I have a client who is regarded as 'self-employed'by benefits but not by the tax office. He works in the film industry and the contracts are last minute and with long periods of unemployment in between. He is currently behind with his Council Tax payments and as he is at the moment out of work & not receiving any benefit I have advised he offers £3.00 per week short term to be in line with payments of others on I.S or JSA. This has been refused £10 per week has been suggested & seems to be non negotionable. I thought that as long as an offer has been made it should be accepted even if only short term. Please advise how other authorities deal with this.

Unfortunately, there's no hard and fast rule that determines that an authority must accept an offer that has been made although some degree of common sense should come into play. It could be that the authority thinks that £10.00 is reasonable and that is why they are sticking to their guns. What might be useful is to supply a list of income and outgoings to support why £3.00 is all that he can afford.

That is just a genaral view as there may be other issues such as previous failed arrangements etc which might be considered by the authority in taking the view that they have.

They do have to accept the money , even though they don't have to agree to hold further actions.
I would think it is worth paying the amount anyway. If right down the line they apply for a liability order, and then later for commital for wilfully witholding payments, with a financial statement showing he can't afford more, and regular payments, they would at least be less likely to get him commited and imprisioned.

Without wishing to put you on the spot, I'd be interested to understand the logic which suggests that if £3 a week is all that can be afforded, why a history of broken payments means that more should be paid? I'm sure it's not intended to be, but it does come across as punitive and I have heard such things said before by LA revenues staff, though I'm not suggesting for one minute that you subscribe to such views.

The local authority's discretion to accept repayment terms is by no means unchallengeable. LAs are public bodies and must abide by the law in all their activities as much as any of the rest of us have to.

A LA's refusal to accept a reasonable repayment offer may raise various public law issues including:

1) Unreasonable use of discretion - challengeable by judicial review.
2) Breach of the LA's fiduciary duties by increasing the likelihood of higher debt recovery costs and for refusing to accept a payment. If payment is made, the LA are normally duty bound to take it - exceptions being things like cheques written on cows and piles of loose pennies. (Also Judicial Review and possibly of interest to the District Auditor).
3) ECHR issues around disproportionate use of local authortiy power against an individual (esp for smaller debts or a vulnerable individual)- (again JR).
4) Complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman for maladministration (i.e. because of unfairness and not offering an adaquate remedy when one is due, see R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ex p Balchin).

All fairly heavy stuff but if the LA are willing and able to use drastic remedies, such as taking away personal posessions or even imprisonment to protect their interests, so must we for our clients.

Actually starting to make the reasonable payment strengthens one's hand considerably and might possibly create an estoppel preventing the LA from taking further action, as well as reducing the debt.