MEDIA NOTICE
Rev Paul Nicolson
07961177889 - 02083765455
SUPREME COURT DECISION DUE ON WEDNESDAY 29TH OCTOBER
This
case was kicked off by a telephone call to lawyers from The Rev Paul
Nicolson, a resident of Haringey, on behalf of Taxpayers Against
Poverty. I was concerned that one of the alternatives to the draft
council tax reduction scheme, about which the 2012 consultation took
place, did not include was the option of increasing the average band D
by 86 pence a week which would have kept the 100% benefit for low income
households in work and unemployment.
We
now have the unfair 20% of council tax on benefits, which takes away
with one hand what has been given with the other, on top of the 1%
freeze, the bedroom tax, rent due to cuts in housing benefit, increasing
rents and the escalating prices of food and domestic fuel.
On
top of that imposition on the lowest incomes in the borough the
Magistrates imposed £125 costs on 27,882 households in 2013/14, the
first year benefits were taxed. The bailiffs then add to the impossible
debts a minimum of £75 and another £235 for a visit.
Those
£125 costs are now subject to judicial review in Nicolson v Tottenham
Magistrates & Haringey Council. The High Court leave was given on
the 7th October.
NB.
the council tax reduction scheme (CTRS) devised by local authorities
replaced the council tax benefit (CTB) administered by central
government in the Local Government Finance Act 2012.
In Haringey 20% of council tax was imposed on benefit claimants in work and unemployment from April 2013.
| Article from Local Government Lawyer Supreme Court to hand down key ruling next week on consultations |  |  |  |
| Thursday, 23 October 2014 14:07 |
The Supreme Court is expected to hand down next week (29 October) a key ruling on the proper approach to consultations.
The case of R (on the application of Moseley (in substitution of Stirling) v London Borough of Haringey specifically
considered consultations conducted under the Local Government Finance
Act 1992 in respect of proposed ‘council tax reduction schemes. These
schemes were introduced to replace council tax benefit.
The
appeal considered whether a fair consultation required that consultees
be informed not just of the proposals of the local authority, but also
of the reasons for the proposals.
It
also considered whether consultees should be given sufficient
information to enable them to critically examine the thinking that led
to the proposals.
The
case arose out of Haringey’s consultation upon its council tax
reduction scheme. The Government subsequently announced a Transitional
Grant Scheme (TGS) but the authority adopted its council tax reduction
scheme without re-consultation.
Haringey argued that the Transitional Grant Scheme did not affect the draft scheme.
The local authority won in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal in February 2013.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the consultation process was unfair and unlawful because:
A
five-justice panel of the Supreme Court – comprising Lady Hale, Lord
Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson and Lord Reed – heard the case on 19
June.
|
Taxpayers Against Poverty
93 Campbell Road,
Tottenham,
London N17 0BF
0208 3765455
07961 177889
also at www.z2k.org
also at www.prohousingalliance.com
https://twitter.com/taxpayers_a_p
No comments:
Post a Comment