Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Finance] Council tax enquiry (sorry it's boring...)



herecomesaregular

herecomesaregular

We're in the pipe, 5 by 5
Oct 27, 2008
4,218
Still in Brighton
Just wondering if NSC can provide an informed opinion on a worry. Sorry it's not football related, to those who get arsey about these things, but any info would be greatly received.

If an elderly parent lives in a council property and is exempt from Council tax due to disabilities (pays zero council tax) - and an adult child is now thinking of going back to live there (covid related re job, unemployed, and finance problems), what happens to the council tax? Does it shoot back up to the full 100%?
 






Westdene Seagull

Westdene Seagull

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch
NSC Patron
Oct 27, 2003
21,005
The arse end of Hangleton
My understanding is that the property would become liable for the single person discount rate ( -20% ? - varies authority to authority ). That said, I agree with the keep quiet suggestion. You could phone your council tax department but if it's B&H Council enjoy the recorded message blaming Covid for their inability to answer. Feel free to send an email as the message suggests - it's just you won't get an answer for at least 3 months. Anyone would think WFH technology hadn't been invented when it comes to the council.
 




herecomesaregular

herecomesaregular

We're in the pipe, 5 by 5
Oct 27, 2008
4,218
Still in Brighton
Westdene Seagull said:
My understanding is that the property would become liable for the single person discount rate ( -20% ? - varies authority to authority ). That said, I agree with the keep quiet suggestion. You could phone your council tax department but if it's B&H Council enjoy the recorded message blaming Covid for their inability to answer. Feel free to send an email as the message suggests - it's just you won't get an answer for at least 3 months. Anyone would think WFH technology hadn't been invented when it comes to the council.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is the problem, no one officially to talk to - only an online form to advise changes. Not trying to cheat the system in any way just don't want undue worries or more finance pressure on either person and looking at options.
 








zefarelly

zefarelly

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
21,811
Sussex, by the sea
Worthing exile said:
Please don't take it out on the staff when you get through, they are just using the tools Management provide them with.
Click to expand...

everythings carefully logged. old book.jpg
 




WATFORD zero

WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
25,809
zefarelly said:
Most things haven't been invented when it comes to the civil service. :rolleyes:

I used to pay my council tax in oats and ale.
Click to expand...

I wonder what they do with all that funding they get ? Luckily Governments have been saving money by cutting back on 'red tape' throughout the whole of my lifetime, before they had even dreamt up austerity :lolol:
 


M

mwrpoole

Well-known member
Sep 10, 2010
1,506
Sevenoaks
If the adult child moves back in, then ultimately it would attract a 75% charge.

However, the child could apply to be 'disregarded' as a carer, that is disregarded from the Council Tax calculation, so the charge reverts to £0.

For this to be applied the carer needs to meets the following criteria:

You take care of someone for at least 35 hours per week.
You live in the same property as the person you look after.
You are not the partner of the person you care for.

And the person being cared for needs to be in receipt of one of the following:

Attendance Allowance (higher rate)
Constant Attendance Allowance.
Disability Living Allowance (DLA highest rate of the care component)
Personal Independence Payments (PIP either rate of the daily living component)

I very much doubt the LA will do much to validate the care element of such a claim. If the elderly person is in receipt of one of these benefits and an adult child moves back in, it is largely accepted that an element of care will be provided by the child. Of course you may come across a 'jobsworth' but even still the carer status should be granted without much debate.

Hope this helps.
 


W

Wardy's twin

Well-known member
Oct 21, 2014
8,434
zefarelly said:
Most things haven't been invented when it comes to the civil service. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I worked for the Civil Service for 4 years back in the 1980s. I worked in the MOD in admin and it was archaic all based on paper and that reflected the mentality of the people there. I moved into IT with the DOE and the guys where I worked were razor sharp using kit a generation behind the councils that they were providing funds to but their usage of the machine was (in retrospect) incredible.
 




herecomesaregular

herecomesaregular

We're in the pipe, 5 by 5
Oct 27, 2008
4,218
Still in Brighton
mwrpoole said:
If the adult child moves back in, then ultimately it would attract a 75% charge.

However, the child could apply to be 'disregarded' as a carer, that is disregarded from the Council Tax calculation, so the charge reverts to £0.

For this to be applied the carer needs to meets the following criteria:

You take care of someone for at least 35 hours per week.
You live in the same property as the person you look after.
You are not the partner of the person you care for.

And the person being cared for needs to be in receipt of one of the following:

Attendance Allowance (higher rate)
Constant Attendance Allowance.
Disability Living Allowance (DLA highest rate of the care component)
Personal Independence Payments (PIP either rate of the daily living component)

I very much doubt the LA will do much to validate the care element of such a claim. If the elderly person is in receipt of one of these benefits and an adult child moves back in, it is largely accepted that an element of care will be provided by the child. Of course you may come across a 'jobsworth' but even still the carer status should be granted without much debate.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

That's great info - many thanks. Love NSC.
 


Braggfan

Braggfan

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded
May 12, 2014
1,831
Wardy's twin said:
I worked for the Civil Service for 4 years back in the 1980s. I worked in the MOD in admin and it was archaic all based on paper and that reflected the mentality of the people there. I moved into IT with the DOE and the guys where I worked were razor sharp using kit a generation behind the councils that they were providing funds to but their usage of the machine was (in retrospect) incredible.
Click to expand...

