Consultation outcome

Improving enforcement of council tax: government response

Updated 12 October 2026

Overview of responses

There were 195 responses overall to the consultation, a breakdown of the different types of responses is set out in the table below. Responses were generally provided through Citizen Space or by email.

The government is grateful to everyone who participated in this consultation. All responses have been reviewed in considering the government’s response to this consultation.

This document provides a summary of the consultation responses received. While some respondents highlighted concerns regarding implementation costs, administrative impacts and collection performance, there was broad support for measures intended to encourage earlier engagement with taxpayers, improve access to support and provide greater consistency in council tax recovery processes. The government has considered these views in reaching the decisions set out in this consultation response.

Types of respondents
Local Authority organisation or special interest group	11
London Borough	14
Member of Parliament	1
Metropolitan District	17
Parish or Town council	1
Shire County	2
Shire District	40
Unitary Authority	37
Voluntary Group	19
Other representative group	12
Other	41
Total	195

Introduction

Council tax provides vital funding for local services. The government is committed to ensuring that councils can collect council tax effectively and address non-payment, while ensuring that action is fair and proportionate, encourages early engagement and supports households experiencing financial difficulty. This aligns with other public sector work to promote fair, effective and more consistent debt management practices, balancing appropriate support with proportionate action to recover money owed.

In its response to the 2025 consultation on modernising and improving council tax administration, the government announced reforms to council tax collection and enforcement. These reforms are intended to promote a more consistent and supportive approach to council tax recovery that prevents debt from escalating unnecessarily, while ensuring councils retain effective collection powers. This included extending to 63 days the period before a taxpayer loses the right to pay by instalments and introducing a £100 cap on liability order costs. The government also committed to consult on the statutory steps councils should take before proceeding to formal enforcement.

This consultation “Improving enforcement of council tax” ran from 1 to 29 July and sought views on the operation of those statutory steps, the role of accompanying guidance and the practical impacts of implementation.

Having considered the evidence received, this consultation response summarises the responses received, explains the government’s decisions and sets out the next steps for implementation.

Summary of government’s response

Having considered the views and evidence provided, the government will proceed with a package of reforms to strengthen safeguards for taxpayers before formal enforcement action is taken, while ensuring councils retain effective powers to collect council tax.

The government will require councils to issue at least one reminder notice and one final notice before a taxpayer loses the right to pay by instalments. It will prescribe additional information to be included in notices and develop an optional notice template, to be set out in guidance.

The government will also prescribe a notice schedule under which a final notice may not be issued less than 14 days after the most recent reminder notice and no earlier than 41 days after the first missed payment. Taxpayers will then have 21 days from the issue of a final notice to pay any outstanding council tax before losing the right to pay by instalments.

The government will develop guidance, drawing on best practice identified through the consultation and work with stakeholders, to promote early engagement, appropriate support and proportionate recovery action while preserving councils’ discretion to determine the most appropriate approach in individual circumstances.

The government recognises concerns raised by local authorities and other stakeholders regarding the operational and financial impacts of these changes. It will undertake a full new burdens assessment and continue to engage with local authorities, software suppliers and other stakeholders to support implementation.

The government considers that this package strikes an appropriate balance between supporting taxpayers experiencing financial difficulty and ensuring councils can collect council tax effectively and address deliberate non-payment.

Steps required to be taken by councils before formal enforcement

Reminders and final notices

This section sought views on the number, timing and content of reminder and final notices issued prior to formal enforcement action. This sought views on whether additional information should be prescribed within notices and whether standardised notices could support greater consistency. This section also sought views on when councils should be required to issue a final notice following a missed payment and any barriers to implementing this.

We asked

Question 1

How many reminder notices (including discretionary reminder notices) did you issue to households ahead of a final notice for 2025-26? Please provide any further details of the notices you provide e.g. how and when these are sent.

132 responses

Question 2

Do you agree that one reminder notice and one final notice should be the minimum requirement for councils?

Multiple choice options:

• yes: councils should send one reminder notice and one final notice as a minimum
• no: councils should be required to send at least 2 reminder notices before they issue a final notice
• no: councils should decide how many reminder notices to send in the 63-day period
• no: any other reason

Please explain your answer – with any evidence where available.

195 responses

You said

Overview of responses

Of those who responded to Question 1, 25% noted that they would send an additional reminder notice in addition to the standard reminder, while 3% commented that they only issued the 1 standard notice. When considering the format of the additional reminder notices sent, 24% noted that they sent out additional text reminders and 8% confirmed that they directly called the taxpayer regarding the unpaid bill.

