Forum Topic

Council Tax Discount Review Form

Hi,I have just recieved a Council Tax Discount Review Form from Ealing, checking if I am the only one living at my address.  Cannot think why they have sent me this because I live alone.Are these sent to everyone or just me?  I worried that it is a scam or something.  I tried to ring the number but cannot get through.Is this normal?TaMolly

Molly Patterson ● 5354d41 Comments

This is normal and is done every so often for audit reasons. You can check the number via their website.

Roger Foreman ● 5354d

Thanks for this, I have returned the form.  Has everyone recived one of these things?Molly

Molly Patterson ● 5354d

Yep I get one every year as a single occupant. It gets you the third percent discount off the Council Tax bill.

Tony Crumpton ● 5353d

I believe its 25%

Roger Foreman ● 5353d

Yes it is 25% discount.  Hardly fair.  If two or more people pay the full wack, surely a single person should pay only 50%.  It's just another unfair way to victimise the single person.

Nicola Howard ● 5353d

Whoops you are correct.

Tony Crumpton ● 5353d

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_money/tax_index_ew/council_tax.htmNight time reading!

George Knox ● 5353d

That's not reasonable. One person living in a given house with a garden say, doesnt use only half the council services: they need the roads as much and the streetcleaning. Their garden may generate as much garden waste and emptying a half full dustbin is as resource intensive as emptying a full one. You may still need rodents removed, grafitti cleansed or the party patrol - and not only half as much as if there were two of you.Doesn't sound a bad deal to me.

Sara Nathan ● 5353d

Still think a single person should only pay 50%

Nicola Howard ● 5353d

So what's your rationale?I had one for why they shouldn't.Your turn.

Sara Nathan ● 5353d

Two people working equals two incomes, so therefore they can afford it.  Only one person has half the income, so should only pay half.The only rubbish I have is food waste, and, not much of that, it barely covers the bottom of the bin and, usually Mr Wiley Fox devours it (now they have sussed how to open the bin.)As for garden waste, we are now faced with a £40 charge.  All I have is grass cuttings, so now that will be left where it is cut.Why does the system allow the single person to be fleeced at every turn?Your turn.

Nicola Howard ● 5352d

Just because there are two (or more) people in a household does not mean there are two incomes. We probably all feel that Council Tax is unfair, but there is little we can do. If there was a bigger discount, no doubt there would be even more council cuts. You are very lucky if all you manage to generate in a week is a little food waste - one assumes you do not have any other form of packaging or newspapers? Not even a soap powder box, or an empty toilet roll?

Amanda Knights ● 5352d

To have any recycling worth doing would take me a month. Soap boxes, toilet rolls, shredded correspondence.  That said, my upstairs neighbours have large amounts each week but, they have two incomes.  The only newspaper I get is the freebie if they bother to deliver it, then it ends up, upstairs.The only recycling that is done weekly is the plastic containers that the supermarkets are so fond of, most of which is probably not really recyclable.  Whatever happened to paper bags and greaseproof paper?

Nicola Howard ● 5352d

Isn't the point that it's not a poll - or head - tax but one based on property size and value. Remember the poll tax - we liked that even less. And it's the income tax that deals with what you earn. I think its a real concession that on a property with a given rateable value, you are given a discount because there happen to be fewer people living there. In other cases there might be dozens and they are not charged more - maybe they should be. There were up to seven next door till the Qatadas moved out - Do you think they should have paid more cos they had five kids?

Sara Nathan ● 5352d

Council tax banding dates from the early 90's? It is well overdue for updating and currently very unfair given that £60m Candy Bros homes pay the same as a £700k house in Acton. But to revalue is politically dangerous as Labour found when they trialled it in Wales. Remember that London values are wildly different to the rest of the country and that skues our view and makes a national policy very tricky. We need a different form of local property taxation. Radical Labour and now the Greens see Land Tax as an alternative, Lib Dems have their mansion Tax (tricky for Vince so £1m became £2m...) but I would not hold your breath.....I think a 25% discount is probably right in the current system....

