Folkestone & Hythe District Council Tax Reduction Scheme: 100% Support, Bailiffs, and the Second-Homes Premium

Folkestone & Hythe District Council has voted through a major change to its Council Tax Reduction (CTR) scheme for 2026/27, restoring up to 100% support for working-age households on the lowest incomes from 1 April 2026. The proposal passed on a recorded vote of 22 For, 4 Against, 0 Abstentions, after a debate that turned—unexpectedly—into a wider argument about poverty, fairness to ordinary bill-payers, and the point at which “collection” becomes “punishment”.

CTR is the council’s local system for reducing council tax bills for residents on low incomes. It is means-tested (based on income and circumstances), and it is separate from the 25% single-person discount. The crucial detail is that councils can change the scheme for working-age residents, but pension-age support is set by national rules—so this vote was about the working-age scheme.

What is changing: from “everyone pays something” to 100% support

At present, the council’s working-age scheme offers a maximum 75% discount, meaning even the poorest households must pay at least 25% of their council tax. Under the new scheme, the top band rises to 100%, with the other bands also becoming more generous. In the council’s own summary table, the current support levels of 75% / 55% / 35% / 22% now become 100% / 75% / 50% / 25%. 

The argument for change is anchored in a blunt statistic from the report: last year (2024/25) the council collected 96.45% of council tax overall, but only 77.52% from working-age residents receiving CTR. In other words, the people with the least money are far more likely to fall behind—and once they do, the system escalates quickly.

“A stone pushed up a hill”: the principle, and the paperwork

Proposing the scheme, Councillor Tim Prater described it as “a stone that has been pushed up a hill for a very long time”, arguing that the council should “give more help to the people who need it most” and bring working-age support into line with pension-age residents.

But his central point was not just moral; it was administrative. In essence: if the council knows a household cannot pay, it is wasteful to bill them anyway, chase them, and then run a second process to decide whether to give them hardship help. He called it “crazy to demand money off someone and then say if you fill in this form… we might fund most of it”.

Supporters echoed that view in human terms: families having to choose between essentials (“heating or eating”), residents “surviving” rather than living, and the stress of repeated letters. One councillor summed up the logic as redistributing support to those who need it most rather than spreading tiny savings across everyone, including the very wealthiest.

The counter-case: who pays, and how solid was the consultation?

Opponents did not deny deprivation exists. Their objection was about who funds the discount and whether the public had genuinely endorsed it.

One line of attack was the consultation response rate: the council contacted 5,500 council tax payers and received 168 responses. Critics argued that was too small a basis for such a significant shift, and that “hard-working families” who cannot claim CTR are already struggling and would, in effect, be paying for a more generous scheme.

The second line of attack was the impact on other services funded through council tax. Most of the bill does not fund the district council; it funds preceptors—principally Kent County Council, plus the police and fire services. Any increase in CTR reduces the “tax base” (the amount that can be raised), so preceptors see an income hit unless council tax is increased elsewhere.

What it costs — and the “second homes premium” argument

The council’s report sets out the scale of the change. For 2025/26, the estimated cost of the working-age CTR scheme is £5,449,794 across all preceptors. Moving to a 100% maximum is estimated at £7,201,693, an increase of £1,751,899 overall. The report attributes the district council’s share as £210,228. 

Supporters repeatedly pointed to a local funding source: the second homes premium. The report quotes a previous council decision that it would “explore using any additional income generated” from second homes and empty homes premiums to increase CTR support. It also includes a projection showing 1,077 second-home premium accounts and a projected FHDC benefit of £309,444 (for 2025/26). 

The debate also referenced a practical pressure: the report notes the loss of council tax support funding streams, including a CTS administration payment of £132,392, and other incentive funds of £48,022 and £210,139, which “cannot continue beyond March 2026”.

Bailiffs and council tax: what the spreadsheets show for FHDC

This is where the “Stop the Knock” / Money Advice Trust datasets land with force. They record how many council tax debts each authority refers to enforcement agents (commonly called bailiffs). A referral typically comes after the council has obtained a liability order from the magistrates’ court—essentially a legal confirmation that the debt is owed.

For 2022/23, Folkestone & Hythe District Council reported 1,432 council tax referrals to bailiffs. In the same year it reported 2,410 referrals for parking debts and 97 for business rates.

For the later Stop The Knock dataset, the published “use of bailiffs” table focuses on council tax referrals by year (2023/24 and 2024/25). For FHDC, the number fell to 977 in 2023/24, then rose sharply to 2,085 in 2024/25—an increase of 1,108, or about 113%. The dataset’s note for FHDC adds context: it records “674 accounts (977 liability orders)” in 2023/24; and “1446 accounts (2085 liability orders)” in 2024/25.

These figures do not, on their own, prove cause and effect. Enforcement numbers can move for many reasons: changes in internal policy, staffing, debt profiles, or how councils record referrals. But they do underline why the word “bailiffs” kept surfacing in the chamber. If CTR recipients’ bills are reduced closer to what they can realistically pay—or to zero—there should, in theory, be fewer low-value arrears spiralling into court orders and enforcement action.

More than percentages: technical fixes aimed at fairness

The new scheme is not just about the headline 100%. The report also describes changes to how some Universal Credit elements and special payments are treated in the CTR calculation, including disregarding certain disability-related elements and specific compensation payments. (A “disregard” simply means income that is ignored for the purpose of calculating CTR, so it does not reduce the help you receive.)

The council’s stated intention is to target support at those least able to pay, while reducing the need for discretionary hardship top-ups and repeated “chasing” activity.

What happens next: the test is in enforcement, not slogans

If the council is serious about being both kinder and more efficient, it should be able to show it in the numbers next year: fewer summonses, fewer liability orders, fewer enforcement referrals, and a narrowing gap between overall collection and CTR-recipient collection.

The public interest question is not whether residents on low incomes deserve help—most councillors plainly think they do—but whether this policy actually reduces harm and reduces the costly machinery of recovery. With bailiff referrals swinging from 977 to 2,085 in a single year, the council now has a clear benchmark.

The Shepway Vox Team

The Velvet Voices Of Voxatiousness