Of those who responded to Question 2, 42% agreed with the proposal to require billing authorities to issue one reminder notice and one final notice as a minimum, 30% disagreed with the proposal and suggested councils should be required to send at least 2 reminder notices before issuing a final notice; and 15% felt decisions on notices should be left to billing authorities.

Detailed comments

Some councils noted that their reminder notices are currently issued at specific times in the month, rather than after a specific period of time after a missed payment.

There were responses around the impact of requiring further notices, with some respondents noting that requiring further notices would not improve engagement. Some respondents raised concerns that too many notices have a negative impact on taxpayer’s mental wellbeing. Furthermore, some responses raised concern that allowing notices to be repeatedly reissued without consequence could encourage delayed payment and reduce compliance.

There were suggestions that if more notices were required, government should enable councils to send these digitally by text or email.

Respondents noted that a requirement for further notices will create additional costs for councils.

Government response

The government recognises that local authorities have differing practices in issuing notices. While taxpayers in some areas benefit from receiving additional reminders through various media formats, others may only receive one standard notice.

The government agrees that taxpayers should receive adequate notice of unpaid council tax and how they may resolve this. However, the government believes it is also right that councils should not be required to send several similar notices for the same debt to all households.

The government will therefore amend regulations to require councils to issue at least one reminder notice and one final notice ahead of households losing the right to pay in instalments.

The government believes this approach strikes a fair balance between ensuring taxpayers have received sufficient notice and are able to engage on debt, while maintaining the flexibility for councils to determine how best to communicate with residents.

The government also recognises the benefits digital notices can have on engagement. The government currently offers local authorities a tool to issue additional discretionary digital notices through its notification system called GOV.UK Notify. The government will continue to engage with local authorities on the use of digital communications to support taxpayer engagement.

We asked

Question 3

What other information, if any, should be included in the reminder notices. Please tick all applicable from below.

• signpost to debt advice providers e.g. Money and Pensions Service, Citizens Advice, StepChange for income maximisation support etc.
• signpost to council to discuss payment plans
• signpost to information about discounts, exemptions, disregards reductions and other support for which a taxpayer may be eligible. Include a link on information on support in the system
• signpost to other money and welfare services within the council
• other suggestions [open text response]
• none of the above – this requirement should apply to final notices only (include open text to explain reasoning)

195 responses

Question 4

The government is proposing that reminder notices and final notices should set out the actions that councils may take to enforce council tax debt in simple, factual, non-threatening language and proportional to the level of notice.

For example, information on reminder notices should focus on encouraging taxpayers to seek help with their bills, while more detailed information on formal enforcement actions should be reserved for the final notice.

Do you agree with this? Please share any best practice on how you approach this.

183 responses

Question 5

Should the government prescribe a template to use for these letters to enable consistency across England?

Multiple choice option:

• yes: there should be a mandatory template, with its use set out in regulations
• no: however, it might be useful to provide a universal template which is optional and set out in guidance
• no: a template is unnecessary and should not be provided
• any other suggestion (open text)

Please explain your reasoning (open text).

187 responses

You said

Overview of responses

Of those who responded to Question 3, the vast majority agreed with the inclusion of the suggested information on notices, with some responses noting that councils already provide similar information. Only 3 % responded that none of the suggested information should be included on reminder notices.

Of those who responded to Question 4, 39% felt that notices should be written in plain English while 38% felt that reminder notices should focus on early engagement and resolution rather than formal recovery procedures. 33% believed that notices should set out the recovery process for taxpayers as this will help them understand the process and 25% felt the priority of the notice was to promote engagement with residents.

Of those who responded to Question 5, 37% agreed with the idea of a mandatory template, however 44% felt a universal template which was optional and set out in guidance was more suitable. 5% felt that a template was completely unnecessary.

Detailed comments

Some responses raised concerns that including too much information in notices could overwhelm households and detract from the key messages. Some respondents suggested more detailed information could be provided via a web link or a QR code instead.

Responses highlighted broad support for reminder notices being focused on early engagement and support rather than formal recovery action. However, some responses considered it important that notices clearly explained the recovery process and consequences of non payment.

There were mixed views on the language used in the notices. Some respondents emphasised the benefits of plain English or non-threatening language on notices to encourage engagement. However, others were concerned that requiring softer language could undermine the seriousness of the notice, while some felt that terms like “threatening” language are subjective and needed clarity. There were also suggestions that councils should offer translations of notices or other accessible alternative versions of the notices.

