This report seeks City Executive Board approval to consult on proposed changes to the Council’s Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2019/20. 

The Council Tax Reduction Scheme benefits approximately 8,500 households at an estimated to cost the Council £1.4m for the current year and £1.7m from 2019/20.

The Scrutiny Committee has referred this item to Finance Panel for pre-decision scrutiny.  The Panel is asked to note and discuss the report and may wish to agree recommendations to the City Executive Board on 18 September 2018.

Paul Wilding, Revenue and Benefits Programme Manager, has been invited to present the report and answer questions.

The Revenue and Benefits Programme Manager, Paul Wilding, presented a report on the Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2019/20 consultation which was due for consideration by the City Executive Board on 18 September 2018. The report recommended that the proposed scheme be subject to public consultation, with a further report coming forward in January 2019 to summarise the outcome of the consultation process and make proposals for the 2019/20 Council Tax Reduction Scheme. The scheme would then need to be agreed by Full Council.

It was explained that the Council Tax Reduction Scheme (CTRS) benefits approximately 8,500 households at an estimated to cost the Council of £1.4m for the current year and £1.7m from 2019/20. Council Tax support was localised in 2013 and there had been no changes to the CTRS between 2013 and 2017. There were two changes proposed for the 2019/20 Scheme. These were:

·         the income band scheme for residents on Universal Credit, and;

·         the minimum income floor for self-employed people.

The cost of the CTRS was increasing year on year and there had been a significant reduction in government grant. Increasing the rate of collection did not necessarily mean more income would be generated, because there were costs associated with collecting and resolving additional arrears.

The Panel asked about the views of the other precepting authorities on the Council’s proposed CTRS. It was explained that Oxfordshire County Council and the Police and Crime Commissioner had historically supported the City Council’s decisions in relation to CTR, even though they had significant spending implications for the other authorities. A process of consulting these organisations was undertaken each year by the Revenue and Benefits Programme Manager.

In reviewing question 7 in the consultation document, set out below, the Panel suggested that the notion of an ‘established’ business was open to wide interpretation.

·         Question 7: Do you agree with the principle that the council should assume a minimum income level for CTR claimants who are self-employed once their business is established?

The Panel also suggested that question 9 in the consultation document, set out below, would benefit from listing examples of the type of answers people may want to give. This was part of a wider comment that the survey could be made more accessible for people not familiar with the CTRS terminology.

·         Question 9: There are practical limitations for increasing earnings form some type of self-employment (e.g. childminders). Should the Council exempt some types of self-employment from the MIF?

The Panel also questioned what weighting was given to questions 13, 14 and 15 in the survey, which set out alternatives to reducing the amount of CTR available. It was clarified that officers would take into account the consultation and advise councillors accordingly.

The Revenue and Benefits Programme Manager agreed that changes of this nature could be made to improve the survey. However, he said that he did not want the survey to limit the type of responses received. In promoting the CTRS consultation, the Council would use the Communications Team and write to those who were self-employed and in receipt of CTR. The Panel said they would like to see the number of responses increase.

In response to questions, it was clarified that multiple variables are taken into account about someone’s personal circumstances when deciding their entitlement to CTR, including their age and the national minimum wage, for example. It was also explained that a £49,000 discretionary support fund was available, but applications to this were low because full support was provided through the CTRS. There had been no discretionary awards given to date in the financial year.

The Panel agreed that it was content with the report and its recommendations, subject to the consultation survey being revised to address member’s comments.