Tweet
Re: CT and JSA
I can't see neither DWP nor the council entertaining a complaint unless they are compelled by law. If they can get away with what they're doing, they will and in the absence of any High Court ruling etc., I'm sure they consider they are acting within the law. In any potential proceedings, the decision being appealed along with the relevant department needs identifying. Perhaps, as the issues have arisen because of the benefit reforms, it may be that the DWP is the department's decision which should be appealed. Then, depending on which route is taken there are time limits involved and in the case of High Court appeals, the financial implications in the likely event costs are awarded against the losing party. There is of course (if a litigant in person) the obstacles which having to comply with strict procedure rules presents.
It's likely that the government (whichever department) would claim no responsibility as they gave that to local authorities i.e., the power to determine the way the newly named Council Tax Reduction Schemes would be administered and how the reduction in funding would be financed. The blame can now effectively be put on councils for choosing to make claimants, who were exempt from paying before the reforms, to now have to pay (in most cases) between 5 and 30%. That said, it would presumably have been the Department for Communities and Local Government which laid down the boundaries within which councils had to work, and could in that respect be said to be responsible.
For example, the government offered extra funding (transitional grants) to incentivise councils to charge no more than 8.5% to claimants previously exempt from paying Council Tax. The extra funding was evidently not enough to tempt all councils to take up the offer as many opted to refuse it thus allowing them to charge a much higher percentage. These councils probably knew that the transitional grants would be a "one time" deal and would not be offered in subsequent years.
In defence (to cover its back), the government would presumably say that although after CT deductions, benefit is less than the amount deemed necessary to live on (£71.70), councils have been given powers to asses cases of extreme hardship.
It doesn't seem obvious which department needs targeting, but if responsibility could be pinned on the Department for Work and Pensions, it may then be an option to submit a Notice of appeal against a decision of that department. IDS would effectively then be the Respondent in an appeal to a Social Entitlement Chamber Tribunal. If it were possible to proceed with such an appeal, there would (as opposed to the High Court) unlikely to be any costs awarded against any party.
The Statutory Instrument governing the procedure is the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008
A booklet explaining How to appeal against a decision made by the Department for Work and Pensions is this one: (SSCS1A)
An obvious argument to support the grounds of appeal surrounds the following paragraph taken from a local authority's website, chosen at random:
"If you are in receipt of Income Support, JSA, ESA or Guaranteed Pension Credit, we can ask the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to deduct money from your benefit at source and send it directly to the Council. Only one deduction order can be set up by the Council at any one time. The deductions are currently £3.55 per week.
If the DWP deem the maximum amount which can be deducted from these benefits is £3.55 per week, it would be reasonable to question, on this basis alone whether the £4.76 in Council Tax you're having to pay per week is legal action taken by the government. An example where the local authority has used the DWP figure (£3.55) in its Council Tax Reduction Scheme is explained in a Guardian article (Sutton, south London).
EDIT:
I should point this out:
If you think our decision is wrong (page 7)
Originally posted by andrewh
View Post
It's likely that the government (whichever department) would claim no responsibility as they gave that to local authorities i.e., the power to determine the way the newly named Council Tax Reduction Schemes would be administered and how the reduction in funding would be financed. The blame can now effectively be put on councils for choosing to make claimants, who were exempt from paying before the reforms, to now have to pay (in most cases) between 5 and 30%. That said, it would presumably have been the Department for Communities and Local Government which laid down the boundaries within which councils had to work, and could in that respect be said to be responsible.
For example, the government offered extra funding (transitional grants) to incentivise councils to charge no more than 8.5% to claimants previously exempt from paying Council Tax. The extra funding was evidently not enough to tempt all councils to take up the offer as many opted to refuse it thus allowing them to charge a much higher percentage. These councils probably knew that the transitional grants would be a "one time" deal and would not be offered in subsequent years.
In defence (to cover its back), the government would presumably say that although after CT deductions, benefit is less than the amount deemed necessary to live on (£71.70), councils have been given powers to asses cases of extreme hardship.
It doesn't seem obvious which department needs targeting, but if responsibility could be pinned on the Department for Work and Pensions, it may then be an option to submit a Notice of appeal against a decision of that department. IDS would effectively then be the Respondent in an appeal to a Social Entitlement Chamber Tribunal. If it were possible to proceed with such an appeal, there would (as opposed to the High Court) unlikely to be any costs awarded against any party.
The Statutory Instrument governing the procedure is the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008
A booklet explaining How to appeal against a decision made by the Department for Work and Pensions is this one: (SSCS1A)
An obvious argument to support the grounds of appeal surrounds the following paragraph taken from a local authority's website, chosen at random:
"If you are in receipt of Income Support, JSA, ESA or Guaranteed Pension Credit, we can ask the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to deduct money from your benefit at source and send it directly to the Council. Only one deduction order can be set up by the Council at any one time. The deductions are currently £3.55 per week.
If the DWP deem the maximum amount which can be deducted from these benefits is £3.55 per week, it would be reasonable to question, on this basis alone whether the £4.76 in Council Tax you're having to pay per week is legal action taken by the government. An example where the local authority has used the DWP figure (£3.55) in its Council Tax Reduction Scheme is explained in a Guardian article (Sutton, south London).
EDIT:
I should point this out:
If you think our decision is wrong (page 7)
Housing Benefit and Council Tax reduction
Your local council makes decisions about Housing Benefit and reductions in council tax, and how much you can get. If you think a decision about Housing Benefit or a reduction in council tax is wrong, contact the council office that pays your benefit.
Your local council makes decisions about Housing Benefit and reductions in council tax, and how much you can get. If you think a decision about Housing Benefit or a reduction in council tax is wrong, contact the council office that pays your benefit.
Comment