Views were mixed on the proposal to provide a template. 40% of respondents who provided further comments supported a mandatory template which would provide consistency across councils. A further 16% added that this approach would address claims of “postcode lottery” on the use of notices.

41% of respondents who provided further comments highlighted the benefits of being able to amend an optional template and a further 30% noted the need to be able to tailor the notice to meet specific local circumstances e.g. local support scheme.

While some responses shared a preference for guidance on notice content, others questioned the effectiveness of a non–mandatory template.

Government response

The government agrees that notices should provide clear and accurate information about the recovery actions available to councils. The government also considers that this information should be presented in a proportionate and balanced way that prioritises early engagement, signposts available support and promotes the sustainable resolution of council tax debt. Reminder notices should focus on encouraging taxpayers to engage with councils and seek support at an early stage. Final notices should set out, in a clear and factual manner, the consequences of continued non-payment, while also emphasising the support available to taxpayers who engage with their council to resolve their debt.

While responses are clear that some councils include information on their notices signposting support available, the government recognises concerns that this is not consistent. The government will amend the regulations to prescribe the following additional categories of information that should be included in the reminder notices and final notices:

• signpost to debt advice providers
• signpost to council to discuss payment plans
• signpost to information about discounts, exemptions, disregards reductions and other support for which a taxpayer may be eligible

The government recognises that money and welfare services are not available in all councils and will use guidance to encourage councils to signpost to these services where available.

Responses demonstrated that there was clear support for both greater consistency in notices sent for council tax debt, and for flexibility to tailor this for local circumstances and support. The government has therefore concluded that an optional template, which can be tailored for local circumstances, is preferable to prescribing a mandatory template. The government will work with councils and debt advice organisations to publish an optional template for local authorities to use as part of guidance.

The final notice schedule, as proposed by the improving enforcement of council tax consultation

The government is proposing that the final notice:

• cannot be issued until at least 14 days after the most recent reminder notice was issued
• cannot be issued earlier than 41 days after the day the missed instalment was due and remains unpaid
• should set out clearly that residents will have 21 days to pay the amount stated in the notice (which will be the amount(s) due on the day the notice was issued)
• should state that if payment is not made by the end of the 21 days, the remaining full year’s bill will become due on the following day (which will be the 63rd day after the first missed payment)

We asked

Question 6

Do you agree with the proposal as set out above?

• yes
• no

Explain your answer.

177 responses

Question 7

What barriers do councils anticipate in implementing the proposed changes to reminder and final notices as set out above?  

Please tick all applicable from below:

• need for additional staff training or capability
• changes required to IT systems or digital processes
• additional administrative complexity
• additional costs to the council (e.g. additional staffing costs)
• difficulty aligning the proposed changes with existing recovery processes
• data-sharing or information-sharing constraints
• communications or accessibility barriers
• no significant barriers
• other (please specify)

Please provide evidence to support your answer.

125 responses

You said

Overview of responses

Of those who responded to Question 6, just over half of the respondents (51%) agreed with the proposed schedule for the final notice, 40% did not agree and 9% did not provide a response.

Of those who responded to Question 7, respondents highlighted a range of barriers to implementing the proposed changes to the reminder and final notices. The most commonly cited were additional costs to councils (e.g. staffing costs) (62%), changes required to IT systems (61%) and need for additional staff training (57%). Other barriers included increasing administrative complexity (57%) and difficulty aligning the proposed changes with existing recovery processes (49%). 7% of respondents felt there were no significant barriers to the changes.

Detailed comments

Views on the proposed notice schedule were mixed. Of those who provided further comment, 27% considered the proposal provided sufficient time for taxpayers to seek support before they became liable for the full bill. A further 7% noted that the proposal broadly reflected their existing practice. Some responses questioned the need for the proposed schedule and pointed out similar protections already exist through the Breathing Space scheme.

However, 30% of those who provided further comments were critical of extending the timeframe to 63 days with some responses expressing concern that the proposal would undermine incentives to pay on time and others considered the proposed scheduled as complex.

Respondents also highlighted further implementation challenges including data sharing constraints (48 respondents); potential cashflow impacts (25 respondents) and concerns around existing pressures on securing court dates (17 respondents).

More broadly, respondents stressed the importance of providing sufficient implementation time, allowing councils and software suppliers adequate opportunity to adapt systems, processes and staff training arrangements.

Government response

The government recognises that, while some councils already issue discretionary notices at later stages of the recovery process, the proposed approach introduces a new minimum requirement which may result in additional costs for local authorities.