Iain Muir ● 5352d

What about a 25% discount for 1 person and a smaller discount for 2 people.I'll likely offend everyone now (not my intention), and ask what's wrong with everyone paying towards the services that we all enjoy (i.e. sharing the love across everyone)? I take the point that a garden can be owned by a single person or a family of 5 - but on the flip side household waste is surely contributed by all of us?I'll await the retaliatory onslaught!Carl

Carl Tamboli ● 5351d

Two people? Two adult people? Two adult people with incomes? Household income below £x, whatever the number of bodies? Choose carefully, then be ready to deal with the consequences.Ian's point is the key one here. If I could craft a metaphor involving quicksand and minefields, I would. Every change in tax fundamentals necessarily involves winners and losers: as any politician will tell you, most winners shrug, pocket the windfall and forget all about it; the losers, on the other hand, are overtaken by a mood reminiscent of the crowd of irate villagers as they march by torchlight on Dracula's castle at the end of a Hammer movie. Plus their memories are very long. Council tax is a messy compromise, formulated at speed by the Major government to extract it (with some immediate success) from the nightmare that had followed replacing a straightforward property tax (the domestic rates), with a theoretically equally straightforward resident headcount tax (the poll tax). The 25% discount is the last lingering remnant of the underlying principles of that political disaster. If you increase or extend discounts, there must be, as Isaac Newton would have it, an equal and opposite reaction, which would be some combination of:- reduction to council revenue;- increase to council tax for those not eligible for discounts;- compensatory increase to central government's grant to councils, paid from income tax (this already represents a significant majority of council revenue).So, having picked your option, just go out and sell it!One of the reasons, a quarter century ago, that the Tories gave for abolishing domestic rates was a much quoted hypothetical situation in which a proverbial little old lady was living next to a heaving throng of adults in employment, yet both payed the same rates. Curiously, we now see the Tory-led coalition musing publicly about how to persuade singletons, such as the elderly, not to live in houses that are too big for them, and could be better used by others. The rates represented traditional market forces in that regard; perhaps their time will come again, but don't bank on change any time soon...

Steve Donnelly ● 5350d

"I think its a real concession that on a property with a given rateable value, you are given a discount because there happen to be fewer people living there. In other cases there might be dozens and they are not charged more - maybe they should be. There were up to seven next door till the Qatadas moved out - Do you think they should have paid more cos they had five kids?"If a house is stuffed to the brim with lodgers (sorry, tenants, to be PC) then yes, charge the landlord more who in turn will charge their renters.  More people in a house surely equals more refuse, potential fly-tipping, greater risk of fire, registration of births, deaths and marriages, library usage, parking control, health and social care, Vocational training, youth services, School and nursery facilities, use of leisure localities, planning and building control (if this actually really and truly exists), Maintenance of roads, bridges and pavements, Policing, licensing of taxis, Environmental health and food safety in pubs, subsidising of transport, parks and open spaces.  The list is not exhaustive.  So yes Sara, it doesn't sound fair does it?This is in part what's wrong with our country.....we aren't all made to work for what we have or use/receive/spend.

Angela White ● 5350d

And don't get me started on the decision NOT to cap social security.  Sorry, "benefits" to be PC.

Angela White ● 5350d

And don't get me started on the decision NOT to cap social security.  Sorry, "benefits" to be PC.

Angela White ● 5350d

If you order your life on the law as you know it and then there is a change many years later resulting in you being made homeless and /or much poorer then that is not PC - if you have to use that meaningless cliché word. As it happens btw, lodgers and Social Security are correct terminology.It goes to the heart of most developed countries' legal systems and especially the English speaking ones, that retrospective legislation is abhorrent.Yes the Benefits system needs radical change – but not being chucked on the streets by jobsworths at the front line who have barely reached puberty.Mansion Tax is for me a good idea. It is a form of Council tax at a much higher level. It is yet another device where a government indicates its concern about the increasing gap between rich and poor.  Leave the rest of CT alone.

George Knox ● 5350d

We have the Bishops blocking social security reforms.  Who runs this country, a duly elected government or a bunch of unelected Muppets, who have nothing better to do than  claim /fiddle expenses.  If a person is capable of work, they should get off their arses and, contribute to the other spongers. What about this woman who was featured on I think the news (BBC1) who has no relations in this country, who thinks she is owed everything by the state, because she does not want to change her life style that system has afforded her. Is she even British? (I would like to add more but P.C. prevails.)I agree with rent capping in that if one thinks back to the Rosemont Rd issue, a house full of benefit scroungers, flash cars, designer clothes, thousands of pounds in housing benefit, all paid for by Central Government and our Council Taxes.As for the Bishops.... Bell Book and Candle!

