Brent Council is to adopt changes to the Council Tax Support scheme that will require residents to pay at least 35% of their Council Tax Bill (increased again this year by 4.8% D-band total £2,133.15). It will also require non-dependent members of the house-hold to pay £8 weeky if not in work and £20 if in work.
The majority of resident respondents rejected the proposed changes at consultation but the Council faced with a new deficit of £16m and a potential saving of up to £8m in council tax support costs will go ahead. The changes do not affect pensioners as they are in a separate Government administered scheme.
The Cabinet report states:
The aim of these changes is for all households to contribute towards the Council services that residents in the borough benefit from. However, it is recognised that where a resident is unable to work because of their disability they may face a particularly significant impact, as they may have higher disability related costs and will not have the ability to increase their income. The Council Tax Support scheme seeks to reduce this impact, by disregarding all income from DWP or HMRC benefits in the Council Tax Support calculation. This includes disability related benefits, disability premiums, carer’s allowance and much more.
The Yellow column above is the reduction in the amount of Council Tax to be paid.
The yellow column above is the weekly amount of Council Tax that non-dependant members of the household will have to pay
The results of the Council's consultation are below showing the majority of respondents rejected the change. The majority of respondents were non-recipients of Council Tax Support:
The consultation enabled people to comment and these make interesting reading including the comment in this article's headline:
Out of 397 responses, 115 respondents also left comments.
For the people that Agree or Strongly agree, the top themes that emerged were:
• Reasonable – These respondents thought that the changes proposed were reasonable given the Council’s financial situation and need to make savings. These respondents in general thought that the scheme was generous and that it was a fair proposal to introduce a minimum contribution for all Council Tax Support recipients.
• Scheme Recommendations – Some respondents raised suggestions for the new scheme. These included: Reducing the top band to 80% instead of such a steep drop to 65% & reducing last band to 15% (instead of 20%), having council tax support as a monetary value (i.e. £) rather than a % reduction, including a vulnerable group to be exempt from 35% minimum contribution & including other income, capital or savings into the means testing (e.g. property, benefits income, etc.)
• Scheme still too generous – Some people agreed but thought the minimum contribution should be higher, for example, 50%.
For the people that Disagree or Strongly disagree, the top themes that emerged were:
• Financial Difficulties – These respondents thought that the changes proposed would cause them to fall into further financial difficulty. The cost-of-living struggle was frequently mentioned as well as an inability to pay the additional council tax that would be required. Many people raised concerns around their disability and the inability to find work or increase their income. Some answers highlighted that pushing residents into further financial difficulty could increase the demand on other council services and reduce the actual savings achieved by this change.
• Protecting the Vulnerable – Many respondents raised concerns around disabled residents, the elderly, carers, or parents all with a reduced ability to find employment and cover the council tax shortfall that will be created because of this change to their support. These answers raised worries that this scheme change would affect those on a low-income unfairly and expects those with the lowest income to find spare income that doesn’t exist. Responses highlighted that people were already struggling and this change would only serve to exacerbate their struggle.
• Unfair – These replies often highlighted that they thought it was unfair to target those in receipt of Council Tax Support who have low-incomes already and an inability to pay council tax often being carers, disabled or in receipt of benefits only. Some answers highlighted that the people receiving this support are already on the poverty line and this change could push people into poverty. Some respondents believed that the change would breach Discrimination & Human Rights & Equality Laws.
• Find savings elsewhere – These answers highlighted the need for the council to find the savings from somewhere else. Some of the reasons given were that this change would be potentially more costly in the long run due to increased demand on council services or increased outstanding debt. These responses raised that the changes were targeting individuals who don’t have the means to contribute more, and many suggestions were received to look to the wealthier residents within the borough for savings. Other suggestions included: advocatingfor more equitable funding from central government, finding efficiencies in other areas of spending, increase income rather than cut services, targeting outstanding debt/fraud or council tax evasion or reducing Brent employee salaries.