The government acknowledges concerns that extending recovery timelines could affect council cashflow and increase the administrative burden associated with engaging residents. However, the government considers that these changes will support earlier engagement with households experiencing financial difficulty and encourage sustainable repayment arrangements, helping to prevent avoidable escalation through the recovery process.

Having considered the responses received, the government will proceed with its proposal to amend regulations to prescribe the timing and sequencing of the final notice. This will help ensure a more consistent approach to council tax recovery across England and provide households with a clear and fair opportunity to engage with councils and access support before formal enforcement action is taken.

The government recognises the implementation and cost pressures identified by respondents, particularly in relation to software development, system changes and associated administrative requirements. The government has committed to undertaking a full new burdens assessment to determine the impact of these reforms and ensure that councils are appropriately funded for any additional costs. It will work directly with councils following this response to assess these costs.

The government will also ensure that implementation timescales take account of the time required for system development, testing and deployment, and will continue to work closely with local authorities and software providers to support the effective implementation of the reforms.

Developing guidance to support councils and taxpayers

This section sought views on the supportive approaches currently used by councils when recovering council tax, as well as additional measures that could help households experiencing vulnerability or financial hardship. Responses will inform government guidance and help identify approaches that could be adopted more consistently across England.

We asked

Question 8

Which of the following policy options do you feel could have a positive impact in supporting taxpayers with their council tax payments?

• offering alternative repayment arrangements (e.g. setting up voluntary deduction plans with employers)
• flexible payment options (e.g. agreeing bespoke payment plans like weekly payments)
• using tailored and alternative sources of communication (text, phone, emails, post)
• conducting welfare checks
• referral and handover to in house or external debt advisors
• signpost to money advice services and debt advice providers
• none of the above
• other (please specify)

Please explain your answer (open text)

180 responses

Question 9

Please provide examples of existing practices in your local authority which support taxpayers with their council tax debt.

147 responses

Question 10

What other practices do you think councils should consider, which could be included in the guidance?

166 responses

You said

Overview of responses

Of those who responded to Question 8, the vast majority agreed with the proposed measures with the most popular option being “using tailored and alternative methods of communication (93%). This was followed by “signposting residents to money and debt advice services” (92%) and offering flexible payment options (90%). The option with the least agreement was “conducting welfare checks” (76%). One respondent disagreed with the use of any of the listed options. Overall responses demonstrated broad support for interventions designed to encourage earlier engagement and help taxpayers manage their debts before formal enforcement action becomes necessary.

Of those who responded to Question 9, the commonly cited approach was signposting to debt advice and support organisations (51%), followed by altering payment plans and dates (41%) and signposting taxpayers to council tax discounts (39%). Other approaches mentioned included using multi-channel communications (34%) and data sharing and maintaining cooperative relationships with debt advisors (22%). These responses indicated that the majority of councils already use a range of different measures to support taxpayers in managing debts, though the exact practices will vary between councils.

Of those who responded to Question 10, the most popular response was focusing on earlier and proactive engagement (22%). Other responses suggested reviewing the use of enforcement agents (17%), using other means to contact taxpayers (17%) and early and consistent identification of vulnerability (17%).

There were also calls for greater consistency and coordination across local government and the debt advice sector. 14% of respondents suggested that councils should recognise standard financial statements produced by debt advice organisations to reduce duplication and streamline affordability assessments, while 10% of respondents called for more joined-up services within councils, with closer collaboration between revenue, housing, welfare, financial inclusion and support teams.

Detailed comments

Respondents highlighted strong support for measures that promote early engagement and support for taxpayers in arrears. 78% of respondents supported referral or handover to in-house or external debt advisers, with some noting that debt advice organisations are well placed to undertake affordability assessments and understand a household’s financial circumstances.

Respondents also supported the use of alternative repayment arrangements, although many noted that existing legislation limits the use of deductions of earnings or benefits orders prior to obtaining a liability order.

While welfare checks were generally supported, respondents highlighted concerns regarding resource implications and emphasised the importance of retaining local discretion. Some respondents noted that implementing these interventions could result in additional costs.

Respondents identified a range of existing practices that support taxpayers with council tax debt. Most respondents highlighted signposting residents to debt advice and support organisations as an important part of their existing recovery approach. Others described established data-sharing arrangements and collaborative working with advice providers and other organisations to help identify vulnerable households and coordinate support.

