Consultation outcome

Modernising and improving the administration of council tax - government response

Updated 15 April 2026

Ministerial foreword

A fair and effective system of local taxation is essential to the functioning of local public services and for maintaining trust between local taxpayers and elected councils. Council tax plays a vital role in funding the services that communities rely on every day and is paid by approximately 25 million households in England.

After 14 years of cuts and mismanagement, this government has taken decisive action to stabilise councils’ finances, increasing investment by more than £5.6 billion over the next three years and providing the first multi-year settlement in a decade. As well as boosting funding, it has reformed how money is distributed around the country, reconnecting funding to need and deprivation – ending the unfair, irrational system that kept deprived places poor to subsidise low bills in our richest areas. We have taken the hard decisions dodged by previous governments. But there is more to do.

Large sections of the administration of council tax have not been reviewed since the tax was first introduced in 1993. Over time this has left aspects of the system outdated, harming both taxpayers and councils. This government is clear that a tax system designed for the last century is no longer fit for purpose.

Taxpayers rightly expect a system that is clear, accessible and straightforward to engage with. People should be able to understand what they owe, how to pay, and what help is available to them without unnecessary complexity or confusion. For those who are eligible for support, the system should make that support easy to identify and access. When households are in financial difficulty, councils must be able to work constructively with them to find sustainable solutions, while avoiding unnecessary hardship. At the same time a modern system must be robust and fair. It should ensure that everyone pays what is properly due, by clamping down on deliberate tax avoidance.

The system we inherited did not meet these conditions. It subjected vulnerable people to unacceptable, aggressive collection practices for missing payments, from immediate demands for lump sum payments to liability orders, which can lead to bailiffs being sent in without the offer of a payment plan or a welfare check. These practices do not benefit councils or taxpayers. Under this government, they will not continue.

In June, this government committed to modernise the administration of council tax. This response sets out a clear plan for action to deliver reforms over the course of this Parliament. Our reforms will help households manage their bills more effectively, remove barriers to access support, and build in more safeguards to protect vulnerable households from aggressive debt collection practices.

A central element to this programme is reforming the enforcement of council tax. This government is setting out significant changes that will reduce the number of people facing enforcement action and ensure that, where enforcement action does occur, it is fair, proportionate and consistent. These reforms will better support those in genuine financial difficulty, while ensuring that councils retain the powers they need to recover the council tax they are owed and to tackle deliberate avoidance. This builds on wider action the government is taking to improve the fairness of debt collection across public sector debts to ensure that people facing enforcement action are treated fairly.

But for councils to manage debt effectively, they need to be able to accurately distinguish between households that are unable to pay and those that are choosing not to. This consultation response sets out our commitment to improving data sharing arrangements with local government, building on and expanding existing data sharing pilots.

The reforms to council tax administration set out in this consultation response demonstrate the government’s continued commitment to delivering changes that make a real difference to millions of council taxpayers across England, and to modernising a system whose operation has not kept pace with the realities households and councils face today.

Alison McGovern MP

Minister for Local Government and Homelessness

Overview of responses

1. There were in total 3,158 responses to the consultation. Responses were generally provided either through citizen space or by email. One response was provided through the post.

2. The government is grateful to everyone who took the time to respond and share their views and recommendations. As set out in the table below the consultation received responses from a wide range of interested groups. Some organisations provided template responses for members of the public to respond to specific questions in the consultation.

3. In addition to consultation responses, 22 emails from the public were received which did not specifically respond to any of the questions in the consultation. These responses provided general reflections on council tax and highlighted experiences with the system. The government has considered these reflections in the broader context of the system and potential changes.

Respondent type	Number of responses
Member of the public	2738
Local Authority	221
Members of parliament	3
Interest groups	122
Other bodies	43
Did not specify	31

4. This document provides a summary of the consultation responses received. It does not attempt to capture every point made. This response outlines the government’s policy position on these issues as well as the next steps it will be taking towards change and exploring these issues.

Methodology

5. All responses have been considered as a part of this consultation. A thematic analysis was conducted of all responses to identify key themes. For the purposes of this analytical summary, the team used a Government Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted tool (Consult) to support the identification of key themes. This AI tool assisted in identifying candidate themes which were reviewed by policy experts to make informed decisions about which themes to use before the AI assigned the themes to all responses to understand the frequency themes occurred.

6. To evaluate Consult’s performance, human reviewers independently checked the theme assignments Consult had produced, and these were compared against Consult’s original outputs. Based on this evaluation the government is confident Consult’s theme mappings were consistent with human reviewers.

7. Caution was taken to avoid using AI to analyse personal data. Where responses were identified as providing personal data all responses from these individuals were analysed manually. 124 respondents’ responses to the consultation were analysed manually. While we have taken this precaution, we cannot provide complete certainty that no personal data was reviewed by the AI tool.

Introduction

8. Individual councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration of council tax, while the government sets the overarching legislative and policy framework within which councils operate. The government recognises that many aspects of council tax administration have not been reviewed in decades. This includes how council tax is billed, the information provided on bills, the discounts available, challenges to council tax bands and how it is collected and enforced. To better understand these issues and where improvements are needed, the government published a public consultation on 20 June 2025 setting out proposals to modernise the system whilst also seeking views on peoples’ experiences of the systems and scope for change.

9. The government has carefully considered the views expressed by members of the public and a wide range of stakeholders, including local authorities and representative bodies. Respondents highlighted both the challenges faced by taxpayers and the practical considerations councils must manage in delivering changes effectively. The steps set out in this response provide a clear strategy for how this government will address those issues and modernise the administration of council tax in this Parliament.

10. The government believes that the package of support presented in this consultation will significantly improve support for taxpayers, ensuring that vulnerable people are properly informed on managing their bills and support in the system and where in debt, are fully supported before moving to formal enforcement. These changes will also ensure that where vulnerable people face formal enforcement, they are treated fairly and consistently.

