Issue - meetings

(Finance Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report.

Councillor Stavrou presented a report recommending no changes to the Local Council Tax Support Scheme 2015/16.

Report as first moved ADOPTED

            RESOLVED:

            That no changes be made to the Local Council Tax Support Scheme 2015/16 other than the annual uprating of premiums, allowances, non-dependent deductions and any changes to the national pension age scheme that were required to be reflected in the Council’s Scheme.

(Finance Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-044-2014/15).

(1)        That the responses to the consultation on the Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2015/16 be noted;

(2)        That, in view of the consultation responses and the experience of the first two years of the scheme, no changes be made to the scheme for 2015/16, other than the annual uprating of premiums, allowances, non-dependant deductions and any changes to the national pension age scheme that need to be reflected in the Council’s scheme; and

(3)        That the proposed Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2015/16 be recommended to the Council for approval.

The Finance Portfolio Holder presented a report concerning the Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2015/16.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that, as part of the major changes to the Welfare Benefits system, from 31 March 2013 Council Tax Benefit had ceased and was replaced by a new scheme called Local Council Tax Support (LCTS). A key principle of the scheme was the protection of people who were of an age where they could claim Pension Credit. The Government introduced Regulations to ensure that pensioners who previously received Council Tax Benefit would continue to receive the same level of assistance they had prior to LCTS being introduced. The Pan Essex LCTS project group, comprising of all the billing authorities and the unitary authorities in Essex, was created in January 2012 to devise a modular approach upon which all Essex authorities could base their local schemes according to local needs. The precepting authorities of Essex County Council, Essex Fire Authority and Essex Police had been involved from the beginning of the project. The project was being managed by the Benefit Managers under guidance from the Essex Finance Officers Association.

The Portfolio Holder reported that the Council had approved the Epping Forest LCTS scheme for 2013/14 in December 2012 and, following consultation during 2013/14, the Council had approved an unchanged scheme for 2014/15 in December 2013. On 21 July 2014, the Cabinet had approved the general principle that the Local Council Tax Support scheme for 2015/16 should aim to be cost neutral for the Council and that public consultation should be undertaken on certain elements of the scheme. Consultation on the 2015/16 scheme was undertaken from 29 August 2014 to 19 October 2014 and, based upon the responses received and the experiences of the Scheme’s operation over the last two years, it was being proposed that the scheme remain unchanged for 2015/16. The only exception to this would be the annual uprating of premiums, allowances, non-dependent deductions and any changes to the national pension age scheme that had to be mirrored in the Council’s Scheme.

The Assistant Director of Resources (Benefits) reported that the Council’s scheme did vary slightly with some of the other schemes being implemented across Essex; the maximum of 80% Council Tax Support would be different by only a few percentage points across the County. All of the Councils across Essex, along with the other precepting authorities, were working together. The Portfolio Holder highlighted that the Scheme required final approval by the Council and put forward an extra recommendation to the Cabinet to that effect.

Decision:

(1)        That the responses to the consultation on the Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2015/16 be noted;

(2)        That, in view of the consultation responses and the experience of the first two years of the scheme, no changes be made to the scheme for 2015/16, other than the annual uprating of premiums, allowances, non-dependant deductions and any changes to the national pension age scheme that need to be reflected in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93

(Finance Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-019-2014/15).

(1)        That, in light of a recent judicial review, the actions undertaken by Officers not to include questions concerning a residency condition in the consultation for the Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2015/16 be approved.

The Finance Portfolio Holder presented an update report on the public consultation for the Council Tax Support Scheme for 2015/16.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that, on 21 July 2014, it had approved the elements of the Local Council Tax Support scheme that were to be consulted upon for possible change to the Epping Forest District Council scheme for 2015/16. One of the issues that Members had been keen to consult on was the possible introduction of a residency requirement. This would mean that if a person had not been resident in the Epping Forest District for a certain period of time, they would not be able to receive any Local Council Tax Support to help them pay their Council Tax liability. At that meeting, Members were advised of a judicial review that would be heard later that week which could affect any decision to include a residency requirement in the Epping Forest scheme.