Respondents also emphasised the importance of early engagement, including contacting residents at an early stage of arrears and directing them towards appropriate support. Some councils highlighted income-maximisation activities, including supporting residents to claim benefits, identify discounts or exemptions, and increase household income.

Respondents identified opportunities to strengthen support for taxpayers through improved data sharing and closer partnership working. Many called for greater access to central government data to help identify vulnerability and financial hardship at an earlier stage, while some respondents highlighted the benefits of more joined-up services within councils to improve outcomes for residents.

Government response

The government welcomes the evidence provided by respondents and recognises that many councils already use a range of supportive approaches to help taxpayers manage their council tax bills.

Responses suggest that the availability and use of these approaches vary across England. The government wants to ensure that taxpayers, regardless of where they live, can access appropriate support and are encouraged to engage with their council at an early stage to help prevent debt from escalating.

The government recognises the benefits of greater consistency in council tax recovery practices, while also recognising that local circumstances vary. The government will therefore publish guidance, drawing on sector best practice, to support effective and proportionate debt recovery while enabling councils to tailor their approach to local needs and individual circumstances.

The guidance will be developed in partnership with councils, debt advice organisations, the Government Debt Management Function and other stakeholders. It will promote early and proactive engagement, tailored and accessible communication, effective signposting and collaborative working with debt advice organisations.

The guidance will seek to promote greater consistency across the sector while preserving local discretion. The government does not propose to mandate specific interventions, such as welfare checks, but will consider how guidance can support councils to take a proportionate and risk-based approach to identifying and supporting taxpayers experiencing financial hardship or vulnerability.

Balancing the need to support households in difficulty whilst tackling tax avoidance

This section sought views on the processes and barriers councils currently face in differentiating between taxpayers presenting with genuine financial hardship and deliberate non-payment. This section also sought views on other tools which could assist in making this distinction and manage cases of deliberate non- payment.

We asked

Question 11

What challenges do councils face in identifying vulnerability or hardship at pre-enforcement stage?

• limited data on households and data‑sharing constraints
• reliance on self‑disclosure, meaning vulnerabilities go unreported until enforcement begins
• difficulty distinguishing between temporary and long‑term financial vulnerabilities
• capacity and resource constraints of the council which mean they are unable to effectively engage at an early stage
• language and accessibility barriers
• digital exclusion leading to low engagement
• no significant challenges
• any other (please specify)

Please include evidence of any stated above.

186 responses

Question 12

What information or evidence do councils currently use at the pre-enforcement stage to assess whether a household is unable or unwilling to pay their council tax bill?

• information provided directly by the household, including contact from the taxpayer or their representative
• previous payment history and patterns of non-payment
• information already held by the council, including records of council tax support or other local authority services
• information shared by other public bodies or partner organisations
• indicators of non-engagement, including repeated non-response to council communications
• professional judgement based on caseworker experience
• affordability assessments (and related information) from debt advice organisations
• no specific information or evidence is used at this stage
• any other information or evidence (please specify)

185 responses

You said

Overview of responses

The vast majority of responses to Question 11 agreed with the challenges listed as those faced by councils in identifying vulnerability and financial hardship at pre-enforcement stage. 80% of respondents identified reliance on self-disclosure as a significant challenge. 79% of respondents reported limited data on households and data sharing constraints as another challenge. 75% of respondents felt that councils had limited capacity and resources which impacted their ability to effectively engage at an early stage.

Of those who responded to Question 12, 62% reported relying on information provided by taxpayers to assess their ability to pay their council tax debt. 56% noted using information held by the council, which included records related to council tax support and 50% said they considered previous payment history and patterns of nonpayment to assess ability to pay. Overall responses suggest that councils rely heavily on information already available locally, however have limited access to broader sources of data at the pre-enforcement stage.

Detailed comments

Councils noted that they are significantly limited in their ability to identify vulnerability where residents do not engage with bills, notices or other communications.

More specifically, 70% of respondents reported difficulty distinguishing between temporary financial pressures and longer-term vulnerabilities, making it challenging to determine the most appropriate support. Some respondents noted concern on the lack of consistent definition of what constituted as vulnerability.

Respondents highlighted GDPR and other data-sharing barriers as obstacles to effective identification of vulnerable households. Respondents suggested that access to centrally held data would significantly improve councils’ ability to identify households experiencing hardship at an earlier stage.

Respondents also highlighted concerns around barriers to engagement - 58% of respondents highlighted language and accessibility barriers to engaging with councils with some further comments suggesting communication or cultural barriers. 56% reported the impact of digital exclusion leading to low engagement from residents. Other respondents noted that residents are suspicious of local authorities which means they are unwilling to share relevant/ sensitive information with councils.

