DCLG response to consultation on local support for council tax

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 50 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #40083
    guy
    Participant
    #114446
    Anonymous
    Guest

    This government seems to believe because they have written something in a document then it can happen regardless of the timescales and complexities. Basically the civil service is given a wish list and the have to get on with it even if impossible to do so… Sir Humphrey would suggest that this time table is “Very Brave”….

    #114447
    Lee Fearon
    Participant

    [quote=guy]Did any one see this already? Read it and weep :((

    http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/localisingtaxresponse%5B/quote%5D

    Just had a quick glance and the tears are already welling up.

    DCLG has its foot on the accelerator, the wall’s looming ahead, but the steering wheel’s stuck and the brakes don’t appear to be an option.

    #114448
    jmembery
    Participant

    It would be interesting to see a breakdown of responses by respondent type.

    #114450
    guy
    Participant

    Annex A – timetable is an anathema. How can you realistically start work on your model local schemes this Winter when the secondary legislation proper is not passed until next Autumn? HB Info and many others, including DCLG, ironically, said stop or at worst delay for a year, but no. I may even find an excuse to watch the London Olympics rather than work on this. :((

    #114451
    admin
    Keymaster

    What’s staggering is the various references throughout the document such as: “The Department will explore this in its work on the delivery of local schemes with local government representative organisations” – as though this scheme was to be delivered in 2015 or something. Also, the commentary on our responses is highly selective. At the CLG session I attended pretty much everyone slammed the proposals, but you wouldn’t know it to read this nonsense.

    |(

    #114452
    andyrichards
    Participant

    I’m only up to page 16 and I’m already thinking……15 months to have this ready to go? You have to be kidding……

    This is crazy.

    #114453
    RobBox
    Participant

    Shocking stuff really. I attended all London work-shops, what a waste of time. Maybe a warning to all, don’t think your views really count or anyone is listening. :((

    #114456
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I think for April 2013 the answer is hidden in para 3.17 – a default scheme, to be provided in Regulations, will take effect if a billing authority fails to adopt a scheme by 31 January 2013. This will basically replicate the existing CTB scheme (but obviously with the reduced funding).

    I am very disappointed with the section on fraud, where DCLG don’t seem concerned to let LA’s continue with their current SSFA powers. It’s all very well saying that this is now a council tax issue and not a benefit but it IS a benefit and no different from UC except it’s being administered locally. Oh, I forgot, it’s not the Government’s money any more.

    Another thing I am struggling with is having the right of appeal to the VT. If part of this scheme is to be designed locally, how can a national body deal with appeals and on what basis? It’s not as if there will be legislation covering it for WA claims. Will the VT chairman have to have copies of every LA’s scheme in order to conduct an appeal? I must admit, I was assuming that disputes would be by way of the Ombudsman or judicial review

    #114457
    radford
    Participant

    Only 1 person supposedly asked for a delay in implementation – seems I was the only one then!!!!!!!!! throws the whole document into question what a farce!!!!!

    #114461
    Chris Robbins
    Participant

    That is not a response. It is simply a re-statement of an existing position. Our response pointed out the dangers of a local scheme running side by side with UC leading to the old problem of very high (combined)marginal deduction rates where benefit is withdrawn as earnings increase as we were struggling to see on what other group the ‘cuts’ could be imoposed. I don’t see any acknowledgement that this was raised let alone that it might be a problem.

    #114462
    RobBox
    Participant

    I saw sight of about a dozen responses, all asked for a delay at the very least, including mine. :quest:

    Chris, the regulatory scheme states it will come with financial implications – nice touch :((

    #114463
    radford
    Participant

    Yes and I’ve no doubt there were many many others but they probably put that under ‘sufficient time to implement’ instead of ‘insufficient time to implement’ or ‘delay implementation’.

    #114466
    Rob Hawes1
    Participant

    [quote=RobBox]Shocking stuff really. I attended all London work-shops, what a waste of time. Maybe a warning to all, don’t think your views really count or anyone is listening. :(([/quote]

    The Local Govt Finance Bill announces the intention to make mortgagees in possession liable for CTax. The consultation on this hasn’t closed yet. I think you can be absolutely certain that your views don’t count and nobody is listening!

    #114467
    peterdelamothe
    Keymaster

    I agree with a lot of what has been said but the positive side? There will be a lot of work needed to get all this up and running and the impact of not getting it right could be draconian. So benefit staff expertise will be needed urgently. Maybe just what is needed in the current climate?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 50 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.