up with a 10 per cent for the collectors on top!!!

 

Yeah, that difference is because water charges are included in CT in Scotland, whereas in England you generally pay a bill to a private water company. Scottish councils can't pay CTB in respect of the part of your CT bill that is water charges, as that wouldn't be fair to folks in England.

[Simon7685]

Just double checked my council and there is NO protection for disabled people, I misread it first time. I must have been asleep when this was brought out, as finding out today has been the first I've seen of it.

 

The main stand out point I have thought of is, if the money provided by central Govt is being cut by 10%, how come we are being expected to pay 20%? Is that not just blatant profiteering from money given to them for benefit purposes?

 

When on earth are these people going to realise that the answer is not to hit the most needy in society. They want those with nothing to pay 20%, when they can't they take them to court, which costs them money.

 

Once through the court process the costs to the council have increased still further. Then they get an attachment to benefit of £3.35 a week until the debt is paid. They receive this money from the DWP every 4 weeks in arrears.

 

In the meantime the budgets the council set each year fall into disrepair and they require to borrow money to plug the gap from people who can't pay, this costs the council even more money.

 

So the end result is the council end up paying probably twice as much as they ever stand to recover. In effect spending £2 to recover £1.

 

Would it not make more sense to ask those that can afford it, the more affluent if you like to pay a bit more? Controversial maybe but be honest can someone on benefit of £71 a week afford £3, no they can't. Will someone in say the highest band be able to afford £3 a week, probably based only the fact of the size of their home. Obviously some won't be if they are in need of support, they probably already get CTB. Would the more well off be able to absord the £3 a week, I think so.

 

Like I said controversial but it isn't rocket science.

[shortieb]

That's not the case Antone, not in this instance anyway. the person I'm talking about has a private water supply and does not pay any water charges at all when not on benefits. Yet now on full benefits, she has been told to pay 10 per cent of what her council tax would have been, taken to court, and the collectors are taking £10 per fortnight off what the government has deemed it necessary for her to live on - plus 10 per cent for themselves!

[antone]

Afraid that's not the case, as the person I'm talking about has a private water supply and does not pay any water charges at all when not on benefits.

 

Yes, they may not be connected to the water mains, but water is regarded as a public service in Scotland. However, they should be able to gain exemption from this part of CT if they have a private supply.

 

Or perhaps D&G has already implemented the new regime - I'm not familiar with the timetable for this odious rollout.

[id6052]

The main stand out point I have thought of is, if the money provided by central Govt is being cut by 10%, how come we are being expected to pay 20%? Is that not just blatant profiteering from money given to them for benefit purposes?

 

LAs are to receive 10 % less funding than they received for CTB, however the government have stated that pensioners are to be protected from any reduction

 

My local Council has a 60 % pensioner caseload for CTB

 

Any Council which has a 50+ % pensioner caseload will be unable to reduce their CTB, this results in an average 20+ % reduction for all working age claims

 

Would it not make more sense to ask those that can afford it, the more affluent if you like to pay a bit more? Controversial maybe but be honest can someone on benefit of £71 a week afford £3, no they can't. Will someone in say the highest band be able to afford £3 a week, probably based only the fact of the size of their home. Obviously some won't be if they are in need of support, they probably already get CTB. Would the more well off be able to absord the £3 a week, I think so.

 

The more well off would not be in receipt of CTB???

[id6052]

Yes, they may not be connected to the water mains, but water is regarded as a public service in Scotland. However, they should be able to gain exemption from this part of CT if they have a private supply.

 

Or perhaps D&G has already implemented the new regime - I'm not familiar with the timetable for this odious rollout.

 

D&G still fall under the existing national CTB scheme

[id6052]

just tried to look on D&G's website to see if there were any consultation documents - it should win an award for the worst LA website in the UK

Edited September 26, 2012 by id6052

[id6052]

though it appears scottish claimants may be protected from the change

 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2012/04/counciltax19042012

 

for the first year at least 2013/2014

[antone]

D&G still fall under the existing national CTB scheme

 

Fair enough. So, assuming shortieb's friend already receives the water charge exemption, can you think why he or she is being expected to cover 10% of their CT while on CTB? It's a new one to me.

[id6052]

Fair enough. So, assuming shortieb's friend already receives the water charge exemption, can you think why he or she is being expected to cover 10% of their CT while on CTB? It's a new one to me.

 

The only reasons I can think of are the usual ones: -

 

1. water and waste charges
   
2. excess income
   
3. non-dep deductions
   
4. arrears
   

Edited September 26, 2012 by id6052

[Kitten1]

Ok,

 

We, as a family, receive NO benefits aside from family allowance. We pay £100 per month council tax. Our income v outgoing is very tight. We have no savings whatsoever.

 

Yes, I'm all for ensuring the elderly & disabled are supported in any way they need to be. Hell, its what the system was set up for in the first place!