Limited staffing and competing pressures were also suggested as an issue which can reduce opportunities for early engagement with residents. Some respondents noted that enforcement agents were better equipped than councils at identifying vulnerabilities.

While many councils reported using their professional judgment based on caseworker experience with the resident to resolve cases, the majority of respondents reported they were reliant on self-reported data to assess hardship and vulnerability.

Seventy-one respondents reported using affordability assessments as part of their considerations. There were arguments for and against the routine use of standard financial statements. Some responses argued these were a useful metric for sustainable recovery, whereas other responses argued these were not always reliable.

Some respondents emphasised the need for these assessments to consider a combination of factors and that these should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Some respondents reported not using any evidence or information at this stage and others observed that there was insufficient evidence at pre-enforcement stage.

We asked

Question 13

What other tools or flexibilities would assist councils in distinguishing between households experiencing genuine hardship and those who are deliberately not paying at the pre-enforcement stage? Please explain.

159 responses

Question 14

What additional tools or flexibilities would assist councils in dealing with those who are considered to be deliberately choosing not to pay their council tax bills? Please explain.

152 responses

You said

Overview of responses

Most responses to Question 13 and Question 14 highlighted the importance of government improving data sharing capabilities between councils and between councils and central government. 54% of responses to Question 13 and 53% of responses to Question 14 called for improved data sharing with central government, including access to DWP and HMRC which councils can use to differentiate between those who can afford to pay their bills and vulnerable residents. Responses to Question 13 also highlighted the importance of clearer data sharing arrangements between and within local authorities.

Detailed responses

Respondents identified a range of additional measures that could support councils in distinguishing between households experiencing financial hardship and those who are unwilling to pay. These included improved access to data, such as credit checks, employer details, bank account information, to help councils better understand taxpayers’ circumstances.

Several respondents also called for greater clarity and consistency in the identification of vulnerability, including a clearer definition of vulnerability and further guidance on the use of affordability assessments and standard financial statements. Some respondents expressed concern about the potential expansion of the groups that could be considered vulnerable.

A number of respondents suggested that councils should be provided with additional recovery powers and flexibilities, including changes to the use of deductions from earnings and benefits. Others requested clearer guidance on the actions available to councils where taxpayers do not engage with their council tax debt.

Government response

The government considers it important that councils retain access to a wide range of recovery tools and have sufficient flexibility to exercise their existing powers in a way that reflects local and individual circumstances. This is necessary to enable councils to address deliberate non-payment effectively while providing appropriate support to taxpayers experiencing genuine financial hardship or vulnerability.

The government recognises the challenges raised by councils in this consultation to identifying genuine hardship or vulnerability. The government also appreciates concerns over ambiguity in defining these terms and what actions councils should be taking where they are identified.

The government welcomes the work undertaken by the Enforcement Conduct Board (ECB), CDER Group (compliant data-led engagements and resolutions) and other stakeholders to improve understanding and practice in this area.

In developing future guidance, the government will draw on this work, cross government learning and wider existing best practice. The guidance will aim to support a proportionate and consistent approach to identifying vulnerability and tailoring debt management activity to individual circumstances, without introducing a rigid definition or restricting councils’ ability to exercise their existing recovery powers effectively.

This consultation has made clear the difficulties local authorities face with limited data. The government will be launching the third phase of its data sharing pilot between central and local governments. It is committed to this work, making relevant centrally held data available to local government.

The government recognises the concerns from councils in sharing personal information within their local authority. It is right that personal information is handled securely and appropriately. However, this should not be at the detriment of the taxpayer. The government is committed to improving confidence for local authorities over how they can share data. The government will continue to work directly with local government to address data sharing concerns and bring down barriers to sharing vital data for assessing hardship.

The government is aware of stakeholders concerns and interests in updating the deduction rates which apply to attachments of earnings. As set out in the 2026 consultation response the government will engage further with stakeholders to build an evidence base for future policy development.

Balancing support for taxpayers with effective collection and recovery

This section sought views on the potential impacts of these changes on councils’ ability to collect council tax and any mitigations.

We asked

Question 15

What impact, if any, do you think the proposed changes will have on councils’ ability to collect council tax effectively?

Please provide evidence where possible, including any anticipated impact on recovery timelines, in-year collection rates, taxpayer compliance, and administrative burden.

