Shepway District Council wish to steal money from the mouths of babes and harm the disabled even more We kid you not. They are considering this.
SDC are undertaking a Public Consultation on their Council Tax Reduction Scheme. This consultation will possibly mean many will have to pay more in council tax.
In 2013 – 12,304 people received summonses to court for non-payment of Council Tax
In 2014 – 11,253 people received summonses to court for non-payment of Council Tax.
In 2015 to Aug 31 – 6031 people received summonses.
Between 2003 and August 2015 – 106,106 people in Shepway have received summonses to court for non payment of council tax. The population of Shepway is 108,000 approximately.
Two of these people who were summonsed to court were former SDC Cllrs, David Wimble and former Mayor of Folkestone Emily ArnoldSo it shows that even non-pensioner Cllrs are not immune to financial difficulty.
SDC receive nearly 50% of their income from Council Tax. By having the Consultation SDC are asking you the residents of Shepway to answer some questions. One of these questions is as follows:
Question 18 – Do you agree with the principle that any Child Maintenance or Child Benefit paid to the claimant or partner should be counted in full rather than ignored when assessing Council Tax Reduction?
We at Shepwayvox say a categorical no to this question. Money which is meant to be spent on Children should not end up, in part or full, being spent on, or included in any calculation for Council Tax. Potentially stealing money from the mouths of babes is deplorable. To even contemplate it we believe demonstrates what lengths our Tory led administration, at SDC, are willing to go to in order to save money.
Perhaps one of the ways to save money is not buy land at Otterpool Park. Another is to use the £347,000 SDC receive yearly for the New Homes Bonus and the income they receive from renting out the land at Otterpool lane.There is no guarantee that child maintenance will be paid by the former partner, on time or anytime. And there has been long outcries about the mismanagement of the child support agency who administer child maintenance. Just read mumsnet.No doubt you can think of other reasons.
In effect what this means is that single parents and working age families may well receive less financial help from SDC regarding their Council Tax and there bill will rise, so they will have less money.
Question 20 asks us to consider taking money away from the disabled. ‘Disabled means both physical and mental‘.Question 20 states:
20. Do you agree with the principle that any DLA or PIP paid to the claimant or partner should be counted in full rather than ignored when assessing Council Tax Reduction?
In the Equality Act 2010, s1 and s149 states there is a Public sector duty regarding socio-economic inequalities
We believe there may well be Human Rights issues raised if the Council go ahead and cut the amount of reduction to the disabled and single and working age families. It is not Justifiable. It is not appropriate. It is not proportionate, nor is it necessary, when monies from elsewhere – mentioned above – can be used to stop the reduction from happening.
Council tax has been criticised for being disproportionate, with those in more expensive houses not paying as much as those in smaller houses as a proportion of the value of the house and has therefore been called a “new poll tax for the poor”.
We would ask/urge you to complete the Consultationto prevent SDC stealing money from the mouths of babes and stop them making those already disabled and disadvantaged from being financially penalized.
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Strikes me that Common Purpose is at work here in this instance. The tentacles of this insipid organisation have already infiltrated SDC – could it be that their grotesque policies are about to be unleashed upon the unsuspecting residents of Shepway?
Of course they are. David Monk, in persuit of his autonimous goal, wil will laud the supposed benefits of this scheme and ignore any doubts raised by his electorate. So no change there then.
Public Consultation? It’s a joke , but I guess that those eligible ought to go through the motions by taking part in it. At least we can then bring them to book for ignoring the people’s representations, Common Purpose or not!
The “Nasty Party” in action it is…