Nicola Howard ● 5350d

When was there any claim that Bishops fiddle expenses? Must have missed it!Or indeed that they are muppets.The job of the Lords is to modify the commons and, being unelected and therefore not in thrall to parties in the same way as MPs - (who ARE the ones accused of expenses scams)

Sara Nathan ● 5350d

There have been several Lords involved in expenses controversies, along with our fine upstanding mps. Makes you proud to be British doesn't it?

Keith Iddon ● 5350d

Sara, I was just about to write "when were Bishops accused of fiddling expenses?"!  George, the goal posts are moved all the time in our lives due to the Government, Local Council, world finances, Banks, etc.  They make us insecure.  No-one should be homeless and anyone truly struggling or disabled should get all the support we can give them.  It's those that are not truly unable to work that do the disadvantaged amongst us the real injustice.  £26,000 isn't a lot of money at all but I know people who work 40 hours a week who only earn this amount and have mortgages to pay and children to keep.  There should be a deterrent to those who are capable of working but don't, not an incentive and if this means that we give those who really are not able to work or are incapacitated in some way MORE than £26,000, then there would be the money there to do so and the goodwill of the People of this country to help them once those who thieve from the State are made to work in some form.Back to the Council Tax.  After my list of what our Council Tax is spent on, does it really sound fair to charge a single person living in, say, a family home they've inhabited for 30 years and the kids have now moved on, more than a family/group of 8 people living next door?Mansion Tax.  So, what are you suggesting - that those who earn huge amounts of money in this country are deterred from doing so yet again and leave our mansions to rot or rent them out as 50 tiny bedsits?  We're lucky the rich hang around in the UK as far as I'm concerned.  We whack them with heavy tax and then you want to punish them with Mansion Tax.  What about IQ tax or Good Health Tax or I'm Doing The Best I can For Myself, My Country, My Family and my Self-Esteem and I'm Not Lazy So Tax the Hell Out of Me Tax?  Define rich for me because I think many people in this country get a little confused between rich and middle class.  Define poor for me whilst you're there.

Angela White ● 5350d

'There were up to seven next door till the Qatadas moved out - Do you think they should have paid more cos they had five kids?'  Were the Qatadas family actually paying anything via any income earned? - I thought (all of their income) was being paid to them in benefit payments - and therefore unearned income - and as such was being paid for by others who are working.So the more children you have the less likely it is for you to need to work, as if you did work, you could not match the cash you'd get from the benefits system.

Dee Cook ● 5350d

Apparently the good people of Acton have no objection to having a radical preacher of hate in their midst and paying for the priviledge, but take umbridge at the suggestion of a housing some homeless people.

Keith Iddon ● 5350d

Now Brent council are paying for our radical preacher's family.Define homeless. Fallen on hard times, benefit scroungers or illegal aliens looking for a free hand-out.What is the attraction of the Capital, the streets are not paved with gold.  If the homeless cannot afford London rents, they should cut their cloth accordingly.

Nicola Howard ● 5350d

Nicola, many of our homeless have mental health issues.  We must have compassion otherwise we're doomed, well and truly.What about people who truly cannot afford somewhere to live, have no references or deposit, no job through no fault of their own other than economy or that they're in the vicious cycle of sleeping rough therefore looking rough and therefore unemployable, or are perhaps young and have been thrown out by their loving parents, or have no parents?  We need to give these people a foundation if they've got none.

Angela White ● 5350d

Angela.Welcome back.It is not the genuine of our society that I am attacking.  It is the scroungers, work shy and, those who think the system owes them everything for nothing.  Also the interlopers who come to this country, just to have a better life style on benefits.How about putting a cap on landlords?  While listening to the radio yesterday, there was a conversation with landlords, who were saying that they would not let to H.B. claimants, even though the rent was guaranteed, as they had no respect for the property.  Surely there is an argument for more social housing in the suburbs where the rents are cheaper.  The benefit system is in urgent need of reform.  Sort out the wheat from the chaff.

Nicola Howard ● 5350d

Nicola,Does your scenario include all interlopers who come here for those reasons ?

Keith Iddon ● 5350d

Not if they are genuine.

