Agenda Item 8
COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT WORKING PARTY
Minutes of a meeting of the Council Tax Support Working Party held on 15 August
2012 in the Committee Room, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00 am.
Members Present:
Mr K Johnson
Working Party:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Ms V Gay, Mr G Jones, Mr W Northam,
and Mr R Oliver.
Officers in
Attendance:
The Head of Finance, the Revenues and Benefits Services
Manager, the Procurement Officer, and the Democratic Services
Officer (ED)
13
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from the Benefits Manager.
14
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman informed the Working Party that a resolution had been submitted by
Ms V Gay and Mr G Jones.
Ms V Gay introduced the resolution:
‘We believe the Council Tax Benefit Localisation legislation to be flawed, potentially
creating negative impacts on individuals, families and the local economy. We accept
that the Council has to produce a local scheme by the set deadlines, but we believe
further time is required to achieve the fairest scheme possible for those in greatest
need. This is particularly important when there is:•
Pressure on the existing council tax system and the challenge of
introducing shared services with West Norfolk while also introducing any
changes to the support system.
•
A need to explore all options for a local scheme in greater depth,
including funding the scheme from outside the council tax benefit budget.
•
A requirement to carry out effective consultation on the proposals and
detailed impact assessments of likely options, on local residents and the
local economy.
•
A possibility of further amendments to the legislation as part of the final
approval process/implementation stage.
In light of this situation, it is proposed to create an interim arrangement for North
Norfolk to meet the legislative requirements and laid down timescales. This interim
scheme to be funded from non council tax benefit budgets and reserves for one year
only while further work is undertaken to agree future funding options in the light of
further investigative work.
Council Tax Support Working Party
1
15 August 2012
Agenda Item 8
It is therefore recommended that the Working Party investigate the introduction of an
interim one year arrangement funded from non council tax benefit budgets and
reserves. A longer term sustainable option will then be considered as part of the first
annual review. ‘
She emphasised that they were very concerned about the timescale imposed on the
Council and that the assumption that the scheme should be cost neutral from the
outset.
Members discussed the proposal:
1. The Chairman reminded the Group that several options had been presented to
them at the previous meeting and they had agreed to pursue one. He
emphasised that there would be an opportunity to review the scheme next year
and adapt it if necessary. There was no choice but to comply with the timescale
or the government’s existing scheme would be imposed on the council. He
concluded by saying that he would prefer to continue with the modelling option
agreed at the last meeting and follow the timescale discussed then.
2. Mr R Oliver commented that if there were any further legislative changes then
they would be taken into account and the scheme would be adjusted accordingly.
3. Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds reminded Members that the scheme should be as
simple as possible to help officers achieve the timescale imposed on them.
4. Ms V Gay asked whether the Council had undertaken any modelling on the
effects of charging 100% council tax on second homes. The Head of Finance
replied that reforms to council tax discounts were being looked at by officers
countywide and a proposal had been made to return half of any extra income
raised to the districts. This could be used for a hardship fund or to continue the
work into returning empty homes back to use. She added that the additional
income would only amount to approximately £46,000 for NNDC’s share of the
council tax bill. There was also a case to be made for maintaining an element of
discount on second homes so that the Council were aware of the number of such
properties across the district. Regardless of the work in this area, it was not
something that should delay the work of the Working Party.
5. Ms V Gay asked whether the Benefits reserve which had been set aside to
mitigate ‘clawback’ from the Department for Work and Pensions still held
£642,000. The Head of Finance said that £640,000 remained in the reserve. She
added that there was the added risk of changing software systems to be taken
into account. The audit was still ongoing so there was still significant risk.
6. The Chairman asked about the infrastructure fund and whether it would be
possible to have it reinstated. The Head of Finance said that the decision relating
to the fund lay with the County Council.
7. Mr G Jones said that he felt the impact of introducing the scheme would be too
great. In some cases, the equivalent of one third of their council tax benefit would
be taken away. He believed that the Council’s reserves were there as an
insurance and they should be used to minimise the impact on vulnerable
residents. He added that he believed there was a real possibility that there would
be amendments to the legislation and it therefore made sense to put an interim
scheme in place. In addition, he felt that introducing the scheme would
exacerbate the current delays in benefits payments caused by the change-over to
a new system. The Revenues and Benefits Manager said that there was an issue
regarding resources that could impact on the delivery of the scheme but that all
authorities were going through the same process and they were able to work
together with other councils across the region. She added that if the introduction
of the scheme was delayed it may help in the short term but the impact would be
felt in a year’s time.
Council Tax Support Working Party
2
15 August 2012
Agenda Item 8
8. Mr G Jones asked whether the Council would be able to cope with the increase in
telephone calls that would occur as a result of the scheme being introduced. The
Revenues and Benefits Manager said that additional resources would be required
but this was anticipated and planned for.
9. Mr R Oliver queried the reference to alternative options within the resolution. He
asked for further information. Mr G Jones said that he was not sure at this stage
but that there were alternatives that could be considered including further
negotiation with the County Council and the Government. In response to a
comment from Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds that there was not sufficient time to
investigate other options, Mr G Jones said that work could continue on the
current scheme alongside investigating other alternatives. When pressed for
specific examples of alternative options, Mr G Jones said that he no longer
wanted to be involved with the Working Party and resigned.
