Forum Topic

Council Tax Support - should disabled people pay?

The council is holding a consultation on the future of council tax support.At the moment everyone of 'working age' has to pay at least 8.5% of council tax. Before 2013, people with disability did not have to pay a penny. In my opinion the 'working age' distinction is offensive to disabled people who can't WORK. The government handed down this definition of who should not be excluded but I don't think the council needed to swallow it.Apparently there is a total of £18.6m in uncollected council tax. I'm not sure how much of this is unpaid by those who are disabled, but I don't think we should be getting bailiffs out for disabled people - who have seen benefits like the Independent Living Fund cut by the government.The consultation is at the link below:https://eforms.hounslow.gov.uk/ufs/ufsmain;jsessionid=A2680C65663F35D886687419C38DE12D?ebz=1_1441058916146&ebd=0

Crispin Flintoff ● 3629d22 Comments

I agree with you Mick! I dont know how they do it but they clearly do. Most use the psycological disaabilities that are apparently quite easy to mimic and difficult to detect fraudulently. It doesx appear that genuine people are more rigourously interrogated, I assume because it shows that DWP do take some time to investigate claims.

Kathy Riley ● 3608d

Indeed Phil, fraud or not playing within the spirit of the law is wrong at both the tax and welfare ends of the scale. It's people who seem to make a career out of fraud that give most of us the hump.Most people on benefits are on them for a good reason and most of us pay our taxes . It's always going to be the bad apples that are used as anecdotal examples unfortunately because the average person is powerless to do anything about the situation.

Keith Iddon ● 3613d

Well said, Phil. I wonder what tax is being saved in Brentford alone by all the properties owned in tax havens (including my landlord here in Ferry Quays - see http://www.private-eye.co.uk/registry?utm_source=brand&utm_medium=registry&utm_campaign=registry)

Guy Lambert ● 3613d

I've done a lot of disability welfare work over the years. Given that there is no increase in disability benefits to cover this additional cost, it's effectively a tax on disability.If you are in the ESA* 'Support' category you should continue to be exempt.Then the government needs to fix the assessment process for ESA that is currently not fir=t for purpose.*Employment and Support Allowance - support category is for those who are not expected to work or prepare for work.

Karen Adams, Our Barn ● 3613d

Although it is inevitable under any welfare system that somebody will abuse it, the amount of money lost to benefit fraud is inconsequential by comparison to what is lost both to tax avoidance (which is within the letter but often not the spirit of the law) and tax evasion (which is illegal).  Official estimates even suggest that it is lower than the amount of benefit which is unclaimed by people who are entitled to receive it.People claiming benefit who are working, or should be working, ought be subject to the full rigour of the law but we are encouraged to focus on a relatively small number of extreme cases whilst the people who really are selling the country short are allowed to continue doing so.

Phil Andrews ● 3613d

Perhaps 'these people' are long time claimants who haven't informed the DWP of an improvement in their condition (which can, for some, happen) - something which they are supposed to do.

Anne England ● 3613d

Like you Kathy, I occasionally see some of those "benefit fraud" programmes and I am constantly amazed by them. My wife is severely disabled with acute osteo-arthritis in knees, hips and hands, heart problems and disintegrating vertebrae in her neck. For her to successfully claim DLA was a hard slog with checks and balances at all stages, culminating in a DWP doctor flying to London from Glasgow to carry out a full physical examination (despite all the NHS paperwork, reports, scans, Xrays, MRIs etc from several senior consultants being included with her claim). I accept that some people do appear to be able to "scam" the system, but I am at a loss to understand how they do it.

Mick Brent ● 3614d

No I havent read the confidential file nor have would I think have you of the 2380 people deemed fit for work!!! I am referring to this one indivudal with regards his driving, I know what I see, and what I see is a man that is claiming to DWP that he is unable to walk, unable to operate machinery, and drive an automatic vehicle, when in fact he does all three on a daily basis! No need to look up a file for that! Like the benefit fraud investigations you see on tv with the CCTV evidence of them playing footbal when they say they cant walk more than 20 yards unaided, I suppose their 'confidential files' contain something so ominous that the investigators have got it wrong????

Kathy Riley ● 3614d

2,380 people dying after being passed fit for work is scandalous. It is estimated that the number of people who are frauding is less than 0.5%. Are you under the impression that disabled people on benefit are unable to drive? What is motability for in that case? Have you read the confidential DWP file of your neighbour?

Crispin Flintoff ● 3621d

That's a fair point. But we have to remember that many savers would have lost out if this hadn't been done. I wasn't being party political in my point. I know that Labour introduced the work capability assessment, for example.

Crispin Flintoff ● 3621d

Hi Crispin,Not only am I referring to the benefit scams that have been on TV but the ones I witness every day during my work and my home life! You quote numbers of disabled people that have died after being fit for work, do you have numbers for people who are falsely claiming disability benefit? Do you have number of those 2380 people that died whilst being past fit for work that died as a result of being at work? I am stating my opinion which I have due to witnessing incidents daily. I have a neighbour who claims higher rate disability claiming he cant walk more than 50 metres unaided yet he can cut his grass in one fell swoop, without stopping, he can walk to the local pub without the aid of his stick and he can drive his vehicle, something that he claims to benefits he is not able to do. He was employed as a lorry driver up until 7 years ago but claims he cannot drive due to his disability? Dont figure! So no I dont have to comment on why 2380 died as a result of being deemed fit for work. I was talking about people who flaunt the system and dont bother hising that fact!

