Forum Home → Discussion → Other benefit issues → Thread
CTR schemes - legal requirement on LA to publish details?
Are LA’s required to publish any / all details of their scheme? I know they are required to consult - but once approved are they then also required to publish the details?
One of our LA’s has made major amendments to its scheme but no details published (yet). But they are issuing decision notices (& some clients become considerably worse off) and we are unable to advise with no info.
Issue raised/ complaint made to council etc. but confirmation of legal requirement to publish (or not) appreciated.
Para 3(3), Schedule 1A LGFA 1992:
Having made a scheme, the authority must publish it in such manner as the authority thinks fit.
In any event, you could FOI it surely?
To some extent, I would probably be advising people to challenge these decision notices to the extent that the legal basis for them is unclear and putting it to the council to justify their decision making by reference to the actual scheme.
Para 3(3), Schedule 1A LGFA 1992:
Having made a scheme, the authority must publish it in such manner as the authority thinks fit.
In any event, you could FOI it surely?
To some extent, I would probably be advising people to challenge these decision notices to the extent that the legal basis for them is unclear and putting it to the council to justify their decision making by reference to the actual scheme.
Hi Elliott - yes FOI and challenges made - its the frustration of working blindfold (and the potentially unnecessary extra work)! thanks for providing the ref.
Which LA?
Which LA?
Gareth -Oxford City. All the links they have provided are to previous versions! Apparently the details are awaiting ‘confirmation & checking’ before publication! Shame they have not also held issuing decisions.
Have a look at Item #83 here
https://mycouncil.oxford.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=157&MId=5657&Ver=4
Have a look at Item #83 here
https://mycouncil.oxford.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=157&MId=5657&Ver=4
Hi Gareth
Apparently the full regulations are still with the contractor that has drafted them for the council. The new scheme is similar to the councils Class F scheme 20-21 that applied only to claimants in receipt of UC (an banded income scheme). However, there are some variations including that there is no applicable amount used in the new scheme. On the council’s own admission there are winners and losers. Particularly claimants on low income who were entitled to 100% CTR under the old scheme may now only get 75 or 50% CTR. Of course those are the claimants who are contacting advice agencies etc.
Although the council have been pro-active in contacting claimants who will be worse off and have a budget to provide interim support - some are slipping through that net. For example, claimants neither on a legacy ‘passport’ benefit or UC (but are entitled if claim) but would otherwise be ‘passported’ to 100% CTR. Because the council have also changed the content of CTR decision notices without the scheme rules it is difficult to check calculations and advice clients!
for example a client who was on ESA(IB) but failed to claim an alternative / challenge decision when ‘found fit’ who has been living on CA/CHB/CTC and child’s DLA since - now has to pay 25% liability. Obviously we have advised a claim for UC.
Apparently the full regulations are still with the contractor that has drafted them for the council.
If the council haven’t had the regulations, how can they have adopted them?
Apparently the full regulations are still with the contractor that has drafted them for the council.
If the council haven’t had the regulations, how can they have adopted them?
I understand its about ‘approving’ the version / format (including basic info. as well as full rules) to place on the council’s website rather than not having been approved by council (I am assuming the officers / councillors have seen the full rules!) . But whatever the explanation its not helpful and unlawful!
I have now seen 2 decision notices - it looks like a possible issue is that as there is no applicable amount used in the new scheme, just a system of income/earnings disregard to arrive at a banded income figure - CTC is being taken into account in full as income with no disregard equivalent to child applicable amounts (unlike CHB / DLA / PIP for example which are disregarded). For claimants not ‘passported’ due to IS/ESA/JSA or nil earnings within UC the new scheme ‘inflates’ a claimant’s income compared to their HB calc. = max HB but only 75% or 50% CTR. But without sight of the full scheme rules I could be wrong!
Well I hope the consultants are doing a pretty thorough job on it, because the 20/21 Class F drafting is, um, interesting shall we say. If those same consultants were responsible for Class F you should have lots of fun with the 21/22 version when it is finally released!
Putting to one side the fact that grammar is clearly not important in Oxford, I am particularly taken with “would have been awarded Universal Credit other than for any amendments”.
I also like the schedule of disregarded income, none of which would have been included by DWP in the first place
Gareth / Peter
I don’t know if it’s the same consultants. Yes there were various drafting issues with class F including (from memory) what elements of UC ‘income’ (applicable amount - excluding housing costs) actually should be included / excluded / disregarded to achieve the intended “UC award” figure for the purposes of ‘net income’ for banding. For example, overpayments of legacy treated as ‘income’ under UC(TP)Reg. 10 was being taken into account as “UC other income” (actual income) for CTR.
It seems to me it’s a bit like a house of card - if one removes a card (such as the applicable amount) half the house falls down even though one had hoped the whole house would remain standing when what might have been a better plan was to take down all the cards and build a new house!
Our understanding is that the 21-22 working age scheme is an interim change and the council’s intention is to move the scheme even further away from any resemblance to a means tested benefit and treat / administer it wholly as a CT discount (which of course it is anyway) from 22-23. The council is intending to introduce a new IT system to replace academy during 21-22.
To update
The council have now acknowledged there is an issue with a banded income scheme and the failure to disregard CTC. Apparently the soft wear provider (Capita) have had to amend the soft wear to disregard CTC as this is not standard (as indeed it would not be in a calculation based on an applicable amount). Once the scheme rules have been amended to mitigate for this issue the 21-22 scheme will be published. It would still be interesting to know the identity of the consultants who advised on the revised scheme!
Isn’t it too late to amend the scheme rules for this year now? (See Para 5(2) of Sched 1A to the Local Government Finance Act 1992.)
Isn’t it too late to amend the scheme rules for this year now? (See Para 5(2) of Sched 1A to the Local Government Finance Act 1992.)
Charles, that issue had occurred to me. Of course without sight of the current scheme it is difficult to know if anything actually needs to be amended (which I’m am assuming it does given the previous issues with the drafting of class F mentioned above!). Which rather leaves open the question of what the council can do otherwise to resolve the identified problem if they cannot amend the scheme itself. Any ‘work around’ that resolves the issue for our clients / affected claimants is to be welcomed. As they have now stated - “[it] has been a learning curve to the application of a banded scheme”.