11. In developing this package, the government has been mindful of the need to strike the right balance between delivering a fairer system for taxpayers and not undermining councils’ powers to collect tax and tackle deliberate tax avoidance. The government will continue to engage directly with local authorities and other stakeholders to work through details of the changes ahead of implementation.

12. These measures form part of a wider package of support and builds on wider work to promote consistency and fairness in public debt recovery. This includes government’s intention to exploring whether to extend the Debt Fairness Charter to local authorities and plans to roll out a further data sharing pilot scheme under the Digital Economy Act 2017. The government is also committed to strengthening the regulation of the enforcement sector and will publish a response to its consultation on this issue in due course.

Modernising council tax billing

13. This section of the consultation sought views on how to better support households with managing and understanding their council tax bills. In particular, the government proposed moving from 10-month to 12-monthly billing by default to help households spread out monthly payments and sought views on what further information households would find helpful to include in bills.

We asked

Consultation proposal

Question 1

The government intends to change the default bill instalments from 10 months to 12 months. Do you agree with this approach? Why/why not? 

(2,792 responded)

Question 2

If the government were to move to 12-month instalments by default, do you agree taxpayers should be able to request to pay in 10-monthly payments? Why/why not?

(2,050 responded)

Question 3

What impacts, if any, do you think this change will have on local authorities’ cash flow and ability to pay precepting authorities?

(297 responded)

You said

14. Of those who responded to Question 1, 74% were in favour of the proposal to move from 10 to 12 monthly billing by default. 14% of those who responded were opposed. Of those who responded to Question 2, 73% agreed with households being able to pay over 10 months where they request this. 18% disagreed with households being given this option. Concerns were raised in relation to Question 3, around the administrative burden of changes, the flexibility to support households and cash flow for local authorities.

Detailed comments

• Many respondents to these questions noted that the change could help households to better manage their finances. Some debt advice organisations noted in some cases a small change like this might help bring some people from a negative budget to a positive budget.
• Comparisons were made to other household bills (e.g. utility bills) which are charged over 12 months rather than 10. Furthermore, others noted most people were generally paid over 12 months and moving to 12-months by default would better align with this.
• Respondents who preferred 10-month billing noted this provided 2 months free of council tax payments which helped pay for other expenses, such as those around Christmas. Others stated that this was how they budgeted for the year and changing would be challenging.
• Some councils said that charging over 10 months gave them flexibility to spread out payments for those unable to pay in certain months, while still collecting council tax owed in-year. Many councils felt this change was unnecessary as households were already able to request 12-month billing where they preferred.
• Several councils raised concerns about the impact on their ability to pay precepting authorities due to changes to cashflow. Billing authorities were concerned that because of this change, they would be required to borrow money to make payments to precepting authorities on time. These loans would create interest fees for the billing authorities.
• Some respondents felt that if this change were to be introduced it should be delayed to give councils time to adjust and minimise the administrative burden. Additionally, it was suggested this should be accompanied by a communications strategy to ensure full awareness of the change to ensure no payments were missed as a result.
• Many respondents felt that giving people more flexibility to choose would allow them to budget in a way that worked best for them and help to ensure payments would be made on time. However, others noted the administrative burden of requiring councils to allow these changes on request.

Government response

15. The government is clear that council tax billing should support households to manage their finances while enabling councils to bill and collect vital revenue for local services. The government also recognises the risk of imposing rapid change without careful consideration of the risks to taxpayers and for councils. The government will therefore take a targeted and proportionate approach, reflective of the responses received.

16. The government will amend regulations so that, by default, council tax will be billed over 12 monthly instalments from April 2028. To aid transition, from April 2027, any new liable taxpayers will be placed on 12 monthly instalments. The government has also heard that choice matters. It will therefore ensure through regulations that households moving onto the default 12 monthly payment plans retain the right to request 10-monthly billing.

17. The government will write to councils in the intervening time to ask that they clearly inform residents of their existing right to request payment over 12 months and support councils with clear and expansive communication campaigns ahead of the 2028 change.

We asked

Call for evidence

Question 4

Do you feel you have a good understanding of how council tax revenue is used by your local authority?

(1,948 responded)

Question 5

Do you agree further information should be provided on how council tax is spent? Why/Why not? How should this information be presented?

(1,969 responded)

Question 6

Do you feel you have a good understanding of the support offered by your council and how to claim this? How might this be improved?

(2,232 responded)

Question 7

What further information, if any, do you think would be helpful to see on this support? How should this be presented?

(1,315 responded)

You said

Overview of responses

18. Of those who responded to Question 4, 49% said they felt they had a good understanding of how council tax is spent. 40% said they felt they did not have a good understanding. Of those who responded to Question 5, 69% said more information should be provided on how council tax is spent. Of those who responded to Question 6, 49% said they did not feel they had a good understanding of the support available, compared to 30% who said they did.

Detailed comments

• The majority of respondents did suggest that further information on council tax would be helpful. This included requests for more detailed breakdowns of how council tax income is spent and breakdowns of how payments from specific bills are used.
• Respondents noted distrust in how their councils are using council tax, noting a perception that councils’ spending was misaligned with local needs and where service provision had decreased while council tax has gone up.
• Particular confusion was noted over the roles of multi-tier authorities and where spending came from different pots of funding e.g. council tax or central government grants.
• The requests for the format of further information varied. Some wanted to see this information directly on bills, whereas others felt this would be better communicated digitally through council websites and social media.
• However, these requests were not unanimous, other respondents felt the current information was adequate or that council tax information should actually be simplified, rather than increasing the amount of information provided.
• Questions were raised as to whether it would represent sufficient value for money to require councils to provide more information.
• Approximately half of respondents said they did not feel they had a good understanding of the support available in the system or how to access it.
• These respondents felt there was a need to make these processes clearer on bills and websites. They also felt councils should be more proactive in advertising this support to those who may need this.
• Some responses were concerned that applications were required at all. They felt there should be broader data sharing arrangements to allow for automatic enrolment in support. Some went further to request that all applications for support are managed centrally rather than by councils.
• A few respondents called for greater use of community support hubs (e.g. libraries and council offices) to advertise council tax support and that face-to-face meetings with council officers should be available.