173 responses

You said

Overview of responses

Of those who responded to Question 15, 24% highlighted the positive effects these reforms could have on earlier engagement from taxpayers on debt. Conversely other respondents highlighted operational and financial concerns with the change. 58% of respondents felt this could reduce in year collection rates, while 52% felt this could negatively impact on council cashflow. Respondents voiced concerns with the compounding impact of the move to 12-month billing on collection and cashflow. Overall, respondents felt changes could positively impact the user journey and improve engagement in cases, but there were substantial operational and financial concerns to address.

Detailed responses

Respondents expressed mixed views on the likely impact of the proposals on council tax collection and recovery. Some raised concerns that extending the pre-enforcement period could delay engagement with households in arrears and result in higher levels of debt accumulating before formal recovery action begins. Concerns were also raised about potential impacts on council cashflow and the consequent effect on the delivery of local services.

Respondents also highlighted the potential for increased administrative costs arising from additional notices, engagement activity and case management requirements.

However, others considered that the proposals could encourage earlier engagement between councils and taxpayers, support more constructive conversations about debt, and facilitate more sustainable repayment arrangements. Some respondents also suggested that the changes could promote a more proportionate approach to recovery by encouraging councils to consider support options before progressing to enforcement action.

Conversely, some respondents argued that delaying enforcement could result in taxpayers accruing larger debts before recovery action commences, potentially making debts more difficult to manage and repay.

Government response

The government is grateful for local authorities setting out the operational challenges of reforms. It recognises the importance of setting the right balance between supporting taxpayers and enabling councils to recover the tax needed for local services. These reforms are intended to support taxpayers to engage with local authorities on sustainable payments. The government is clear that council tax is vital for delivering local services and councils should retain reasonable powers to recover unpaid council tax.

Having considered the evidence received, the government believes these reforms strike an appropriate balance between supporting taxpayers and maintaining effective council tax collection. This approach is consistent with approaches to debt management across the public sector. The government is also committed to support local government by strengthening powers and confidence in data sharing and providing comprehensive best practice guidance to support sustainable recovery.

The government recognises that the reforms may create additional costs and administrative requirements for councils. The government has been clear it will ensure local authorities are appropriately funded for any new burdens costs. Following this consultation response, the government will work with local authorities to assess these new burdens costs.

The government will continue to work closely with local authorities and other stakeholders as the reforms are implemented to support effective delivery and to understand their operational impact.

We asked

Question 16

Please use this section to share views on anything else, related to changes to council tax collection and enforcement, which you feel has not been covered.

126 responses

You said

Overview of responses

Some respondents providing additional views voiced support for wider reform of the council tax system. 41% called for broader council tax reform, which included a revaluation of council tax bands, a review of the discounts and exemptions and further reforms to the council tax administration. 28% suggested that government should reinforce taxpayers’ legal responsibility to pay council tax, and 25% supported the wider rollout of data-sharing pilots to help councils identify and engage with taxpayers more effectively.

Detailed comments

Some respondents called for changes to the operation of attachments of earnings and benefits, including greater flexibility in deduction arrangements and the ability to use certain recovery mechanisms without first obtaining a liability order.

Some respondents argued that a nationally prescribed council tax support scheme would reduce the need for formal enforcement action for households experiencing financial hardship.

Respondents also highlighted the potential benefits of wider data-sharing powers and accelerated rollout of data-sharing initiatives to support the identification of vulnerable households and improve councils’ ability to address non-payment.

Some respondents emphasised the importance of maintaining clear expectations that council tax should be paid and that reforms should not undermine councils’ ability to tackle non-payment.

Several respondents argued that local circumstances vary and that councils should retain flexibility to design recovery processes that reflect local needs and operational requirements.

Some respondents raised concerns about the use of enforcement agents, noting that early progression to enforcement action can increase costs for households and contribute to higher levels of debt. A small number also called for changes to councils’ committal powers.

A small number of respondents raised concerns about the interaction between these proposals and planned changes to 12-month billing, including potential impacts on council cashflow, in-year collection and the level of debt carried forward by taxpayers.

Government response

A number of respondents raised issues relating to wider council tax reform and local government finance that fall outside of this consultation. The government has stated it will not seek views on fundamental reform as part of this consultation. There are currently no plans to reform council tax, however the government will continue to keep the whole local government finance system under review.

Individual councils are responsible for the design and operation of Local Council Tax Support schemes for working-age residents. These schemes are developed in consultation with local communities and reflect local circumstances, which councils are best placed to assess. The government will continue to prescribe support schemes for pension-age households and has no plans to change these arrangements.

