Local taxation - Valuation Appeals Committees etc: transfer of functions

I have been the senior convener (the lead judicial office holder) of the Council Tax Reduction Review Panel since inception in 2013. I have not been asked my views at any stage as to the appropriate chamber for the work of the Panel prior to this public consultation. I am somewhat surprised that the consultation has gone straight to the draft regulations; the bit about where council tax reduction would most appropriately be accommodated has been skipped. That does make me wonder whether the proposed transfer has been fully thought out.
In my view, council tax reduction should NOT be transferred into the Local Taxation Chamber ("LTC"), for the following reasons.

Whilst the work of VACs and the CTRRP both use the words "council tax" in their respective work, there any similarity ends. Valuation s usually (not always) focussed on assets that people own and at times, can be high value appeals. I understand that large amounts of money can be involved and parties often instruct counsel to present valuation appeals. By contrast, I think that only about three applications in 10 years has involved a solicitor representing the applicant. The vast majority of applicants have either represented themselves or have been assisted by Welfare Rights, CAB or other representation groups who typically assist appellants before social security and housing benefit tribunals.

Council Tax Reduction by comparison to valutations is typically at the far end of the financial spectrum within our society. It is intended to be relief for the most financially disadvantaged households in Scotland. We do occasionally see applications from self employed applicants which can be very complex but even these few applications support my representations and I will return to that.

Indeed, CTR was introduced very urgently by the Scottish Government in 2013 to address the potential hardship caused by the abolition of Council Tax Benefit by the UK Government of the day. Accordingly, although CTR was introduced deliberately as not a benefit (the SG had very limited powers to do so at the time) is it a direct replacement of a social security benefit and in practical effect, that is exactly what it is. Indeed, at the outset the SG recognised that and asked the FtT of the Social Entitlement Chamber (UK Gov) for help by asking if any Scottish based social security TJs would wish to join the new Panel. The Panel's conveners have therefore always been experienced social security TJs of the SEC as they recognise the same basic principles as applied to Council Tax Benefit and the often interaction with Housing Benefit, which remains under the jurisdiction of the SEC. Further, the few CTR applications which have involved complex allowances claimed by self employed CTR claimants forms a well known cadre of claimants to those of us who have sat in the SEC.

I fear that legal members appointed to the LTC will be predominently experienced practitioners in VACs. It may be that consideration is being given in borrowing legal members from the social security chamber to hear CTR applications within the LTC. But I wonder what the point of that would be? it simply emphasises that valuation and CTR case are very different. The other difficulty it could cause is that there are not very many CTR applications which require a hearing in any given year, compared to the anticipated work of the social security chamber once it is at full strength. The President of the SSC might not be best pleased to have a judge diverted to deal with 1 or 2 CTR applications on any given day. The advantage of having CTR applications within the SSC from the outset is that they could be added in to a daily list of mixed social security hearings (legal member sitting alone type) and be dealt with by a judge/legal member experienced in all aspects of social security. Indeed, I understand that three of the remaining CTRRP conveners have already been appointed to the Scottish social security chamber. As far as I know, none are intending to apply for the new LTC.

I have considered it important to raise this fundamental point at this stage. I could not do so before because no-one asked me! I have always considered access to justice to be one of the most important (if not THE most important) aspect of tribunal work which is of immense importance to the people of Scotland in their everyday lives. I fear that access to justice with regard to CTR may be diminished if the wrong decision is made now about which Chamber would be best placed to receive the CTR applications going forward. I therefore urge all concerned to pause and re-consider the correct approach to the transfer of the business of the CTRRP.

SEE my response to Q1 and it is repeated here as my views fall somewhere between this and Q1.