The Independent Revenues and Benefits Monday Discussion Group met on 27 April 2026 to consider the government’s proposed reforms to council tax collection. The central question posed by Malcolm Gardner was whether the changes amount to a fairer system for households, or whether they risk creating a cash flow and collection problem that councils cannot afford. The discussion focused on the proposed 63-day period before instalment rights are lost, a £100 cap on liability order costs, and the move to 12 monthly instalments by default.
There was a strong and consistent concern that the reforms misunderstand how council tax collection works in practice. Kirsty Brooksmith, from Hammersmith and Fulham, opened the discussion by saying that, in her view, 63-days is too long. She argued that councils already act ethically and support residents who are struggling, and that the change felt like “a kick in the teeth” to practitioners who already try to engage early and fairly.
Laura Bessell agreed. Drawing on her experience at Oxford, she explained that her authority already takes a proactive approach. Reminders are not sent immediately, summonses are limited, and officers contact residents before court action to understand whether they are unable to pay or unwilling to pay. Despite that supportive approach, she said collection had been “stumped”, with several million pounds affected across council tax and business rates. Her point was that delaying recovery further may not help residents, but it will make collection harder.
Julie Smethurst was equally direct. She said the proposals risk “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”. In her view, councils already do much of what the reforms are trying to require, including changing reminder cycles and supporting residents before formal recovery. The danger, she said, is that the change will mostly help those who can pay but choose not to, while making it harder for councils to collect within the financial year. She also reminded the group that council tax is an annual bill due from 1 April, with instalments acting as a deferred payment arrangement, not as separate monthly bills.
Michael Fisher focused on the practical consequence of delay. He noted that council tax continues to accrue every day, and unlike a commercial service, councils cannot simply withdraw services when someone does not pay. His concern was that a 63-day delay discourages early engagement. Residents who want to pay may wait until they receive a formal letter, by which point the arrears may already be much harder to clear.
Rachael Walker added that the proposals appeared to be driven more by political pressure than by the operational reality of the system. She questioned whether the changes had been properly researched and warned that longer delays may shorten the time available to make repayment arrangements. If repayment periods are compressed, instalment amounts rise, and higher instalments may lead to more broken arrangements.
Robert Fox also challenged the policy logic. He said council tax is not consumer credit; it is a tax used to pay for local services. While councils must protect vulnerable residents, they also need to act promptly against those who do not pay. He warned that removing flexibility may lead councils to reduce the choice of instalment dates, because later instalment dates could become too risky under the new timetable.
Sean O’Sullivan placed the issue in its historical context. He reminded the group that strong council tax enforcement followed the community charge experience, where the system needed to distinguish between those who could not pay and those who would not pay. He argued that council tax was designed to avoid large arrears building up. Adding two extra months before effective action, he said, risks making arrears unmanageable, especially for residents already struggling with a council tax reduction contribution.
The discussion then turned to the move to 12 monthly instalments by default. Several speakers questioned whether there is evidence that most taxpayers want this. Julie Smethurst said that in her consultation response she had pointed out that a large proportion of taxpayers still pay over 10 months. Rachael referred to early findings from her own FOI work, suggesting that 70% of cash and direct debit payers pay over 10 months, while only a small minority use 12 monthly instalments. Her concern was that the policy is not grounded in what residents actually do.
Peter Haywood reinforced this point from experience. He said one council had promoted 12-month instalments on bills and envelopes, yet only achieved around 2.5% take up each year. His view was that people often value the two “free” months, particularly where they use February and March to manage other household costs. He also warned that making 12 months the default may create confusion, particularly for taxpayers who expect their final payment to be in January and are surprised by a February direct debit.
Laura Bessell added that February and March are not simply “spare” months in council administration. They are often used to realign accounts after changes in entitlement, moves, backlogs or council tax reduction adjustments during the year. Removing that flexibility may make administration harder, not easier.
On liability order costs, the group saw risks on both sides of the £100 cap. Kevin Stewart asked what would happen to the requirement to prove costs, referring to the existing principle that councils must be able to justify what they charge. Rachael responded with findings from her research into recovery costs. She said most councils already charge below £100, but London authorities are more likely to charge above it. Her analysis suggested that councils above the cap would lose income, while councils below it could face pressure to increase their charges up to the cap. She also said that Welsh experience suggested fees may converge upwards once a cap is introduced.
Bob Wagstaff made a similar point. He said the cap appears to be aimed at a London problem but may inflate costs elsewhere if councils below £100 decide to move closer to the maximum. Sean O’Sullivan warned that if the cap becomes a default figure, the evidence requirement for calculating costs may effectively disappear. Kirsty Brooksmith gave the London perspective, saying that her authority currently charges more than £100 and would face a budget shortfall as a result of the cap. Ian Savigar also noted that, for his authority, the proposed cap would create a significant financial loss.
Peter Haywood raised a legal caution about simply shifting costs from the liability order stage to the summons stage. He referred to recent High Court comments in the Surrey Heath case, where the judge indicated that liability order costs should not simply be folded into summons costs. His point was that councils need to be careful about how they respond to the cap.
A recurring theme was that the real problem is not always the recovery process, but affordability. Julie Smethurst said the fundamental issue is that councils are often asking people to pay sums they cannot realistically afford. In those cases, she argued, changing the timetable will not solve the problem. It may simply delay the point at which the resident and the council have to face it.
There was also discussion about what good practice should look like. Julie said her teams are instructed to accept affordable arrangements where the resident’s income and expenditure show that is all they can pay. She emphasised the importance of ethical, balanced and timely collection, but also said councils need to challenge situations where residents are prioritising non-priority debts over council tax.
Ian Savigar pointed to digital inclusion and the use of text reminders. He said well worded digital nudges had helped bring in payments from people who usually pay but occasionally forget. However, he and Julie both noted that digital communication remains limited by opt-in rules and the cost of postal reminders continues to rise.
Robert Fox argued that software suppliers also need to improve their online offer, describing current systems as poor and not good enough to support the shift councils are being asked to make. Ian Savigar also suggested linking council tax recovery more closely with Crisis and Resilience Fund arrangements, so that recovery officers understand what local support is available.
Kirsty Brooksmith closed the substantive discussion with a practical example. Her authority has used CRF support to encourage engagement, offering help where residents agree and maintain an instalment plan. That, the group appeared to agree, is closer to what effective early intervention should look like: not simply delaying recovery, but using the early stage to engage, assess affordability, maximise income and stabilise payment.
Overall, the discussion showed strong support for ethical collection and early help, but deep concern that the proposed reforms may not achieve those aims. The group’s view was not that councils should act faster because they are unsympathetic, but that timely contact is often what prevents arrears from becoming unmanageable. The risk identified throughout the session was that well intentioned reform could weaken collection, confuse residents, increase arrears, create new administrative burdens and reduce the resources available for local services.
The recording can be seen here
Downloads
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/).