Nicola Howard ● 5350d

"the goal posts are moved all the time in our lives due to the Government, Local Council, world finances, Banks, etc.  They make us insecure."This homelessness debate is about a question of degree.Putting up taxes is one thing. But denying you food warmth and a roof over your head is totally different. Bringing in new laws which will be administered by jobsworths, as you must be able to work out for yourself, will result in some scandalous decisions regarding homelessness.That is why a change which is retrospective will be abhorrent to decent minded people who are the products of century old British legal fair mindedness.And before you forget homelessness has been caused by government after government failing to build accommodation to meet the growing population. So really fair for them to throw their hands up in the air in 2012 and say chuck out up to 100,000 onto the streets.The hard decision is not to make people homeless but to disperse them around the country in cheap accommodation and at the same time not creating ghettoes. I don't have time to research the definition of the gap between the rich and poor but there are endless government and academic papers on this. There is a gap, it is getting bigger and that is unsatisfactory. So those who have will have to pay for reducing that gap.

George Knox ● 5350d

And Mansion Tax is not such a bad fix.When the old Rates system came in no one thought that so many houses would be worth approaching £1M let alone £2M. A pity really because if there had been many more bands then someone on the benchmark band D would have and now be paying less CT.So if MT is a sort of extra band, (it should also have differing levels and should be phased in over 5 years to give people ample time to rearrange their affairs) then it goes someway to restoring what was overlooked when the Rating system (and its successor CT) came in.

George Knox ● 5350d

A bit of reality for Nicola. A search of Right move today shows the cheapest 3 bed flat in Acton is £312 a week, that is c.£16200 pa. If you were a homeless single parent, say fleeing domestic violence with 2 or 3 children the council might make such a flat available to you under a private leasing scheme. It would not take much more income from benefits to get you over the £25k limit.  Where would you then go? You might have parents close by, the children settled at school, you might have a 10hr a week job. This is the reality of what the govt are doing. That is why the Bishops are so concerned and making a stand. Vast generalisations based on a few exceptional cases, such as the ones publicised by the govt as part of their brainwashing of the masses have belittled and demonized many decent families struggling to survive on poverty level incomes. And please don't blame all landlords either. It is the price of houses and the rental market that drives the cost of rents. The cheapest 3b flat in Acton is £250k. A 7% mortgage would be £17500. Add on cost of maintenance and some profit, and you can see where rent levels come from. This is going to have a huge impact on London, wait and see......

Iain Muir ● 5350d

How do you ascertain the difference between genuine and not? For instance how do you do that if your office was/is not fit for purpose?

George Knox ● 5350d

Can you define 'poverty' with regard to what you are saying? The 'no-jobsworths' are more of a problem than the 'jobsworths' I would suggest.Many people believe,rightly or wrongly,that our benefits system and our' hospitality' has been abused often by the 'undeserving' and by definition feel that our 'fairmindedness'has been hung out to dry and faces more challenges than ever before.They see 'attitude'when looking for 'gratitude'.

Keith Iddon ● 5350d

But that is exactly what's wrong with Council Tax as it is......it is the size of property one lives in and its value that dictates the amount charged.  Surely it should be per head, for all the reasons I listed previously (it takes more Police to police more people, etc.)In this country we've penalised those who work hard or who strive to "better" their positions.  An Englishman's home isn't his castle anymore, it's a liability and a target for our Government to charge more tax, stamp duty, etc.  It's not a Fool who's easily parted from his money in this country.  It's the hard-working.

Angela White ● 5349d

How do you decide if someone is running away from persecution or from prosecution in their own country?

Keith Iddon ● 5349d

Keith, my understanding is that anyone fleeing ill treatment/persecution in their own countries SHOULD (apologies for capitals) seek safety/asylum in the first country that will not persecute them.  So if coming from Africa why end up here for example, after travelling through at least 4 other countries?So why do they travel through Spain/Italy/France, etc. in order to come to the UK.  Simple answer perhaps is that the benefits we pay here are greater than other countries in the EU (and much stricter) - and the rules and regulations concerning gaining employment where you have to pay tax and national insurance contributions are more easily 'got round' in the UK.

Dee Cook ● 5349d

Dee,That has been the situation now for many years.I think we have the EU to thank for this situatioin, in part anyway.The siting of the camp at Sangate being a case in point.You can't blame someone for wanting a better life,but strange isn't it that they are nearly all men.The women have been left behind to carry the can and have fewer men to provide for them and the kids..the men have smuggled themselves to Europe.Like the Afghanis who are here whilst there is a war on.In WW2 French and Dutch men smuggled themselves into Britain,formed a fighting force and went back to fight for their country.No such mind set nowadays.No benefits back in the 40's tho' eh?

Keith Iddon ● 5348d