The Chairman asked Ms V Gay how she wished to proceed with the resolution
following Mr G Jones’ resignation. She referred to the Cabinet Agenda of 16th July,
page 24 (5.3) which mentioned the benefits earmarked reserve as a possible
resource. She stressed that the original papers had not indicated that a cost neutral
solution was the only option under consideration and that Liberal Democrat members
had participated in good faith in the hope of exploring a wider solution. She felt that
the situation regarding funding for the scheme had not been made clear until the
terms of reference were presented to the Group at the inaugural meeting on 7th
August. It was for the Chairman to decide how to respond to the resolution.
The Revenues and Benefits Manager said that the proposed scheme did provide
some flexibility. The cap of 70% could be raised following the consultation if
additional funding was available.. Any additional funding would only improve the
scheme. There was only a requirement to re-consult on the scheme if any changes
had a detrimental impact. Some authorities had included child benefit and
maintenance payments as income within their schemes and this was a possibility that
could be considered. Further models could be produced in the future if necessary.
Mr R Oliver said that he had contacted the County Council about a change to the
funding formula for pensioners and the working age group. It was not something that
could be achieved this year due to the timescale and the potential impact on other
districts but he would continue to lobby for additional funding.
The Chairman proposed that the resolution was put aside and reconsidered once the
consultation period was closed. This proposal was agreed.
15
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
16
MINUTES
An amendment had been received from Ms V Gay. She requested that it was
recorded that she had abstained on item 10 ‘Modelling Options’. The minutes were
then approved as a correct record.
Ms V Gay asked if a figure was available regarding the impact of the scheme on debt
collection rates. The Revenues and Benefits Manager replied that Mr D Airey had
suggested that the Council should allow 0.5 - 1% for this.
Council Tax Support Working Party
3
15 August 2012
Agenda Item 8
17
PROPOSALS FOR A DRAFT COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT SCHEME
The Revenues and Benefits Manager explained that a draft report had been put
together outlining proposals for a council tax support scheme. Once the Working
Party was satisfied with the proposed scheme it would be sent to the delegated
authorities for approval.
Members discussed the draft report:
1. Mr R Oliver said that ideally he would like to see extra funding for incentivising
work. He asked whether there was data available to show how people in receipt
of a certain amount of benefits would be affected financially by the proposed
scheme. The Revenues and Benefits Manager said that individual scenarios had
been produced. They did not always add up as some people could be affected by
more than one scenario by having two potential changes to their benefits
payments.
2. Ms V Gay said that the scenarios provided did not reflect the full income of
certain groups, it was only possible to tell how much was being removed. The
Revenues and Benefits Manager said that extra detail would be included in the
scenarios that were being prepared for the consultation. Mr R Oliver added that a
full breakdown of people’s income would be needed to assess if they were
eligible for the hardship fund.
3. The Chairman commented that the Council relied on people being honest about
their income and he asked how often this information was checked. The
Revenues and Benefits Manager replied that checks were made quite frequently.
There was also a system of cross-referencing with information held by the
Department for Work and Pensions.
4. Mr R Oliver referred to the proposal for an Exceptional Hardship Fund. He said
that consideration should be given as to which groups of people would be
affected the most by a drop in their standard of living. He suggested that there
were three categories of need:
•
•
•
Those with a dramatic drop in the standard of living
Individuals with a very low income
People in short-term need
He asked whether the hardship fund would be provided in the form of an extra
discount or by individual payments. The Revenues and Benefits Manager said
that applications would be considered on a case by case basis – as applications
to the Discretionary Housing Fund and Discretionary Rate Relief funds currently
were. Personal circumstances would be taken into account and any payments
would be on a short-term basis, not ongoing. Currently payments were given in
blocks of 3 months and they were always reviewed after 6 months. The Group
could decide on the length of term for any payments. In response to a further
question from Mr K Johnson regarding who allocated the discretionary housing
payments, she explained that they were awarded by a panel made up of
experienced staff from the Benefits and Housing Teams.
5. Mr R Oliver asked whether it would be possible to identify people who would be
worst affected by the amalgamation of various scenarios and then target them
and encourage them to apply for the hardship fund. The Revenues and Benefits
Manager agreed that this was possible but there could be an issue regarding
equality if this approach was taken. She said that it was important to publicise the
hardship fund well. It was also important to consider any other external support
that that applicants may be receiving and any savings they could have.
Council Tax Support Working Party
4
15 August 2012
Agenda Item 8
AGREED
To recommend the proposals for a draft council tax support scheme and the
consultation process to the delegated authorities.
Ms V Gay reiterated her reservations about the proposals and abstained.
Mr K Johnson said that he would like all Members to be aware of the proposals as
soon as possible and requested that a briefing was arranged. The Revenues and
Benefits Manager said that this would be organised as soon as possible. She
explained that she would like the consultation documents to be circulated to the
members of the Working Party before they were released and put on the website.
She was working with the Media Team to draft a leaflet. Once finalised, the County
Council and the Police would need to be consulted.
Ms V Gay asked whether Parish Councils would be involved in the consultation. Mr K
Johnson said that Members regularly attended parish council meetings and could
inform them about the proposals. This made it even more imperative that Members
were briefed on the scheme as soon as possible.
The Meeting closed at 10.54 am.
Chairman
Council Tax Support Working Party
5
15 August 2012