new council tax initiative from Garden Court Chambers

‘Garden Court Chambers has launched the Legal Action on the Council Tax initiative. Our aim is to ensure that residents struggling to pay their council tax bills receive legal advice and representation.

Following the government’s abolition of nationwide council tax benefit for those of limited means, each local authority has been given discretion to offer whatever reduction or support schemes it deems appropriate. The fear is that many of those on low incomes or in receipt of welfare benefits will not be able to meet their new council tax liabilities.

In response, barristers at Garden Court Chambers have launched Legal Action on Council Tax, an initiative aimed at ensuring that wherever possible, legal advice and representation reaches unrepresented council tax payers who are in difficulty meeting their council tax bills.’

http://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/news/news_detail.cfm?iNewsID=829

Excellent news, Garden Court, in the avante garde as ever.

I did have one question in my mind when viewing the GC website information; this is regarding challenging a decision on section 13[a]1[][c] ,  The site suggests that an appeal lies to the Valuation Tribunal if the claim is refused. However as it is discretionary,  in my experience the VT will not acknowledge jurisdiction for discretionary decisions.

If I have fallen into error on this I am sure I will soon be corrected

[ I know that some Councils have set aside a fund for discretionary payments, analagous to the DHP scheme but these are not widely advertised, and of course ALL Councils can make discretionary discounts to ANY Council Tax payer who appears to requirer assistance, though again many Councils prefer to keep this power hidden under a bushel !!!].

I suspect you are right, a well regarded practitioner has recently reminded LAs of a VT decision reported in the September 2007 VTS publication. The relevant bits are copied below. The final para relates to the exercise of powers under Section 13A

In short in would need a judicial review not a VT appeal.

* The VT could hear an appeal from an aggrieved council taxpayer against a BA’s refusal to abide by
its own resolution. Although the power to make a resolution was discretionary, once that resolution
was passed by the Council, it was binding on the BA.

* The position regarding a BA’s failure to exercise its discretion in an individual case was a different
matter. If, as in the case under consideration, the BA refused to reduce a council taxpayer’s liability
to nil, it was not within the VT’s jurisdiction to investigate the reasonableness of the BA’s
decision not to write off her outstanding debt. In the VT’s opinion, an application for a judicial
review before the High Court would have been more appropriate. In appeals of this nature, the VT was
not empowered to substitute its own discretion for that of the BA.

The way I read that case report, both comments are referring to discretion under s13A(1)(c).

The first paragraph is referring to the situation where the Council has made a policy decision identifying a class of cases in which discretionary reductions will be applied.  It is open to a taxpayer to appeal on the basis that s/he falls within the class identified in the Council’s resolution adopting the policy.

The second paragraph is referring to refusal of a discretionary reduction in a one-off case, where there is no right of appeal.

Many authorities have set aside discretionary pots of money for s13A(1)(c) reductions (in most cases matched pro rata by the preceptors) and have adopted a framework setting out the criteria they will apply when deciding whether someone should benefit from it.  The Leicestershire two-tier authorities have done this.  It may be that the VT will see itself as having jurisdiction to hear appeals brought by unsuccessful applicants under such schemes.

Thanks for these helpful comments. Under the original section 13[a] there was a part specifically stating that a right of appeal lay to to VT, however the VTs declined to follow this and refused to hear cases on the discretionary issues. I think they were correct to do so and I suspect that if they start to take on cases now even under the sort of case that Leicester etc are proposing they will be going beyond their powers.

The best remedy I found for dealing with LAs who did not want to give help via section 13[a] was to ask for very detailed explanations and if, as was often the case the LA had applied a blanket policy in their decision making, to gently remind them of where this could lead them. They as often as not had a re-think and paid up.

I agree with GCC.

DCLG recently clarified their view about the right of appeal against the refusal to award a discretionary deduction:

“A discretionary reduction made under section 13A(1)(c) of the LGFA 1992 can be the subject of an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal under section 16 of the LGFA 1992, whether or not it is part of the local authority’s scheme”.

This was after discussion with VTE it seems…the 2012 LGFA Act is more specific in that all published CTRS schemes must mention the above powers.

I don’t think the DCLG and the VTE have thought this through clearly——

copied from VTE today 09/05/13             “What We Don’t Do”
“Discretionary decisions of the council –  The only statutory avenue open to challenge such decisions of the council would be through the process known as ‘judicial review’ where the High Court is asked to consider whether the authority has acted within its legal powers. These discretionary decisions cannot be appealed to the Valuation Tribunal”.

If there is a right of appeal to a VT against a LA excercise of discretionary powers -, it follows surely that there must be a right of appeal against the VT decision . Is the VT also excercising discretionary powers when it decides on the LA case ?  and does the court or Tribunall to which the VT case is appealed have powers to overturn a discretionary decision ?

And can a DHP now be appealed to a Social Securtiy Tribunal !!!

I have asked GCC for an opinion,no news yet—————————still no news

still no news

There is a new Practice Statement from the President of the VTE (English VT - this won’t necessarily apply to Scotland or Wales) in which he says that the VTE will entertain appeals against refusal of discretionary reduction but only on JR-type grounds, they won’t revisit merits.  I’ll post a link when I am on the right computer - cannot do it just now.

My first thought is we have been here before with HB overpayments (RH 3/04) and the law didn’t stay that way for very long.

Got the link to the Practice Statement now and it looks like it will be one of those links that doesn’t paste properly.  Here goes:

http://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk/Libraries/Publications/Practice_Statement_-_A11_CTR_Appeals.sflb.ashx