Kathy Riley ● 3621d

A banking system which the government of the day was at pains to bail out with money belonging to those who were to become the victims of austerity, you might have added.

Phil Andrews ● 3622d

Hi Kathy2,380 disabled people died between 2011 and 2014 after being passed fit for work. Can you comment on this? TV programmes about people on benefits give a false idea about what the reality is for disabled people. There has been a deliberate attempt to make it seem that benefit claimants are the cause of the deficit, when the reality is that it was because of a banking system that was not controlled properly.

Crispin Flintoff ● 3622d

If I was confident that the DWP investigated claims for disability to its fullest then hell yeah I agree that they should recevie full benefit. But I could name at least 20 people that have no right to get disability but do. All because they know how to work the system as proven on the many Britain on Benefits programmes! There are many people who through pride and pride alone go out to work for a pittance and are struggling to pay for food let alone anything else and they cant get a penny of assistance but still get taken to court, still have to pay full council tax. Credit where creedit is due!

Kathy Riley ● 3623d

'those who deliberately avoid paying...should be pursued vigorously' applies to those who just avoid their responsibilities toward the rest of us who do pay. This was not aimed at the disabled in any way ,who I understand have greater needs but at the people, able bodied or not, who just decide not to pay but who have a sense of 'entitlement' to the same expensive services that the rest of us who willingly pay are. This includes services for people with disabilities.

Keith Iddon ● 3628d

Yes Raymond , well put.

Keith Iddon ● 3628d

I agree that the 'working age' tag is irrelevant if someone is too disabled to  work. They should of course not be expected to pay and government should not 'begrudge'( for want of a better word) them services. There are some disabilities that do not preclude work and I am firm believer that if you are able to do work and are of a working age then you should make genuine efforts to do so. Broadly speaking it is also good for a person to work as it gives a focus for the day, they meet and interact with other people and it can give a sense of self worth and pride in that they 'pay their own way' in life.Unemployment can sometimes contribute to the onset of negative mind sets and even depression. To be relatively young, with nothing to do and no money can't be good.

Keith Iddon ● 3628d

Raymond, thanks for your input.There are a few points I'd like to make in response.The first is that there are obviously disabled people who cannot work. This is not an unwillingness on their part. But an inability to do so. For this reason, the government saying these people are 'of working age' is irrelevant and, I would say, offensive. I am not being particularly PC or idealistic about how we use words when I say this.Many people with disabilities have seen their opportunities diminished by cuts to benefits in the past few years. On top of this, people with disabilities are more likely to need hospital care and many hospitals (such as the West Middlesex) charge exorbitant car parking fees. Being totally skint is definitely not empowering and does not allow for integration. We must not forget that we could also all become disabled at any point. It is worth our while making sure we all have a good safety net for this reason alone.The law is that if you don't pay then debt recovery comes into play. I'm sure many able bodied people would find it unfair if they can't pay and see bailiffs and disabled people do not. For that reason I think it is far more sensible to stop charging disabled people what is not a great amount so that we are supporting them and also not opening up the possibility of bailiffs being used.

Crispin Flintoff ● 3628d

Very well put, Raymond.

Susan Kelly ● 3628d

It's a tricky one. The disability lobby have hard fought a lot of changes in the law to ensure their emancipation and integration into mainstream society.That has in a lot of cases placed idealism over pragmatism and resulted in some things being made harder for many with disabilities to suit the idealist utopia.It has also cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money, mainly directed at wheelchair users but often at the expense of other disabilities.Either way there is now better acceptance of disabled, but the DDA laws  work both ways and being part of mainstream society means paying your way like everyone else.In reality, there are still practical impossibilities and these do need to be recognised. No-one can expect all disabled to work or be able to earn enough to pay various taxes.But those who can earn and be on a level pegging should pay at least a small contribution.But bailiffs?  They should only ever be deployed as a last resort to those who won't pay.

Raymond Havelock ● 3628d

I agree that anyone who can pay should pay something(particularly if they are in work) whilst taking into account that some disabled people may incur expense in areas of their lives where those of us fortunate enough not to be disabled don't.As for sending bailiffs to a disabled person's house generally I would say of course not, but every case should be taken on merit. I also agree that the amount in sheckles will be minimal in relation to those who deliberately avoid paying. I'm sure they still want ambulance/fire brigade, clean hospitals, good local schools etc. so they should be pursued vigorously.

Keith Iddon ● 3629d

If disabled people have only been liable to pay since 2013 I think it is unlikely that they would comprise much of this figure.  But I would agree that we should be prioritising the "won't pays" over the "can't pays" in matters of enforcement and that we should not be sending bailiffs out to disabled people whose lives have been made difficult enough by other cuts.Sometimes it just isn't enough to wring our hands and say "Not our fault, guv".

Phil Andrews ● 3629d