Government response

19. It is essential that residents have information on how council tax contributes to their local services. Councils provide over 800 important services and council tax is a vital source of funding for these services. The government annually publishes data on the expenditure of local government. Data for 2024 to 2025 is available.

20. The government is grateful for members of the public setting out the difficulties they have faced in seeking support with their bills. The government is clear that information on council tax support must be accurate, clear and accessible. The government has recently written to councils to reaffirm its expectation that the information they provide is accurate and transparent. This letter is available to read on GOV.UK.

21. While many councils already take care to ensure they provide accurate and accessible information for taxpayers, the government expects this standard to be applied consistently to all taxpayers. Learning from the responses to this consultation, the government will publish best practice guidance setting out clear expectations on how councils should communicate council tax information and support to taxpayers.

Modernising council tax disregards

22. This section of the consultation proposed changing the title and definition of the “Severely Mentally Impaired” disregard, noting the Welsh Government’s intention to introduce this change to their disregard from April 2026. Alongside this change, this section considered other barriers which those eligible for the disregard and their carers or families may experience from claiming this support. The proposal did not include changing the eligibility for the disregard.

23. The consultation also sought views on whether the apprentice and carer disregards were fit for purpose and whether there were other groups who should be supported through the council tax system.

Severe Mental Impairment disregard

We asked

Significant cognitive impairment - Definition: A severe (and permanent) mental condition or neurological change that impacts on the brain’s ability to function and has a significant impact on an individual’s daily life.

Question 8

Do you agree with the proposed new name and definition of the disregard, as set out above? Why/Why not?

(2,219 responded)

Question 9

What are your views on whether the proposed definition is consistent with the existing eligibility for the disregard?

(281 responded)

You said

Overview of responses

24. Of those who responded to Question 8, 85% said they agreed with this change to the name and definition. These responses noted that the new name and definition was more sympathetic and appropriate for those who are eligible. Less respondents specifically commented on Question 9 of whether the disregard was consistent. Concerns were raised as to whether the definition may broaden or reduce the scope of the disregard and the potential cost and/or operational implications of that for councils.

Detailed comments

• Most of those who responded did not provide further rationale for this support. However, some reasons for this noted the name was more respectful of those with these conditions, that the name was clearer and that it was simpler to have a consistent definition with Wales.
• Some respondents were opposed to this change. Some of these respondents felt the new name was still derogatory, others that changing the name would create unnecessary administrative burdens (i.e. changing forms and websites) and others felt there was a need to consult further with medical practitioners ahead of the change.
• Some respondents said they did not feel this change was relevant or helpful and that there were more significant barriers to this support which should be prioritised.

We asked

Call for evidence

Question 10

Have you, or your family members, experienced any barriers to claiming this support? Please describe.

(1,437 responded)

Question 11

Are you aware of any households facing barriers when accessing this support? Please describe.

(270 responded)

Question 12

What, if anything, do you think could put someone off applying for this support?

(1,428 responded)

Question 13

What do you think the government could do to improve access and accessibility to this disregard?

(1,665 responded)

Question 14

What are your views on a government provided (but not prescribed) form that councils and taxpayers could use to improve consistency of claiming the disregard in England? How should the government incentivise councils to use such a form?

(1,637 responded)

You said

Overview of responses

25. Respondents felt there were a range of potentially significant barriers to accessing this disregard. Respondents felt there was a need to simplify the application process and ensure that there was consistency in approaches across local authorities. Of those who responded to Question 14, 66% supported a universal application form.

Detailed comments

• Respondents highlighted that an overly complex application process was a barrier to accessing support. Respondents noted the need to send back multiple forms, not being able to have others complete the form and difficulty acquiring the necessary documentation.
• Some noted the difficulties that those eligible or their carers or their families might experience in making an application as a result of the complexity.
• Some felt social stigma of needing to access this kind of support was also a significant barrier to accessing support, which was worsened by the current name.
• Many felt there needed to be more awareness around this specific disregard and that the government should improve data sharing to enable people to be enrolled automatically. Suggestions were made to integrate this process with health services to enable health care providers to make these applications.
• Outside of barriers in local and central government, some respondents noted the costs of seeking the certificate from their GP and the difficulty contacting their GP. Some suggested the government should investigate expanding who can certify this condition to simplify the application process.
• 66% of those who responded said they supported the introduction of a universal application form for the disregard to help simplify the process for those eligible and GPs alike. Many members of the public who supported this universal application form felt such a form should be mandatory. However, councils noted that the form should be optional to allow councils flexibility to provide more bespoke approaches to applications to suit individual residents.
• Some suggested if the form was introduced the government should provide financial incentives to councils to make use of it, conversely some suggested there should be financial punishments for councils not using this.
• Some respondents suggested that if the government were to introduce such a form, this should be co-designed with councils and disability charities to ensure the form was appropriate for those eligible and their families / carers.

Government response

26. The government recognises concerns raised over the existing name and definition of this disregard and how its connotations may prevent some from seeking support. The government believes that the proposed new definition is consistent with existing eligibility while being more respectful and accessible to those who are eligible. The government will therefore make legislative changes to amend this definition when Parliamentary time allows. The government intends that taxpayers who currently qualify for, or receive, this disregard will not be reassessed as a result of these changes.

27. It is clear from responses that households face barriers to accessing the disregard beyond those created by the current name and definition. To address this the government will work with local authorities to produce a recommended universal application form, providing a clearer and more consistent route for accessing support. The government will engage with councils and disability charities on the design of the form to ensure it is accessible, user friendly and suitable for applicants and their carers or families. The government will consider broader guidance clarifying who can provide certification and ensure there is a consistent approach to the application and administration of the disregard.