I used to work for the council and I genuinely don't think people realise how tough it is working there with the cuts over the last decade (which is understandable because they dont normally see the inside workings). But bar none, all departments just continually lose staff and can't replace them. This increases the workload for the staff that remain, and decreases the level of service they provide across the board. A lot of the time, its just about getting the critcial jobs done. There was definietly a spell where the HR department didnt send new starters their contracts, because it was a considered a low priority task. If people requested it they got sent it, but in general there were too many critical things that took priority.

Don't get me wrong though, the council don't always spend the money correctly, but in my opinion its the bods higher up that deserve the criticism. And ALL political parties. Whenever a new party took control of the council they would appoint a new Chief Exec. They would spend 100K advertising the role and getting someone into post, pay them best part of 100K a year, and then when the next party came in and took over, they pay them off and appoint a new one. So if you think, someone in post for 3 years, probably cost the council 400K, plus whatever the pay out was. In some cases it the grand total could be nearly £1million. Now imagine you keep someone in post for 8 to 10 years, and you save a million quid. All that money could have been spent on resources and staffing departments properly. Instead the people in those departments catch all the flack for circumstances they have no control over.

Personally I think whichever party has control of the council, if they want to get rid of the chief exec that party should be forced to cover the cost of the payoff and recruitment, not the council and not taxpayer. I guarantee you there would immediately be less turnover in the role.
 


W

Wardy's twin

Well-known member
Oct 21, 2014
8,434
Braggfan said:
I used to work for the council and I genuinely don't think people realise how tough it is working there with the cuts over the last decade (which is understandable because they dont normally see the inside workings). But bar none, all departments just continually lose staff and can't replace them. This increases the workload for the staff that remain, and decreases the level of service they provide across the board. A lot of the time, its just about getting the critcial jobs done. There was definietly a spell where the HR department didnt send new starters their contracts, because it was a considered a low priority task. If people requested it they got sent it, but in general there were too many critical things that took priority.

Don't get me wrong though, the council don't always spend the money correctly, but in my opinion its the bods higher up that deserve the criticism. And ALL political parties. Whenever a new party took control of the council they would appoint a new Chief Exec. They would spend 100K advertising the role and getting someone into post, pay them best part of 100K a year, and then when the next party came in and took over, they pay them off and appoint a new one. So if you think, someone in post for 3 years, probably cost the council 400K, plus whatever the pay out was. In some cases it the grand total could be nearly £1million. Now imagine you keep someone in post for 8 to 10 years, and you save a million quid. All that money could have been spent on resources and staffing departments properly. Instead the people in those departments catch all the flack for circumstances they have no control over.

Personally I think whichever party has control of the council, if they want to get rid of the chief exec that party should be forced to cover the cost of the payoff and recruitment, not the council and not taxpayer. I guarantee you there would immediately be less turnover in the role.
Click to expand...

Very good points made here. I also think there big costs due the the changes in direction., yes stop a bad project but don't stop things on a political party basis. Also think having quick turnover of senior management is not necessary a good thing as they get paid for short term results which in last 10 years have meant reduction in manpower often at the long-term cost of poor service or ill health of workers .
 




zefarelly

zefarelly

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
21,811
Sussex, by the sea
Wardy's twin said:
I worked for the Civil Service for 4 years back in the 1980s. I worked in the MOD in admin and it was archaic all based on paper and that reflected the mentality of the people there. I moved into IT with the DOE and the guys where I worked were razor sharp using kit a generation behind the councils that they were providing funds to but their usage of the machine was (in retrospect) incredible.
Click to expand...

I worked for what was left of Bedford trucks about 15 years ago . . .my job was basically to keep the MoD happy as they had 8000 of the things . . . . mostly decomissioned now, they were in places a very inneficient organisation, getting ripped off left right and centre by companies who knew their systems better than they did ( ex staff) and knew how to exploiut the systems for profit . . . . . codifying parts and products for specific purposes then selling them at hideoulsy high margins.

you don't get many takers for plastic cable ties at £35 each.

The defense industry is criminal in more ways than one. BAE are probably the worst.
 


W

Worthing exile

New member
May 12, 2009
1,219
Braggfan said:
I used to work for the council and I genuinely don't think people realise how tough it is working there with the cuts over the last decade (which is understandable because they dont normally see the inside workings). But bar none, all departments just continually lose staff and can't replace them. This increases the workload for the staff that remain, and decreases the level of service they provide across the board. A lot of the time, its just about getting the critcial jobs done. There was definietly a spell where the HR department didnt send new starters their contracts, because it was a considered a low priority task. If people requested it they got sent it, but in general there were too many critical things that took priority.

Don't get me wrong though, the council don't always spend the money correctly, but in my opinion its the bods higher up that deserve the criticism. And ALL political parties. Whenever a new party took control of the council they would appoint a new Chief Exec. They would spend 100K advertising the role and getting someone into post, pay them best part of 100K a year, and then when the next party came in and took over, they pay them off and appoint a new one. So if you think, someone in post for 3 years, probably cost the council 400K, plus whatever the pay out was. In some cases it the grand total could be nearly £1million. Now imagine you keep someone in post for 8 to 10 years, and you save a million quid. All that money could have been spent on resources and staffing departments properly. Instead the people in those departments catch all the flack for circumstances they have no control over.

Personally I think whichever party has control of the council, if they want to get rid of the chief exec that party should be forced to cover the cost of the payoff and recruitment, not the council and not taxpayer. I guarantee you there would immediately be less turnover in the role.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that a new Chief Executive will always restructure (sorry re-shape) senior management. Making a few take generous early retirement packages and replace them with new managers who get generous relocation packages and trot out previously failed ideas before moving on again. Never promoting internally because they need fresh ideas which they never get. Look at most senior managers and they rarely spend more than about 3 years in any one job.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here