Question 2 - Changes to the Council Tax Support non-dependant deductions
(£8 deduction for non-dep in household out of work and £20 deduction for non-dep in household in work).
Out of 397 responses, 88 respondents also left comments.
For the people that Agree or Strongly agree, the top themes that emerged were:
• Fair – These respondents thought that it was fair to ask non- dependants to contribute towards household bills including Council Tax and sensible to look at household income as a total rather than only the income of a claimant or partner.
• Simpler – Comments highlighted that a two flat-rate deduction system is an improvement on the previous system and would be simpler or easier for residents to understand.
• Unfair – Whilst these people agreed with the proposal, they believed in general that the £20 deduction for working non-dependants was fair whereas the £8 deduction for non-working was too much of an ask.
• Scheme Recommendations – These comments made suggestions to not take non-dependant deductions for students.
For the people that Disagree or Strongly disagree, the top themes that emerged were:
• Financial Difficulties – These respondents thought that the charges proposed were too much of an increase especially considering the current cost of living. Some people highlighted that £20/week for a working non-dependant would be over £1000 per annum and a significant portion of the Council Tax bill. These respondents highlighted that this change would not be affordable, further push families into poverty or struggle and that this change would hit the poorest.
• Unfair – Some of the suggestions received thought that the £8 deduction was too much for non-dependants that are not working, disabled or students. Some people believed that deductions for working non-dependants should be means tested & based on their income level, with higher earners contributing more.
• Find savings elsewhere – These comments suggested that Brent look to other ways of making the savings or cutting costs. These included looking at efficiency savings within the council, increasing fines for parking penalties/littering/anti-social behaviour etc. or empty property rate.
Brent Citizens Advice Bureau conducted their own survey of the impact of the changes:
We conducted a flash survey to determine how the proposed changes to CTS could affect Brent residents. In total, we surveyed 32 CTS claimants over a period of 3 weeks. The survey was targeted at Brent residents who already receive some level of CTS, with questions aiming to establish respondents’ current council tax liability, level of council tax support, and whether they maintain a positive budget. This enabled us to assess how the proposed changes will alter the financial situations of individual households.
Key Findings
• The average council tax bill increase for the CTS claimants we surveyed was £524.98
• 13 out of 32 CTS claimants we surveyed did not have enough income to cover their monthly costs, despite receiving the maximum level of CTS.
• 2 in 3 CTS claimants we surveyed will receive a new or increased council tax bill that they currently do not have the monthly income to pay.
Their report and its recommendations are worth reading in full:
3 comments:
This is a terrible news for so many people on low incomes in Brent made worse by 10 years worth of inflation busting Council Tax Rises imposed by the Labour Council and the Labour Mayor of London - including another one this year. For years Labour complained about lack of support from the Tory Government - now we have a Labour one and sadly nothing has changed.
What is the point of putting £1.5 million into a hardship fund and making the pain worse? The hardship fund will no doubt be re only thus making it difficult for many and soak up a lot of the money in complicated bureaucracy. Those hard up will simply be paying for the even more hard up.
It would be better to reduce this Labour inspired Council Tax hit on the 20,000 by NOT syphoning off the £1.5 million to another complicated and bureaucratic claim process.
This article regarding the Council Tax Support Scheme of Brent Council raises questions in my mind about what extra charges may be incurred beyond the £99.00 I have been paying for the period from January 2024 to April 2025.
So 17,000 homes out of about 120,000, plus say 30,000 students accommodations don't pay council tax, or if they do, at a much reduced rate. So around 80% or less residents pay for the council's expenditure. We must not forget the near £1b the council have borrowed for all sorts of things, including 7 primary schools that we don't need. Then the £2m on the Civic Centre etc, etc. How about spending all the Highways resurfacing budget on the High Road, and the new (awful) pavement on the High Road etc, etc, etc I bet the leader's office is nice and comfy, well, he has to meet all his developer friends somewhere, not forgetting his other best buddies?
Post a Comment