28. While the government acknowledges suggestions that the universal form should be mandatory, for many of those who are eligible a standard application form may not be appropriate. The government will therefore maintain the ability for councils to provide a more tailored approach for residents where necessary. It expects councils to consider all applications made through the universal form.

29. Responses also highlighted concerns about medical certification as a barrier to accessing support. And mentioned instances where GPs have charged for the service. The General Medical Services Contract^{[footnote 1]} requires general practitioners to provide certification for Severe Mental Impairment conditions for council tax purposes free of charge. However, where certification is sought privately or through other routes, charges may apply. The government will work to clarify guidance for the profession on the completion of this certification. The government does not have any plans to change who can certify this condition but will continue to keep this matter under active consideration as part of wider work in this area.

Disregards and other forms of support

We asked

Call for evidence

Question 15

What are your views on the disregards set out for carers and apprentices?

(1,808 responded)

Question 16

Do you believe the current eligibility criteria for apprentices and/or carers is appropriate?

(1,669 responded)

You said

Overview of responses

30. Respondents broadly agreed with the need to support low-income taxpayers on apprenticeships and those providing care. 28% of those who responded to question 15 specifically said the government should improve the support offered to apprentices and carers. Suggestions for this included updating the associated earnings thresholds by inflation or aligning support with exemptions for students.

Detailed comments

• Respondents across groups were broadly supportive of updating the disregards for apprentices and care workers. Some suggested this is done by increasing the thresholds in line with inflation whereas others suggested these are aligned with minimum wage.
• Councils noted that if this disregard were to be expanded in any way the government should assess the scale of this change to ensure they are suitably funded, given the cost implications.
• There was, however, some opposition to the disregards. In particular, some respondents highlighted that apprentices are paid similar wages to other low-income workers and therefore should be treated the same.
• There was broad support for carers’ disregards. Respondents agreed it is not right for someone to lose their single person discount where they require a carer to live with them. Some suggested this disregard should go further and include those who care for spouses or their dependent children.

We asked

Call for evidence

Question 17

Are there any other disregards which should be considered in respect of certain cohorts who do not fall within the current disregards?

(1,536 responded)

Question 18

Do you or anyone in your household fit into one of these cohorts? If so, what would be the impact of any new forms of support on your household?

(1,563 responded)

You said

Overview of responses

31. Respondents put forward wide range of potential groups of people who could be disregarded for council tax purposes. Broadly respondents suggested they felt this would be an adequate form of support for these groups. However, a number of respondents felt rather than disregards the government should consider prescribing further support through Local Council Tax Support schemes which would support a greater pool of people.

Detailed comments

• Groups which were suggested for disregards included:
  • Care leavers
  • Those fleeing domestic abuse
  • Emergency medical staff
  • Those who are terminally ill
  • Foster carers
  • Refugees/Asylum seekers
  • Those with long-term health/life limiting conditions
• Many respondents suggested that instead of expanding disregards the government should prescribe and fund Local Council Tax Support (LCTS) schemes. This would ensure that support through these schemes were more generous and consistent across England.

Government response

32. The government recognises concerns raised in this consultation that the earnings threshold for the apprentice disregard has not kept pace with wider changes in the labour market. Evidence from the consultation suggests this may limit the effectiveness of supporting low-income apprentices in practice. The government also recognises the concerns raised regarding council tax disregards for carers.

33. There are two forms of disregard for those who provide care. The first disregard requires that those in receipt work for at least 24 hours per week and do not earn more than £44 per week for their work. The Government recognises concerns that this earnings threshold may have also not kept pace with wider labour market changes.

34. The second disregard provides for anyone who provides care to someone with whom they live who is entitled to a qualifying benefit and provides that care for at least, on average, 35 hours per week. Additionally, the disregard requires that the person providing the care is not their spouse, partner or where the person providing care is the parent of a child under 18.

35. The overarching purpose of the carers disregard is to maintain a person’s entitlement to a discount where they require a carer to live with them. It is expected that a person’s spouse or partner or a child’s parents would already live in the same house regardless of their care needs. In such circumstances, the carers disregard will not apply, and the government has no plans to change this.

36. The government is grateful for suggestions highlighting a range of groups which could be considered for a disregard. Individual councils already have the power to provide discounts or disregards to certain households where they consider this appropriate.

37. The government recognises that any uplift to existing disregards or introducing new support would have cost implications for local government. The government will therefore explore the feasibility of these changes ahead of the next spending review. Any policy decisions and funding will require further consultation.

Barriers to improved efficiency

38. This section sought views on how council tax communications could be made more efficient. This was not about the standard of information provided but its presentation, value for money and efficacy. The government particularly sought views on the scope for further digital communications to improve value for money for taxpayers.

39. This section also sought views on the current process available to challenge council tax bands. This also asked for views on changes which could be made to improve the process of challenging bands.

We asked

Call for evidence

Question 19

What are your views on how information is currently provided by councils. 

(1,528 responded)

Question 20

What council tax information do you believe could be communicated digitally?

(1,421 responded)

Question 21

In relation to any suggestions in question 20, how could councils ensure this was accessible to all residents?

(1,230 responded)

You said

Overview of responses

40. 28% of those who responded to Question 19 voiced general concerns with how council tax is communicated. 40% of respondents to Question 20 felt all information should be available digitally. However, 14% noted concerns of households becoming digitally excluded if this were the default.

