CTS scheme changes

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #286704
    cfowkes
    Participant

    We are wanting to make some changes to our CTS scheme to reduce the number of bills but also fair based on ability to pay. We currently use the original default scheme. I can see discussion around banding, tolerance levels, whether to ask for a CTS claim or not and non dep deductions. I am interested in whether any LA introduced any of the following:

    – earnings change tolerances as opposed to a banded scheme. Did this reduce the cost of administering CTS as well as the cost of billing and recovery.
    – Accepted the UC data transfer as a claim and how they dealt with household breakdowns.
    – A flat rate non dep deduction and if so was the same rate applied to pensioner claims.

    My email is
    clare.fowkes@chesterfield.gov.uk

    Thanks

    #287003
    Jon__Blackwell
    Participant

    Re: Tolerances:-

    Examples of working-age CTR schemes with tolerances/de minimis for CoCs of one sort or another include…

    Bradford
    Norwich
    North Somerset
    New Forest
    South Holland
    South Norfolk
    Test Valley
    Tewkesbury
    West Berkshire

    … there are probably several others. ( I appreciate this is an answer to a broader question than just earnings-related tolerances).

    Re: CTR non-dep deductions

    More than half of 2024/25 CTR schemes maintain working-age non-dep deductions that mirror the pension-age NDDs (as set out in the prescribed requirements regulations.)

    Of the rest, the single most common modification is to remove working-age NDDs altogether.

    There are number of flat-rate NDDs schemes but they’re not massively common ( some are purely flat-rate – ~9% and others flat-rate but maintain the traditional nil deductions for NDs on certain IRBs – 5%.) There are also some 2-rate high/low NDDs schemes ( again, with or without a nil rate ). There are also sorts of otheridiosyncratic approaches beyond this but they’re not widely adopted. A couple of outliers now very large CTR NDDs – perhaps caused by new staff misunderstanding their precedessors decisions.

    Not surprisingly, very few LAs have amended the pension-age NDDs – you’d need to be careful that any change you make isn’t UV. (Which every current flat-rate scheme would potentially be if applied to pension-age.)

    #287043
    cfowkes
    Participant

    Thanks for replying to my post Jon. I will consider what you have said and may get back to you if that is ok

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.