Issue - meetings

The Executive Member for Finance and Governance presented a report for Executive’s consideration.

The report set out the proposed Council Tax Reduction (CTR) scheme (sometimes referred to as Council Tax Support) for 2024/25. Each Billing Authority in England had a statutory requirement to design and locally fund a Council Tax Reduction scheme no later than 11 March each year, which would then be approved by a full Council decision.

CTR was introduced by Central Government in April 2013 as a replacement for the

Council Tax Benefit scheme that was administered on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). As part of the introduction, the Government placed the duty to create a local scheme for working age claimants with Billing Authorities.

Middlesbrough Council, as the billing authority, has a statutory requirement to revise or design and fund a CTR scheme by no later than 11 March each year which is approved by a Full Council decision.

It was proposed that the current income-banded scheme be retained for 2024/25 noting the proposed amendments. It was also proposed the scheme income bandings were increased in line with inflation.

The CTR scheme provided for income band ranges to be increased “by the appropriate level of inflation decided by the council”. It was therefore proposed to adjust the income band ranges for 2024/25 to reflect the inflation increase applied to state benefits and thereby maintain the level of support for applicants.

AGREED that Executive endorse the Council Tax Reduction (CTR) scheme for 2024/25 and refers it to Council for approval.

OPTIONS

The options for this decision were detailed in the table at paragraph 22 of the report.

In summary:

Option 1 was to leave the existing scheme in place. This was not recommended as the existing scheme counted allowances for childcare costs in Universal Credit as income, disadvantaging some people who undertook paid employment.

Option 2 was proposed to Executive.

Options 3 and 4 was to enhance or increase the scheme to a 95% or 100% maximum discount scheme respectively. This was not recommended as the associated cost (c£3.15 million for a 95% scheme and c£4 million for a 100% scheme) was disproportionately high. The increased cost to the General Fund budget was a significant pressure that was unaffordable given the Council’s current financial position.

Option 5 provided an uplift in the amount of CTR awarded for those in the lower discount brackets, whilst maintaining a maximum support level of 90%. The c£442k cost of this option, however, was also considered to be unaffordable in the Council’s current financial situation.

REASONS

The reasons for the decision were detailed as part of the report.