Detailed comments

• Many respondents felt councils should be providing council tax information across multiple mediums and there was a need to modernise and digitise how this information is provided.
• Whilst there was support for modernising and digitising communications there were concerns how this may lead to certain individuals being digitally excluded. Suggestions that individuals should have to opt in to digital comms rather than this being by default
• Some suggested that while certain forms of communications, e.g. bills and summonses, should remain physical by default there may be scope for other forms of communication to be digitised. These included;
  • Additional reminder notices (with the core reminder being physical by default)
  • Allowing determinations to be published in online newspapers rather than local newspapers
  • Guidance on seeking how to apply for support
  • Information on the council’s financial management
• Councils noted that reminder notices could be sent digitally where requested, however, this flexibility does not exist for final notices. Councils suggested changes to extend this flexibility to final notices.
• Some responses pushed for a national campaign to encourage households to switch to digital communications. Though there were counter arguments to maintain non-digital routes for those who were digitally disadvantaged. Others noted the need to improve the standard and consistency of council websites to make digital communications accessible.

Government response

41. The government recognises that providing information digitally can improve efficiency, reduce cost and support greater transparency. However, any savings made may be at the expense of excluding groups of people who may be digitally disadvantaged. All taxpayers should be able to readily access information about their council tax bill in the manner which best suits their circumstances.

42. The government encourages councils to continue to make information available digitally and maintain non-digital options for local residents who may prefer this approach. Councils are encouraged to consider where communication can be provided more efficiently and deliver value for money for taxpayers.

Challenging council tax bands

We asked

Call for evidence

Question 22

What are your views on the current process for challenging a council tax band? What changes, if any, should the government consider to the council tax band challenge process?

(1,568 responded)

You said

Overview of responses

43. While 8% of respondents felt the current process was appropriate a number of concerns were raised regarding the process. These included the process being overly complex (16%), information not being transparent (10%) and that it doesn’t allow for enough time to make a challenge (14%). There was significant interest in extending the timeframe where someone can make a formal challenge and to improve transparency in banding decisions.

Detailed comments

• A significant number of respondents felt that it was not worthwhile amending the challenge process without first having a revaluation of council tax bands.
• Respondents noted feeling that the process to challenge a band was too complex. Respondents were unsure how they can check if their band is correct or what information would be sufficient to show the band was wrong.
• To reflect this some suggested the government should publish more transparent information about the valuation of homes for council tax, including information on comparable properties.
• There was a push to increase the timeframe to make a formal challenge. These ranged from increasing to a year to allowing all households one formal challenge of their banding.
• Concerns were also raised about a backlog of challenges with the Valuation Office (VO). This meant that it was taking an excessively long time for residents to hear back on the result of their challenges. This was also a concern for councils as it created greater uncertainty over their taxbase.
• There was a push from some respondents for a full review of the VO to streamline their processes and clear any backlogs.
• Some respondents noted worries that if they were to challenge their band this may result in their band or neighbours’ bands increasing. Some of these respondents suggested that the government should change the process to make it so a band cannot increase because of a challenge.
• Councils did note concerns with how far back council tax band challenges can be backdated. Currently these can be backdated as far back as 1993. Councils noted this can result in significant backdated payments which creates uncertainty for them over their financial planning. They have asked that the government considers a cap on how far back these can go and/or to limit backdating to the current occupant.

Government response

44. The government recognises the wide range of views on this issue. It is important that households have certainty over the banding of their home and that there is a mechanism to challenge this where there is evidence it may be incorrect.

45. The government has recently announced the introduction of the High Value Council Tax Surcharge from April 2028 charged on properties valued £2m or more, placed into four valuation bands. These will be assessed independently of existing council tax bands by the Valuation Office.

46. The government believes it is important that there is a coherent approach to challenging banding across both council tax and the High Value Council Tax Surcharge. Therefore, the government will engage with the Valuation Office and the Valuation Tribunal Service on how this process may be improved in designing the process for the surcharge. The government will consult on these matters in due course.

Collection and enforcement of council tax

47. This section of the consultation set out a range of proposals designed to improve the collection and enforcement processes to support taxpayers. It also sought views on ways for further options to enforce council tax and other methods of collecting tax.

We asked

Consultation proposal

Question 23

The government is interested in changing regulations on when councils can request a full bill, or seek liability orders, to a more appropriate and proportionate timeframe.

How long after a reminder notice, should full liability apply:

• after 7 days, as now
• after 14 days
• after 31 days
• after 62 days
• after 90 days
• other

Please explain your answer.

(3,035 respondents)

You said

Overview of responses

48. Opinions on this proposed timeframe were divided. There was no clear preference for any one timeframe. 27% of respondents said the timeframe should be increased to 90 days whereas 7% suggested this should be 14 or less days. 40% of respondents suggested a timeframe not included in the options provided. Typically, these were seeking a timeframe further than 90 days. Overall, responses emphasised striking a balance between giving households more time to manage debts and maintaining council tax collection rates.

Detailed comments

• Many felt increasing the timeframe was necessary to allow households time to better manage their debts. Some suggested that where someone misses a payment, they should instantly be referred to debt advice services.
• Some respondents suggested that this should be extended to 6 months to align with commercial debt enforcement. Others went further to suggest households should always be able to pay in instalments.
• There were many calls for taking a more case-by-case approach to debt including assessing the reasons for non-payment in time taken before certain recovery actions. Furthermore, respondents felt councils should be taking more proactive measures to assist and advise vulnerable households.
• However, councils felt that extending the timeframe may limit their ability to provide more proactive or tailored support for households who need it.
• Many councils argued that significantly extending the timeframe could damage collection rates. This may leave them unable to pay precepting authorities or provide vital services.
• Some councils noted that they already provide this kind of flexibility for residents in need. However, they felt they are limited in the support they can provide where residents do not engage when in debt.

We asked

Call for evidence

Question 24

Are there any further steps councils should take before being able to charge for a full-year’s bill? For example, offering alternative payment plans, providing further reminder notices or undertaking welfare checks.

(3,111 responded)

Question 25

Do you believe there are any barriers to councils being able to take the kind of steps set out in Question 24?

