The Independent Revenues and Benefits Discussion Group on 22 September 2025 centred on the High Court’s decision to quash Trafford Council’s council tax reduction (CTR) scheme. While members acknowledged the unlawful process and flawed design, much of the debate focused on IT costs, equality duties and the limits of discretionary support.
Chair Malcolm Gardner noted the judgement’s significance: “This is the first time Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 has been used in this way. It opens up a real can of worms for local authority decision-making.” He warned that many councils would struggle to demonstrate that impact assessments had given “due regard” as the Act requires.
Tom Clark observed that Trafford had relatively few claimants, suggesting the low numbers may have contributed to oversight. Paul Howarth confirmed that Trafford had relied on IT fixes and discretionary payments to address double counting of income. But, he added, the court found this insufficient: “The scheme left two households with the same actual income receiving very different entitlements… reliance on discretion could not cure that.”
Malcolm argued this reduced the scope for councils to lean on discretionary reliefs: “As soon as you get a number, whether it’s one or 200, it becomes an issue.”
Attention then turned to the costs of IT systems. Naomi Armstrong explained that her authority always tested schemes in advance: “We forensically look at winners and losers… it’s got to be your starting point.”
Gareth Morgan warned that suppliers often drove policy decisions through costs: “Do you get to a point where the supplier says fine, but it will cost you this amount, which is too much? Then what do you do?”
Sean recommended NEC’s modelling tool, despite the expense: “A scheme has to be systemable. Once it’s too complicated, you’ve got to drop it.” Michael added that bespoke changes could cost “multiples of six figures” and take six months or more to deliver.
Gareth countered that the calculations themselves were not complex, but administrative and legacy systems created barriers. Gardner agreed, describing CTR as still “a house of cards” built on council tax benefit software.
The group reflected that these costs, combined with Equality Act duties and limits on discretion, left councils exposed to legal challenge. Rachael argued that localisation had created “structural inequalities at every level,” while Gardner stressed the case “adds complexity without resolving the underlying problem.”
Closing the debate, Kirsty Brooksmith remarked: “I’m glad we’ve stuck to the 100% scheme.”
The Independent Revenues & Benefits Discussion Group continues to provide a vital forum for expert analysis, shared learning, and open debate at a time of significant policy flux.
For more information or to join future sessions, contact Malcolm Gardner at Visionary Network. info@visionarynetwork.co.uk
The recording can be seen here
Reports and tables to download
Please note that the handout contains additional slides covering other items of interest in the news and job adverts, which are provided in partnership with Business Smart Solutions (https://www.businesssmartsolutions.co.uk/).