Agenda item

To receive members’ questions under procedure rule no.11.  The procedure rule provides that any member may ask the chairman of a board or group any question on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties which affect the District, provided that three clear days’ notice in writing has been given to the Head of Legal and Support Services.

Councillor D De Lacy put the following question to Councillor R D Bayliss:

“It has been reported in the media that thousands of people have been wrongly identified as liable for the bedroom tax as a result of an error by the Department of Work and Pensions. 

It has also been reported “that the Department for Work and Pensions has issued an ‘urgent bulletin’ saying tenants meeting certain specific criteria should have the cut in their bedroom tax removed until legislation is amended and Councils should refund deductions made since last April.”

Would the Portfolio Holder inform Council whether these reports are true and if so what action has the Council taken to identify these residents in North West Leicestershire”.

Councillor R D Bayliss gave the following response:

“The DWP has issued an urgent bulletin confirming that that some tenants can have their eligible rent calculated under the Housing and Council Tax Benefit (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2006 rather than the provisions for the spare room subsidy.

This means that someone in continuous receipt of Housing Benefit since 1 January 1996 for the same property will be exempt from any under occupancy charge.

There may also be a number of allowable breaks in these conditions. If the tenancy has been inherited it should be treated in the same way.

We are currently taking Legal and Audit advice regarding the most appropriate way to confirm Housing Benefit entitlement over this extended period, and will be advising the relevant customers of the process to claim this exemption as soon as it has been confirmed.

The DWP has advised councils where possible to identify potentially affected claimants from their records and be fully satisfied that the claimant has met the criteria before removing the charge.  If it is satisfied that the conditions are fully met the under occupancy charge should be removed and the decision revised and any underpayment to date refunded to the claimant.

The DWP has also advised that a record of the case been made because they do intend to amend the legislation so that the under occupancy charge will apply to these cases and the charge will have to be reapplied when it is made law.

Of the Council tenants identified as being affected by the under-occupation charge when it was introduced, we have identified that 45 of them (8% of the total affected) were tenants in 1996. These details have been passed to the Revenues and Benefits partnership to verify continuous Housing Benefit entitlement and make contact with the customers affected”.

Councillor D De Lacy referred to one particular case where a lady had committed suicide, allegedly as a result of the bedroom tax.  He added that the cases of those 45 people in the District who had made illegal payments needed to be resolved urgently.  As a supplementary question, he asked if the Portfolio Holder would ensure that these cases were dealt with at the earliest opportunity, and report back regularly on progress made.

Councillor R D Bayliss responded affirmatively to all points raised.  He advised Members that this anomaly was an admitted error in the drafting of the legislation, and steps would be taken to regularise this.  He added that he would ensure the Council took action and he would provide an update.

Councillor J Ruff put the following question to Councillor R D Bayliss:

“As a result of the present Government’s reductions in funding many low paid families were required to pay 8.5% council tax.

Now with the removal of the Government’s transitional funding this April 2014 this payment is increasing to 15% nearly double.

Could the Portfolio Holder please give the total number of households in this district who will pay the increased council tax because of these changes.

Could he also inform Council of the total number of households who have had a reduction in housing benefit as a result of the under occupancy charge (bedroom tax)”.

Councillor R D Bayliss gave the following response:

“The report presented at agenda item 11 explains the background to the proposed revision to the Local Council Tax Support scheme and the need to keep it affordable following the loss of transitional funding.

The Scheme applies to people of working age which is 3,109.  People in receipt of pension credit will continue to be protected from paying any extra.  The report explains that a Hardship Fund has been established which has been more than adequate in meeting the demand for assistance from eligible claimants.

We have identified 598 households affected by under occupancy charge”.

Councillor J Ruff referred to paragraph 2.10 of the related report at item 11 – Council Tax Support Scheme, which stated that the demand on the hardship fund had been less than anticipated and only 140 applications were approved.  As a supplementary question, she asked if all affected persons of working age would be informed of the hardship fund.  She also asked if the Portfolio Holder agreed that the Government should cover the full amount.  She commented that perhaps a hardship fund should be set up for the bedroom tax.

Councillor R D Bayliss responded that everyone would be informed of their entitlement.  He added that there were a number of people who were taking advantage of the hardship fund, however this number was less than anticipated, which demonstrated that people were facing up to their new responsibilities.