(287 responded)

Question 26

What other ways can councils support individuals when they miss a council tax payment?

(1,670 responded)

You said

Overview of responses

49. 38% of those who responded to Question 24 said that councils should be offering alternative payment plans, sending further reminder notice and undertaking welfare checks before charging a full-year’s bill. 16% of respondents recommended that councils should ensure households are entitled to all relevant benefits ahead of enforcement. 38% of those who responded to question 26 suggested those who fall into debt should be quickly referred to debt advice organisations. Respondents were concerned that current actions were heavy handed and in some cases, threatening. However, respondents also felt there were barriers to these measures, in particular, the administrative burden of these measures and difficulty in accurately identifying vulnerability.

Detailed comments

• As a further step many said councils should be ensuring households are receiving the maximum available benefits ahead of enforcement action. Alternatively, others suggested individuals should be referred to debt advice services as soon as possible in this process.
• Many respondents felt there should be a clearer and standardised process all councils should have to follow ahead of taking this action.
• Other respondents more generally called for the softening of enforcement action and limiting the use of bailiffs in enforcing council tax.
• Councils felt there were barriers to them being able to take out these actions. The administrative costs of these actions could be substantial. Councils felt they would need funding to reflect these costs.
• Concerns were raised that legislation currently restricts the actions councils can take. They noted current data sharing arrangements with central government were significantly limited and they were restricted in data they can share internally. This limits their ability to identify vulnerable households.
• They felt the requirement to obtain a liability order ahead of making an attachment of earnings orders was inefficient and drove up costs for households.
• Some councils felt their existing software was not sufficient to deliver these changes and that a review and upgrade was necessary. Additionally, councils felt these changes would require sufficient training programmes for staff which would be resource intensive and costly.
• Finally, some councils felt the change to 12-month billing by default would be a barrier to implementing these proposals because 12-month billing would remove a buffer for households and the flexibility to defer or spread-out payments.

We asked

Consultation proposals

Question 27

Do you agree that the government should introduce a cap on the reasonable costs that a court can award for a council’s costs for an application for a liability order?

(3,007 responded)

Question 28

What do you think this cap should be set at? Please explain your answer:

(2,920 responded)

• less than £70
• up to £70
• between £71 and £100
• over £100
• Other

Question 29

Should the cap apply when seeking a liability order on second or empty homes?

(2,191 responded)

You said

Overview of responses

50. 82% of those who responded to Question 27 agreed with introducing a cap on the costs for seeking a liability order, compared to 9% who opposed. However, there was no clear view on what this cap should be set at. 34% of respondents supported a cap at £70 or less, 16% supported caps above this and 50% either did not select a cap or suggested a cap other than those suggested. Responses set out concerns over how the costs had been set and whether these were real reflections of the costs incurred in seeking a liability order. However, councils were broadly opposed to a cap and felt any cap would not fairly reflect the actual costs incurred. 49% of respondents said if there were a cap this should not apply on liability orders against second or empty homes. However, 32% said such a cap should apply to second or empty homes.

Detailed comments

• 3% of those who responded to question 28 noted the cap of £70 which already exists in Wales and said that it would provide consistency to align with this.
• A campaign from ACORN recommended that the cap should be set at no more than £10 which they felt reflected the actual costs of seeking a liability order.
• Many respondents felt any additional fees would be challenging for households in debt and some suggested councils should not be able to apply any fee for seeking the liability orders.
• Conversely others were concerned that if the cap was set too low, or councils could not recover any fees, the costs of seeking liability orders would ultimately be passed on to all other taxpaying households.
• Respondents said that the fees applied should only reflect the costs actually incurred. Some respondents voiced concerns that councils were using liability orders to raise revenue.
• However, councils noted that the fees applied had to be approved by the magistrates’ court and determined to be reasonable. They noted that as the courts had agreed the fees were reasonable, any cap below these costs would not meet reasonable costs.
• For those opposed to second and empty homes being included in the cap they noted that those who can afford a second or empty home could afford the fee. Additionally, these respondents noted that if these respondents were unable to pay, they would be able to sell the property to pay their debts.
• Those in favour of applying the cap across these households said there was no difference in the costs associated with getting a liability order for second or empty homes. These respondents also suggested that it would be more administratively simple to apply a consistent cap across all types of dwellings.
• Some responses suggested if there were to be no cap on liability orders against second or empty homes there should be exceptional circumstances where the cap does apply. For example, where the property has recently undergone probate.

Government response

51. The government is clear that enforcement should be proportionate and that households should be given a meaningful opportunity to engage and recover missed payments before the full bill becomes liable. The government will therefore extend the timeframe before a person loses the right to pay in instalments, until at least 63 days after the first missed payment. This means enforcement will not begin until at least 3 payments have been missed. This change will ensure households have more time to deal with their debts and reduce the number of households facing enforcement action. This aligns with the change being introduced in Wales from April this year.

52. Alongside this the government will set out statutory steps councils must take ahead of formal enforcement action. The government will consult with councils on the specific steps, including the timing, content and number of reminder notices which must be issued alongside government guidance on other steps councils should consider taking, including engagement, support and signposting to advice services, before progressing to formal enforcement action.

53. The government appreciates the challenges for households facing additional fees where they are already in debt, while also recognising that councils incur legitimate costs in seek liability orders including staffing, mailing and court fees. To strike a fair balance the government will set a cap of £100 on the costs that councils can charge for seeking a liability order.

54. The government is aware that these changes may create new costs for local government. Ahead of implementation, the government will engage with local government on these changes and as part of this will conduct a New Burdens assessment to ensure these are appropriately funded.

55. These changes will require changes through a Statutory Instrument which will be laid later this year with the intention of these changes coming into effect from April 2027.

Wider collection and enforcement of council tax

We asked

Call for evidence

Question 30

Do you believe the current enforcement is or is not proportionate in the context of council tax collection? Why/why not?

