Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
Council tax support and non dependants
I understand the basic rules of the eligibility of CTS. However, I cannot find out the levels of non dependant deductions applied because of the non dependant’s earnings. My client’s son is in full time employment. A maximum non dependant deduction of £19.80 has been applied, as detals of his earnimgs were not given at that point. We now have details of the son’s earnings, but I am unable to find out the level of deduction, which would be made, so I am unable to do an eligibility check. The LA website has the general rules of CTS, but no information about amounts of non dependant deductions. I tried for 45 minutes to get this information by phone - 0945 121 2970. No success. I was eventually told to try the DWP website. When I explained the reasons why this was not a rational answer, the adviser on the phone was stumped.
Is there an avenue I have not fully explored?
Rochdale council’s website merely says that NDD from April 2013 when CTS comes in have ‘doubled’ so I suppose if you have last years NDD rates you could double them?! However the council should be publishing the rates so you may have to get back on the phone…
Thank you. I didn’t think of that!
This raises a wider issue. I suspect there are some Councils who do not actually have a substantive CTR scheme as such, but have simply adopted a statement along the lines of “we will run the default scheme subject to these variations”. The variations are not legally drafted as amendments to the default scheme, they are just expressions of policy like “we will double the non-dep deductions” . I wonder whether, if they cannot produce an actual scheme, they will get away with this in proceedings? The consequences of not getting away with it are that they will have to apply the default scheme instead (which is basically CTB without any cuts).
There’s an ambiguity in Rochdale’s scheme summary - are they doubling last year’s rates 2 x £3.30 etc, or this year’s rates 2 x£ 3.65 etc? I’ve tried getting in touch with them a couple of times about their LCTS but no response so far so I’m assuming the worst for the moment.
(But looking at the original post it looks like it’s 2 x last year rates.. oh well)
[ Edited: 28 Mar 2013 at 11:10 pm by Jon Blackwell ]This raises a wider issue. I suspect there are some Councils who do not actually have a substantive CTR scheme as such, but have simply adopted a statement along the lines of “we will run the default scheme subject to these variations”. The variations are not legally drafted as amendments to the default scheme, they are just expressions of policy like “we will double the non-dep deductions” . I wonder whether, if they cannot produce an actual scheme, they will get away with this in proceedings? The consequences of not getting away with it are that they will have to apply the default scheme instead (which is basically CTB without any cuts).
Absolutely, a full set of regs (or a full set of amemdments from DS or saved CTB regs at least.)
There is a statutory requirement to publish a scheme:
LGFA 1992 Schedule 1A
“3(3) Having made a scheme, the authority must publish it in such manner as the authority thinks fit.”..
.. you’d hope that “beware of the leopard” wouldn’t apply here but who knows if it will go that way?
One or two schemes are a real mess regs-wise so I can understand the temptation to hide them away.
[Girdy, I’ll be in touch with the CAB on Tuesday re amendment]
DCLG issued a note on 26 March 2013 about this:
Publishing local schemes
With new, local, schemes going live next week this is a reminder to all local authorities that the Local Government Finance Act 2012 places a statutory duty on you to publish details of your local scheme. The Act does not prescribe the format in which this information is published, only that it is published.
Some LA’s have forgotten to include key parts into their local scheme. For instance, non-dep rates, savings tariffs and so on. Nothing they can do now legally until next year. BUT there may be a temptation for a few to “carry on as normal” and hope no-one notices.
My respectful advice to advisers is:
a) get a copy of the local scheme
b) check to make sure this was the version agreed by members
c) dont presume; check to ensure the rules are as the LA thinks they are
d) check the wording; DCLG has made some significant changes to the default/ prescribed that will affect entitlement
e) ignore much of the wording on letters issued by LA’s; there is no longer “one month to appeal” or report a change in circs (no time limit and 21 days are the true requirements)
Finally, very few LA staff seem to have much idea what is actually in their own local scheme…including training and appeals staff responsible for this area. This is understandable of course; with so much going on at the same time resources are very stretched and CTS has taken a back seat.
Nothing they can do now legally until next year.
Peter - i’m still trying to work out just how hamstrung councils are now in terms of schemes adopted by 31-Jan.
What would your view be on those authorities which never even presented draft regs for members approval (just lists of policy points). Could execution errors in those schemes could still be fixed as it wouldn’t be changing anything that members hadn’t signed up to?
Similarly, what do you think the situation is for those authorities where members have delegated powers to officers to draft and redraft the scheme regulations or where the scheme itself contains powers for further changes in-year. There’s plenty of these with respect to UC for example but there are some which go much wider. I’m wondering where the line will be drawn (and by whom?)
Jon…firstly I think this is the area where JR should have been aimed i.e. that the full Council did not in fact make a scheme by 31 Jan 2013 as required. The more generous default scheme then applies. I dont think the LA’s in question would have had a defence.
The situation is indeed tricky with in year changes. Fair enough with areas where the LA could not know something was changing; there is legislation that allows this. But if the Council just wants to amend the scheme (because it realises it is going to be too expensive perhaps or they “forgot” to include something)? I dont see how this can be lawful at all. Unfortunately it is only going to be the Courts that can clarify that.
The practical issue? A WR challenges a decision to a VT and the LA turns up in July 2013 to say “oh yes we agree we got that wrong…so to stop paying out your client and others we have changed our policy from April 2013”. The Government did it of course….
It is very strange really. The bedroom tax will impact on far fewer people than the approx 2.5 million affected by CTS in England. The latter will likely lead to huge debts as bailiffs have a field day…with the potential for bankruptcy and imprisonment. Yet there is so little debate about it in the media by comparison.