The Portfolio Holder reported that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council had introduced a two-year residency requirement in their Local Council Tax Support Scheme following a public consultation, however the Child Poverty Action Group took judicial review proceedings against Sandwell. The judgement was issued on 30 July 2014, and Mr Justice Hickinbottom found against Sandwell. The key findings was that the residency requirement was ultra vires, on the basis that a residency requirement was not relevant to defining persons in financial need, as outlined in the Local Government Finance Act 2012, that it was discriminatory and a barrier to the freedom of movement, particularly for foreign nationals and women who had suffered domestic violence.

The Portfolio Holder added that Tendring and Braintree District Councils were the only other local authorities that had a residency requirement in their Local Council Tax Support Scheme, but both had now suspended that element of their schemes. In light of the judgement issued on 30 July 2014, Officers had not included questions regarding a residency requirement in the public consultation for the 2015/16 Scheme and the Cabinet was requested to retrospectively approve this course of action.

Decision:

(1)        That, in light of a recent judicial review, the actions undertaken by Officers not to include questions concerning a residency condition in the consultation for the Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2015/16 be approved.

Reasons for Decision:

Although the Cabinet agreed to consult on a residency requirement for the Local Council Tax Support scheme for 2015/16, the findings of the recent judicial review made it clear that such a residency requirement would be unlawful and the Council would be acting unlawfully to still undertake consultation on something that is now known to be unlawful.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To undertake consultation on all the elements previously agreed by the Cabinet, including the residency requirement. However, the Council would be acting unlawfully.

(Finance Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-009-2014/15).

(1)        That the Local Council Tax Support scheme for 2015/16 should aim to be cost neutral for the Council be agreed as a general principle;

(2)        That the following elements of the scheme be approved for consultation purposes:

            (a)        The maximum Local Council Tax Support for people of working age           be reduced from 80%;

            (b)        Child Benefit be included as income for people of working age;

            (c)        A requirement that people of working age to have been resident in   the Epping Forest District for a period of time before they were eligible to      receive Local Council Tax Support; and

            (d)        a similar waiver of the residency qualification be applied to members          of the Armed Forces as contained        in section 14.3 (a) to (d) of the Housing         Allocations Scheme; and

(3)        That a public consultation exercise on the 2015/16 scheme be undertaken between August and October 2014.

The Finance Portfolio Holder presented a report on the Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2015/16.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that the Council had adopted the current Local Council Tax Support scheme for 2014/15 on 17 December 2013. Consideration now had to be given to the scheme for the financial year 2015/16, which would require approval by the Council in December 2014. If the current scheme was to be amended, then it would be necessary to undertake public consultation on any proposed amendments before the scheme for 2015/16 could be adopted. In view of the timescales, it was necessary for the consultation to be undertaken between August and October 2014 to ensure that the correct procedure had been followed if changes to the scheme needed to be made.

The Portfolio Holder stated that the suggested general principle was for the scheme to be cost neutral to the Council. To this end, some changes to the current scheme had been suggested for consultation, these being:

·         the maximum Local Council Tax Support for people of working age be reduced from the current level of 80%;

·         Child Benefit be included as income for people of working age; and

·         a requirement for people of working age to have resided in the District for a period of time before they could claim Local Council Tax Support.

The Housing Portfolio Holder welcomed the residency clause as a possible change to the scheme; the Housing Allocations Scheme already had a similar residency requirement. Further information concerning any ongoing legal challenges was requested, and whether an exception for Armed Forces personnel could also be consulted upon.

The Portfolio Holder responded that a judicial review against Sandwell Metropolitan District Council in respect of their two-year residency requirement, had been upheld by the High Court but the main issue was badly written policy. A further legal challenge against the residency requirement in the policy by Sandwell Metropolitan District Council from the Child Poverty Action Group was due to be heard by the High Court in the near future. No legal challenges had been brought against either Tendring or Basildon District Councils, both of whom had included residency requirements in their schemes this year. Exceptions for Armed Forces personnel could be included provided that it had been properly consulted upon. However, there were currently no Armed Forces personnel receiving Council Tax Benefit residing within the District.

The Housing Portfolio Holder proposed that a similar waiver of the proposed residency qualification be applied to members of the Armed Forces, as currently contained in section 14.3 (a) to (d) of the Housing Allocations Scheme; this was seconded by the Environment Portfolio Holder.

In response to further questions from Members, The Director of Resources stated that a further reduction in the money provided by the Government for the Local Council Tax Benefit Scheme was planned. It was acknowledged that it was difficult to consult when the exact reduction was not known, but the Council was under a legal requirement to consult with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22