(2,991 responded)

Question 31

What are your views on ways enforcement could better reflect the needs of those in financial or other hardship?

(2,349 responded)

Question 32

What are your suggestions on alternative or additional measures to ensure council tax is paid?

(2,119 responded)

You said

Overview of responses

56. 64% of those who responded to Question 30 noted that they did not believe the current council tax enforcement processes were proportionate. Compared to 17% who felt this was proportionate. Considerable criticism was made of the use of bailiffs in enforcing council tax debt. 26% of respondents were critical of the power for individuals to be imprisoned for non-payment of council tax. These responses called for the power to be either removed or reviewed. However, 6% of respondents also noted that it was necessary for councils to recover the tax as this was necessary to deliver vital services. There were no suggestions on alternative enforcement powers, rather, responses broadly emphasised the importance of slowing down the formal enforcement processes and taking more sympathetic recovery actions.

Detailed comments

• Concerns were raised that actions to recover council tax debt were often heavy handed and aggressive. Particular concerns were raised over the impact of this on vulnerable households such as those with mental health conditions.
• The actions of bailiffs were, in particular, seen as aggressive. Furthermore, their actions were seen as being inconsistent which was attributed to lack of regulations.
• Other responses noted that councils do have a legal responsibility to recover all council tax owed to them. As a part of this, noted that it was necessary that councils have strong incentives to encourage households to pay on time.
• Councils noted that improved data sharing arrangements with central government would better enable them to identify vulnerable households and take more tailored enforcement action.
• Some councils suggested that if they were able to take out an attachment of earnings order without a liability order this would reduce the financial burden on households.
• It was also noted that the deductions from earnings related to attachment of earnings orders had not been updated since 2006. Responses suggested that these deductions should be reviewed or councils should be given greater discretion over the deductions they apply.

Government response:

57. Councils have a duty to recover the council tax they are owed, and it is right they have reasonable powers to enforce this. It is the government’s clear expectation that councils are sympathetic to those in hardship and proportionate in the actions they take.

58. However, the government believes it is right that councils have effective tools to tackle purposeful avoidance. This will include where necessary, the use of enforcement agents to recover debt. The government has no plans to remove councils’ powers to use enforcement agents to recover unpaid council tax. However, the government recognises concerns regarding the disproportionate actions of some enforcement agents and the harm this can cause to vulnerable people.

59. The government fully supports the work of the Enforcement Conduct Board (ECB) which provides voluntary independent oversight of the enforcement sector and aims to ensure that people facing enforcement action are treated fairly. While most enforcement firms have already signed up to the ECB, the government believes that it is necessary to ensure that all enforcement agents are regulated to the same standards, overseen by the same independent body. Last year, the Ministry of Justice consulted on how to do so. The government will respond to that consultation in due course.

60. The government recognises concerns raised over the power for taxpayers to potentially be sent to prison for non-payment of council tax. However, these powers can only be used in cases of wilful refusal to pay, or culpable neglect. A person cannot be sent to prison for being unable to pay council tax. The government believes this is an important tool against purposeful avoidance. However, it notes responses which flagged this being suggested by councils without evidence of purposeful avoidance, which is unacceptable, and recognises that this may be distressing for households, particularly those who are vulnerable.

61. A liability order is required before a council can make an attachment of earnings order. The government recognises interest in changing the law to allow councils to make an attachment of earnings deductions before a liability order is issued, and notes that in doing so, this would create administrative costs for employers for complying. The government considers the confirmation of the debt by the magistrates’ court provides an important safeguard before employers are required to do this. The government believes councils should continue to work with individuals and employers to agree alternative payment arrangements where appropriate.

62. The government recognises concerns over the deduction rates associated with attachment of earnings orders. The government will engage further with stakeholders on deduction rates to build an evidence base for future policy consideration.

63. It is clear from responses the benefits to be gained from improved data sharing arrangements between central and local governments. However, it is important that in doing this data is shared securely to protect individuals’ personal data.

64. The government has conducted a series of data sharing pilots using Digital Economy Act 2017 powers where local authorities’ data is matched alongside HMRC employment data and DWP benefits data to indicate where people in council tax arrears are in receipt of employment income.

65. Building on the success of previous pilots, the government will launch a third pilot which will incorporate learnings from previous pilots and determine the best approach before rolling out further to all local authorities.

We asked

Call for evidence

Question 33

What are your views on the current methods available to councils to collect council tax? 

(1,794 responded)

Question 34

How else do you think council tax could be efficiently and fairly collected?

(1,365 responded)

You said

Overview of responses

66. 36% of those who responded to Question 33 noted that they felt current processes available for councils to collect council tax were adequate. Comments against collection were typically in reference to enforcement e.g. use of bailiffs and imprisonment. Few suggestions were made on alternative methods of paying council tax. Respondents supported modernising digital systems and improving data sharing to improve the efficiency of collection.

Detailed comments

• Respondents typically noted that they felt there were a sufficient range of options available to them to be able to pay their council tax. Comments which were critical of collection often confused this with enforcement, noting issues with bailiffs or imprisonment.
• There was some support for giving taxpayers more flexibility to request a payment plan which was appropriate for their circumstances.
• Noted that some councils had outdated digital systems which made it difficult for some households to pay and for councils to track payments. Recommendations for these systems to be modernised.
• Suggestions made that taxpayers should be provided the option to volunteer for the council in order to pay their council tax.
• Others were critical of liability falling to the tenants of properties. These respondents suggested liability should fall to the landlord rather than the tenant as it would be easier to collect from the landlord.

Government response

67. Based on the responses provided the government believes that the current range of payment options is sufficient for households needs. It encourages councils to continue to make a range of options available and to ensure that households are fully informed of these options.

