OVER the past months Thurrock Council has made strenuous efforts to contact and help the hundreds of local people who have had to pay council tax for the first time this year.
And since April, when the bills became due, the council has also publicised the need for people caught in the change from the national council tax benefit to a local Council Tax Support Scheme to get in touch.
Cllr Phil Smith – the council’s cabinet portfolio holder for central services – said: “At the end of April I urged people who had yet to contact the council to get in touch, then in early May I repeated the call, saying we would have to start taking tough action soon.
“Unfortunately that time is now.”
He said: “We have followed our standard reminder processes for people who are ignoring the need to pay; we wrote to everyone affected before the bills were produced and we have not taken action as quickly as we should have.
“You don’t need to have a court summons, contact the council immediately to discuss satisfactory terms – this is the last chance for people to avoid significant additional costs and bailiff action.”
Councillor Phil Smith added.
“The impact of government welfare changes are now becoming clear. The combined impact of the Bedroom Tax and the scrapping of Council Tax Benefit is leading to real hardship for many families who, simply, can’t find the money to pay the taxes.”
Although we have bent over backwards to make payment as flexible as possible and given those affected as much time as possible we are now reaching the point where the full impact of the Conservative led government’s policies will be felt by some of the most vulnerable.”
Thurrock Council is expecting to issue around 1,500 summonses in the first tranche for people who have not satisfied the terms of previous reminders.
Cllr Smith said: “We have a duty to collect council tax, and those who receive a bill have a legally enforceable duty to pay it.
“We have several ways to make payments less painful – including spreading the cost across 12 months – and there are various payment methods available. If they haven’t done so already people who have received reminders must contact us so a suitable method of payment can be agreed.”
The process will be that – for those who have made no contact with the council following the issue of reminders – a summons will be issued with the additional £65 costs which allows a further 14 days before the court date where a liability order is obtained, adding a further £30 costs.
I’d like to ask the council just two questions – 1) Are you planning on evicting people over non-payment of the bedroom tax? 2) Are you going to be enforcing the policy of adding late/non-payment charges?
Spreading the cost over 12 months? Oh, really? I received an initial letter saying that I needed to contact the Council before end February to take advantage of their 12-month instalment offer, to which I responded. Then I got a bill which demanded a sum over 10 months, not 12. It’s all very well blaming the Government, Cllr Smith, but try to get your own Council’s admin in order first. I guess I am one of the fortunate or responsible ones who has paid little by little as and when, so I am ahead of the severely restricted repayment plan imposed by the Council. But no thanks to the Council for helping me to achieve this.
My mum rang the number & spoke with someone & made an offer & got told someone will contact them & no one has contacted her
They had the option to raise the money to protect the most vulnerable against council tax but chose not to take that option. So the blame lies on their heads I believe.
Although I agree that everyone should pay a little towards their council tax I have to agree with NoVoice as it was the Labour administration that refused to protect the vulnerable, and then also increased council tax by %2 for everyone else,when the government had offered to freeze it, so Cllr Smith I think the fault lies firmly at your door
chickenfeed1 – Actually, the 2% increase in Council Tax has allowed the council to give more help to those on Housing Benefit. I know that because I was at the meeting that the issue was discussed.
Valen, sorry to contradict you but not only was the increase not neccessary as the budget on the night was a surplus one and simply increased reserves, but there is no evidence yet of any people on benefits, benefiting from this increase, unless you have some? In which case I would stand corrected, but one thing I have learnt from Comrade Kent and his followers is that they say one thing but really mean another.
chickenfeed1 – Actually, Tory Cllr Ojetola is Chair of the committee that discussed and agreed the increase.
Actually Valen, I think that you will find that all budgetary issues were discussed by scrutiny committees but show me one proposal of thoses committees that the cabinet listened to and acted on?
Well done chickenfeed, you are correct, the Audit committee did not agree the council tax rise!
The committee discussed and agreed the proposal to increase the Council Tax by 2% and that was the recommendation put to the cabinet. Cllr Ojetola agreed it to be fair and did not raise any objections at the time. The matter of the Government grant was part of those discussions and the recommendation to the committee to reject the grant and raise Council Tax was not objected to at the meeting at which it was discussed when the reasoning behind that proposal was made clear. By not objecting at that meeting ALL MEMBERS gave their spoken or tacit agreement to the proposal to then be passed to Cabinet. As Chair of the committee, Cllr Ojetola could have voiced his objection but didn’t; in fact, I was surprised by the level of agreement at the meeting but then committee meetings tend to be better natured than full council meetings where party politics raises its ugly head. Whether the recommendation of the committee was taken and implemented is neither here nor there as I merely stated that the committee agreed a 2% rise in council tax to allow for an extra 5% increase in the amount of help offered to those receiving a bill for the first time this year; therefore your comments are irrelevant.
Based on figures previously published by TBC they were owed in excess of £3m in unpaid council tax, this money could be used within the borough so I have no problem with people being chased up, through the courts if necessary, for the payments.
Lambo – I have no objection to non-payers of Council Tax usually but the people this news item refers to are people who already struggle to pay their bills and have been presented with bills for the first time thanks to the changes brought in on the national level by the ConDems therefore a little leniency would be appreciated by those affected.
I’m not one of them so I can take an objective and humane view.
“Valen (Myles) Cook
June 5, 2013 – 8:59 pm
Lambo – I have no objection to non-payers of Council Tax usually . . ”
Great ! I’l not bother then
Will these 1500 be soft soaped compared to everyone else? It looks that way. At the end of April and beginning of May these payments were ‘again’ being chased, and the end of May they still are?
Its now over two months since council tax for 2013/14 first became due, normally the option to pay by instalments would have long since been lost. Or will ‘special circumstances’ apply to these 1500?
Millard – Somehow part of my comment got deleted whilst I was typing it; it should have read ” I have no objection to non-payers of Council Tax BEING CHASED UP usually…”. It is nice to see, however, that you decide to ignore the context of my comment in relation to the comment to which it is a reply. Even without my current clarification, it should have been obvious what I meant so, perhaps, you should try reading the entire conversation before you take the mickey out of someone’s comment.