New Council Tax Reduction Scheme from April 2023

What are advisers experiences of Local Authorities new CTRS for 2023-2024? Are the bands being adjusted as per the inflation rate of 10.1% being applied to DWP Benefits? The new scheme in Somerset means that some disabled claimants in receipt of PIP will now be paying 60% of the CTax bill whereas last year it was 25%.
https://www.somerset.gov.uk/benefits-and-payments/council-tax-reduction/

Our local authority’s scheme is based on the default scheme, whereas the Somerset scheme looks very different. In our LA everyone has to pay at least 25% of their CT, you have an applicable amount based on the structure of income support, and income above the applicable amount is subject to a 26% taper. PIP is disregarded as income. A minimum income floor linked to the national living wage is applied.

The applicable amounts have not changed since 2017/18 whereas the MIF, of course, goes up with the NLW. The effect is to reduce eligibility and amount of reduction over time, but the changes are small and affect relatively few people. The PIP disregard is the key protection.

Bristol’s scheme is unchanged for 23/24 and broadly replicates the old CTB rules. Applicable amounts have been uprated annually in line with HB.

UC claimants have their maximum award imported and any earned income + UC entitlement used to determine excess income before a 20% taper is applied.

Either the new Somerset Council is not familiar with its own CTRS regs. or the outsourced Capita IT has failed again. Perversely the ESA Support Group component is ignored but not the UC LCWRA ( no mention in all 81 pages of the CTRS policy doc )

  “When working out your weekly income, we will ignore:

£25 a week from all earnings if you or your partner work
£30 a week from all income if you, your partner or dependant child is disabled
income from Carers Allowance, the support component of Employment and Support Allowance, Child Benefit, any Child Maintenance, war pensions and war disablement pensions;
the amount of the housing element in your Universal Credit”

Interestingly the UC claimant doesn’t need to claim the CTRS separately as the CIS notification via a new UC claim will suffice. Though in the past this has not been the case with some LAs.
52.2. An application may be made;
(a) in writing,
(b) by means of an electronic communication in accordance with Part 4 of this Schedule, or
(c) where the authority has published a telephone number for the purpose of receiving such
applications, by telephone.
(d) a notification of Universal Credit or any legacy benefit from DWP, may be treated by the
authority as a claim for reduction.

In Middlesbrough we’re on an income band scheme but the bands have been increased by the same rate as benefits. So last years £0 - £100pw band (for a single person giving a 90% discount) has now changed to £0 - £110.10pw.

The briefing paper that was sent to Councillors before voting was also alive to the issues that Somerset apparently weren’t: “For some claimants, this increase in income from benefits due to the inflation uplift would mean a change in band based on the income ranges set, which would result in their experiencing a drop in the level of support ...  It is therefore proposed to adjust the income band ranges for 2023/24 to reflect the inflation increase applied to benefits and maintain the level of support for applicants.”

High Peak Borough Council have changed to a new system and introduced a £10k threshold so no claim applicable if you have above £10k.  They have also introduced a 2 child limit to claims.

At a recent meeting they also said that SDA is fully taken into account.

UB40 - it sounds as if we may have a similar Scheme in North Yorkshire, possibly both are based on a Scheme proposal by a specific consultant. There is a large discrepancy between the way UC claimants are treated in comparison to legacy benefit claimants which results in people moving from legacy benefits to UC experiencing a marked increase in their CT bill. It appears that the problems arise through a lack of understanding about the structure of UC but it could be that it’s a deliberate attempt to reduce future CTR expenditure.
It’s a new scheme so there’s no direct comparison to previous years’ banding. There is a 100% discount level which is very beneficial to some residents.
We are seeking clarity but it appears, as you mention, that those on UC with lcwra will not have the lcwra element disregarded, in contrast to the cESA support element. If on IS, ibJSA or irESA a claimant is passported to 100% discount, someone on the same amount (or less) on UC will not be (even if receiving UC maximum) and may pay more - this particularly affects larger families and disabled people. Also, an amount of the housing costs element is taken into account if claimants have any income other than UC - unlike HB for legacy benefits and creating a very complex calculation to work out CTR entitlement (and the Scheme wording around this is confusing). Carers have to claim CA in order to get a carer disregard - again the UC carer element is not included in determining the disregard.
We are worried about the impact on residents, particularly as UC migration picks up. We have provided detailed information raising our concerns and have been told that this has been noted when they look at claims for discretionary support.