68. The government recognises calls for owners to be liable for council tax. Liability for council tax is assessed in line with the hierarchy of liability established in the Local Government Finance Act 1992. This sets out that liability usually falls to the resident which is to reflect that the occupant of a property is the main beneficiary of local services. The government has no plans to change how liability for council tax is assessed.

Any other comments

This section gave respondents the opportunity to share views on any issues not covered by the consultation.

We asked

Call for evidence

Question 35

Do you have any views on anything else related to council tax administration which has not been covered in this consultation and call for evidence? If so, please provide them here.

(1,076 responded)

You said

Overview of responses

69. Those providing further views mostly voiced support for more fundamental reform of the council tax system. This included a revaluation of council tax bands, changing to an alternative tax system and a full review of support in the system. A number of further administrative changes were also recommended.

Detailed comments

• The most prominent responses to this question advocated for either a revaluation, review of discounts and exemptions or a complete replacement of council tax
• Suggestions were made to go further on households potentially avoiding council tax. This included a duty to notify councils of a change in circumstances with potential fines for non-compliance, as well as general calls to strengthen enforcement powers.
• Some respondents said the government should fund a council tax reduction with others saying the government should fund council tax support schemes.
• Concerns were raised over the training of council staff on council tax issues. Calls to improve training or to fully centralise administration
• Some respondents voiced concerns the government had gone too far on council tax premiums. However, others also noted that they felt the government should be going further on premiums.
• Recommendation to consider the EPC rating of a property in the council tax band with reduced council tax for houses with higher EPC ratings.

Government response

70. The government stated it would not be seeking views on fundamental reform of the council tax system as part of this consultation. Separately to this consultation the government has announced that it will be introducing the High Value Council Tax Surcharge from April 2028. This will ensure that those in the most valuable properties are making a fair contribution. The government will soon be consulting on the surcharge and will explore opportunities to align the administration of the surcharge with standard council tax.

71. Individual councils are responsible for Local Council Tax Support schemes. This includes the design and eligibility criteria for schemes for working-age residents. These schemes are designed in consultation with residents and reflect the needs of these areas, which councils are best placed to assess. The government continues to prescribe support schemes for pension-age households. The government has no plans to change how these schemes are designed and implemented.

72. Councils have the discretionary power to apply council tax premiums to certain types of dwellings. This includes dwellings which are substantially furnished but no one’s main residence (second homes) and dwellings which for at least 1 year have been substantially unfurnished and unoccupied (long-term empty homes). These premiums were introduced under the previous administration with cross party support. The government will continue to monitor the use of premiums and consider the case for change.

73. The government has no intention of linking EPC ratings with council tax bills. This would risk penalising households who either cannot significantly improve their EPC rating or cannot afford to make these changes. Furthermore, households with higher EPC ratings already benefit from lower energy bills.

Public sector equality duty

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

We asked

Call for evidence

Question 36

Do you have any views on whether any of the proposed changes in the consultation will have any disproportionate impacts on any particular groups with protected characteristics compared to others?

(974 responded)

You said

Overview of responses

75. 34% of respondents felt the proposals did not risk any disproportionate impact on groups with protected characteristics. 10% of respondents felt these changes would have particularly positive impact on these groups. However, some concerns were raised over questions on digital billing and how this may impact digitally excluded groups.

Detailed comments

• Many felt that the changes being discussed would not have a disproportionate impact on groups with protected characteristics. Some suggested changes may particularly benefit some of these groups.
• Many of the specific concerns raised related to how the system as a whole may impact groups with protected characteristics, rather than how the changes discussed may impact these groups.
• Some respondents were critical of the concept of protected characteristics
• Concerns women may be disproportionately affected by the use of bailiffs in enforcing council tax and their potential intimidation.
• Complex changes to the system may disadvantage those for whom English is a second language as they will need to adapt to a new system
• Most prominent concerns around digitisation of council tax information. Concerns this may cause some individuals to become digitally excluded, in particular the elderly who may not have internet access.

Government response

76. The government has considered its obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty in developing proposals to modernise the administration of council tax.

77. Overall, the proposals are assessed as likely to have a disproportionate positive impact on groups of people who share protected characteristics and more likely to experience financial disadvantage, including women (particularly single parents), disabled people, younger people and some ethnic minority households, while improving fairness and outcomes for taxpayers more generally. The changes will also advance equality of opportunity as they will deliver positive outcomes for people who share a protected characteristic. e.g. changes to the Severe Mental Impairment disregard will deliver positive outcomes for disabled people by encouraging take up of the disregard. The changes will also foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not as the changes will be applied fairly and consistently to all taxpayers.

78. Changes to take a digital by default approach were assessed as having a disproportionately negative impact on older and disabled people who may be digitally disadvantaged. The government has concluded that it will not proceed with this approach and will encourage councils to continue to provide non-digital communication routes where appropriate.

79. Some proposals may create additional costs for councils, which could have indirect impacts on service delivery. The government will engage further with local authorities, assess impacts through the new burdens process, and undertake further equality impact assessments where required. Impacts will continue to be monitored through ongoing engagement with councils and the debt advice sector.

Next steps

The government will:

• Write to councils on a range of matters. These include ensuring residents are aware of their right to request 12-month billing, government’s expectations on accuracy and transparency and how they present committal powers. In the longer term the government will review council websites and the information they provide on council tax. The government will use this to develop best practice guidance in presenting information.
• Change the name and definition of the Severely Mentally Impaired council tax disregard when parliamentary time allows. The government will also engage with councils and disability charities over the design of a universal application form. It aims to introduce this form as soon as practical.
• Further explore the feasibility of updating the care worker and apprentice disregard and introducing new forms of support ahead of the next Spending Review.
• Technical engagement and consultation on the processes for challenging council tax bands
• Deliver reforms to enforcement as soon as possible, engaging with councils on these processes to overcome any obstacles and provide appropriate new burdens funding.

1. The National Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts) Regulations 2015. ↩