Some respondents argued that greater emphasis should be placed on taxpayers’ legal responsibility to pay council tax. The government agrees that messaging on council tax collection and enforcement should be balanced. The government will therefore use guidance to set out this legal requirement to pay council tax and that councils have powers to recover non-payments.

The government acknowledges calls to update the deduction rates that apply to attachments of earnings orders. The government has previously committed to work with local authorities to develop an evidence base for considering future policy in this area.

The government also recognises concerns regarding the use of enforcement agents in council tax recovery. While councils should always take proportionate action and seek to support taxpayers where appropriate, the government believes it is right that councils retain a range of tools to address deliberate non-payment, including, where necessary, the use of enforcement agents.

The government is taking action to better regulate the enforcement sector. On 28 August 2026, the Ministry of Justice announced that the government will amend regulations so that all privately employed enforcement agents may only obtain a certificate to use the taking control of goods procedure to enforce debts if they work for a company that is accredited by the Enforcement Conduct Board (ECB), or if they are accredited by the ECB themselves, if they work independently. The government can now confirm that this reform will also apply to certificated enforcement agents that work directly to local authorities. This will mean that local authorities that employ in-house enforcement agents will have to be accredited by the ECB. This reform seeks to make sure that people in debt are treated fairly and will make all certificated enforcement agents that enforce council tax subject to the same professional standards and independent oversight by the ECB. The government is carrying out an assessment of any potential new burdens costs from this policy.

Public Sector Equality Duty

This section sought views on the impact of the proposals on people who share a protected characteristic.

We asked

Question 17

Do you have any views on whether these changes will have any disproportionate impacts on any particular groups with protected characteristics compared to others?

128 responses

You said

Overview of responses

Respondents generally considered that the proposed reforms would either have no disproportionate impact on groups of people who share protected characteristics or would have a positive impact by providing additional opportunities for engagement and support before enforcement action is taken.

The most common view was that the changes would have no particular impact on protected groups (43%), although 26% of respondents felt the changes would benefit those with a disability as likely to be vulnerable. 22% of respondents suggested the changes would benefit households experiencing financial disadvantage including single parent households, those on low income and people experiencing mental health issues.

Detailed comments

Respondents generally considered that the proposals would have either a neutral or positive impact on people who share protected characteristics. Several respondents highlighted the potential benefits for households experiencing financial hardship, barriers to engagement or other vulnerabilities, including disabled people and low-income households.

Some respondents emphasised that the benefits of the reforms would depend on councils maintaining accessible communications and offering a range of engagement channels, particularly for those who may be digitally excluded.

A small number of respondents raised concerns that extending recovery timescales could result in higher levels of debt accumulating before recovery action begins, potentially increasing repayment pressures for some households. Others noted that the impact of the reforms would depend on councils having sufficient resources to implement the changes effectively and continue delivering local services.

Respondents also provided a range of wider views on the potential impacts of the reforms, including their effect on particular groups and the extent to which the changes would affect all taxpayers regardless of protected characteristics.

Government response

The government has considered its obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty in developing these reforms. The changes are intended to improve outcomes for all taxpayers by creating a clearer, fairer and more supportive council tax recovery process, with greater opportunities for engagement, access to support and sustainable repayment arrangements before formal enforcement action is taken.

The government recognises that some groups who share protected characteristics may be more likely to experience financial hardship, vulnerability or barriers to engaging with council tax collection and enforcement processes. The reforms are therefore expected to have a positive impact on some groups, particularly those who may be disproportionately affected by council tax debt or current enforcement practices - women (particularly single parents), disabled people, younger people and some ethnic minority households - by providing more time to engage, improving access to support and encouraging earlier intervention.

The government has not identified evidence that the reforms would directly discriminate against people who share a protected characteristic. However, respondents highlighted potential risks associated with increased reliance on digital communications. The government will seek to mitigate these risks through guidance promoting accessible communications, alternative routes of engagement, consideration of language needs and appropriate reasonable adjustments.

The government also recognises concerns regarding the potential financial and administrative impact of the reforms on local authorities. It has committed to undertaking a full new burdens assessment to ensure councils are appropriately funded for any additional costs arising from implementation.

Overall, the government considers that the reforms are likely to advance equality of opportunity by improving access to support, encouraging earlier engagement and helping to prevent avoidable debt escalation. The government also considers that a clearer and more consistent recovery process will help foster good relations by ensuring taxpayers are treated fairly and consistently, while maintaining councils’ ability to collect council tax and address deliberate non-payment.