SCC CONSULTATION
UNLAWFUL 👀
Online |
PDF
FAILING TO INFORM:
A.
Residents To “Take” The Consultation
B.
WORKING QUALIFY FOR ZERO BILLS
Subject: Formal Challenge to the Legality of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2027-28 Consultation (Failure to Adequately Consult on Section 13A Provisions - Since 2013
To the Consultation Team and Elected Councillors,
I am writing to formally challenge the legal adequacy of the ongoing consultation regarding the proposed income-banded Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2027-28;
A.
DEMOCRATIC FAILURE TO NOTIFY RESIDENTS
A public consultation is legally invalid if the public is actively kept in the dark about its existence. I explicitly registered for email alerts regarding council consultations, yet I received absolutely no notification that this critical Council Tax consultation had launched;
The Council holds the email addresses of its residents. It costs nothing to send a mass digital notification to inform Council Tax payers that a policy affecting their financial liabilities is actively being debated. Relying on residents to stumble upon this consultation by chance is a deliberate suppression of public engagement and a breach of our legitimate expectation to be consulted;
B.
WORKING RESIDENTS DISCRIMINATION
Having reviewed the consultation documents, it is apparent that the Council has fundamentally failed to provide sufficient information regarding discretionary relief under
Section 13A(1)(c) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. By omitting clear details on how this statutory provision supports working-age people outside of the standard benefits system, the Council is arguably in breach of the common law duties of fairness in public consultations, as defined by the Supreme Court;
1. The Misrepresentation of Discretionary Relief in the Consultation Section 13A(1)(c) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 grants the billing authority the discretionary power to reduce Council Tax liability to such extent as it thinks fit, including reducing it to nil. This is a standalone provision meant to support residents facing unforeseen, exceptional hardship—such as a sudden bereavement in the family or unexpected job loss—regardless of whether they are claiming state benefits like Universal Credit.
However, the Council's consultation documents severely misrepresent this statutory safety net. In "Part 1" of the consultation document, the discretionary scheme is mentioned exclusively in the context of mitigating losses for those negatively impacted by the new banded scheme:
"It is estimated that around 5% of working age households could see a reduction in support... Where this happens, any applicant will be able to apply for extra help through the Council's Discretionary Council Tax Reduction Scheme";
Framing the discretionary scheme merely as a transitional "top-up" for those already in the CTR system is legally and factually incomplete. It completely misses out on informing working people—who may not qualify for the banded scheme or who do not wish to claim standard benefits—that they have a statutory right to apply for discretionary repayment under Section 13A if they suffer a sudden financial shock.
2. Breach of the Moseley Precedent and the Sedley Criteria The failure to accurately present Section 13A(1)(c) options renders this consultation vulnerable to judicial review. The legal standard for a lawful consultation on Council Tax schemes was definitively set by the Supreme Court in
R (Moseley) v London Borough of Haringey [2014] UKSC 56.
In that landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled that a local authority's consultation on a Council Tax reduction scheme was unlawful because it failed to present the public with realistic alternatives or explain the broader context of the proposals. The consultation must satisfy the
"Sedley Criteria", the second of which dictates that:
•
"Sufficient reasons must be given for the proposal to permit of intelligent consideration and response.";