 

What I do take offence to is somebody with a couple of thousand in the bank being able to keep it & still claim benefits! That beggars belief in my eyes. Surely, if you can support yourself via savings of a few thousand then you should do it.

 

My husband & I have been contacted about the proposed changes in our area re: council tax. We never knew you were allowed to have savings of that level & still claim full council tax benefit!

 

Basically, as I see it, why should my family have to top up somebody else's council tax when they have however many thousands in the bank? I might not be getting benefits but that doesn't mean I'm loaded!

[Nystagmite]

They may have many thousands in the bank; but that money might be to top up their rent with. It might be money for medical equipment which NHS won't cover.

[Kitten1]

I don't begrudge people for having savings per se.

 

When we got the survey a while ago, I remember it saying roughly how many people would be affected by each suggestion. And I'm sorry but the whole issue with the savings got to me.

 

I spent (luckily) a short period on jsa last year. We really struggled to pay our mortgage etc but we got nothing else. It taught us a lot about our lifestyle etc & now we can live on less. We have to. My husband works very hard & earns every single penny he gets. But, if he gets so much as a cost of living increase to his salary, we loose the family allowance. And

[Kitten1]

Argh! Posted before I finished!

 

And then we end up worse off! Go figure.

 

I don't know what the answer is in this situation but I really don't see why money in the bank can't be used towards ANY living expenses. And council tax is a living expense. As is rent or mortgage.

[Simon7685]

LAs are to receive 10 % less funding than they received for CTB, however the government have stated that pensioners are to be protected from any reduction

 

My local Council has a 60 % pensioner caseload for CTB

 

Any Council which has a 50+ % pensioner caseload will be unable to reduce their CTB, this results in an average 20+ % reduction for all working age claims

 

 

 

The more well off would not be in receipt of CTB???

 

No I know they wouldn't, which was my point, maybe I didn't get it across correctly, I think those that are more fortunate or well off could shoulder this much better and with less effect than those who are not. i was also consious of trying to show a "devils advocate" approach by not automatically assuming that those who live in the highest banding for CT would also be the ones who could afford it. Obviously someone in that position could also be reliant on state benefits or have little income, in which case they would be liable for CTB therefore making them inappropriate for levying the increase on.

 

That still sounds complicated I know:???: but I know what I mean:wink:

 

Ialso hadn't considered that the LA's would have to budget for the pensioners being exempt and had assumed (silly boy) that central Govt would have covered there 100% entitlement. So just shows, read and double read before posting it, sorry:oops:

[Nystagmite]

 

I don't know what the answer is in this situation but I really don't see why money in the bank can't be used towards ANY living expenses. And council tax is a living expense. As is rent or mortgage.

 

I require a lot of expensive medical equipment which NHS won't fund. If I use my savings for council tax, how do I buy this equipment? It's the same for many disabled people. And many people find that JSA isn't enough to live on; so must use their savings to live.

[Kitten1]

I'm not posting to cause an argument hun. Like I said in my first post, I'm all for the elderly & disabled being supported in any way they can. It's what benefits are for! If somebody needs expensive medical equipment then that's a whole different ball game.

 

But I stand by my comment that council tax is a living expense that, if needs be, should be paid with savings. I know jsa is hardly worth the paper its written on.

 

You can only tax the working people so far before they end up in a situation where they need benefits to survive.

 

IMHO

[antone]

The issue is that generally, the government has felt that encouraging people to save is a good thing. Who knows what might happen down the line - your boiler fails, winds tear up your roof, your cooker conks out, you can add your own scenarios. But there's no incentive to save for a rainy day if means tested benefits simply wipe all of that out, at least for those who are at the margins and are insecurely employed. And if you have no savings and find yourself in one of these situations, government funded loans and grants are your only recourse.

 

This is, well, suboptimal. Maybe you feel the limits are too high, and that's your right. But I believe the principle is sound.

[antone]

The only reasons I can think of are the usual ones: -

 

 

1. water and waste charges
   
2. excess income
   
3. non-dep deductions
   
4. arrears
   

 

Thank you. If shortieb could provide more information on this I would be grateful, since it might help us offer advice to others in the future.

[estellyn]

The issue is that generally, the government has felt that encouraging people to save is a good thing. Who knows what might happen down the line - your boiler fails, winds tear up your roof, your cooker conks out, you can add your own scenarios. But there's no incentive to save for a rainy day if means tested benefits simply wipe all of that out, at least for those who are at the margins and are insecurely employed. And if you have no savings and find yourself in one of these situations, government funded loans and grants are your only recourse.

 

This is, well, suboptimal. Maybe you feel the limits are too high, and that's your right. But I believe the principle is sound.

 

cynically, I think this is another avenue for insurance companies to capitalise on - benefit claimants not allowed savings, take out insurance against unexpected expenses. Disgusting.

[Kitten1]

Yes, the principal of saving for a rainy day or to cover unexpected expenses is a sound idea. But surely being unable to work is an unexpected situation? I'm not saying that they can't have savings at all, I just don't agree with the level they are allowed.