The government is facing calls from many people to change the laws on council tax
The Government is facing pressure to reform council tax legislation. Thousands are urging Sir Keir Starmer’s administration to overhaul the system to support pensioners across the UK.
More than 5,200 people have backed an online petition demanding the UK Government introduce “a law which exempts all pensioners in Britain from paying council tax“. Petition organiser Michael Thompson contends that “current provisions only ensure that pensioners on the lowest incomes receive full relief”, leaving those with moderate incomes without extra financial support, according to the Daily Record.
The ‘exempt all pensioners from council tax’ petition, published on the Petitions Parliament website, declares: “We believe council tax is increasingly unaffordable. Many pensioners often rely on a fixed income and face growing living costs, which may exacerbate financial pressures while pensioners continue to struggle.
“We believe exempting all pensioners from council tax isn’t just compassionate but is also fiscally responsible. We believe it could provide relief to a vulnerable demographic and help uphold public services by ensuring fairer funding models.”
Should the petition secure 10,000 signatures, it will qualify for a written response from the UK Government. Should it achieve 100,000 signatures, the Petitions Committee will evaluate whether to schedule a Parliamentary debate – and you can view the complete petition here.
The closing date for adding signatures to the petition is 28 February this year.
Council tax regulations in the UK
According to the government, council tax is typically payable if you’re aged 18 or above. The gov.uk website states that a full charge “is based on at least 2 adults living in a home”.
Couples living together share joint responsibility for settling the payment, officials say. However, certain individuals aren’t included when determining the number of occupants in a property for council tax calculations.
In official terms, these people are ‘disregarded’.
Consequently, you may qualify to request a reduction on your charge if you fall into this category. You are not counted if you are:
- a student nurse
- a full-time student at college or university
- on certain apprentice schemes
- under 18 years old
- severely mentally impaired
- a live-in carer for someone who is not your partner, spouse, or child under 18
- under 25 years old and get funding from the Education and Skills Funding Agency
- 18 or 19 years old and in full-time education
- a diplomat
- a foreign language assistant registered with the British Council
Requesting a council tax reduction or exemption
Nevertheless, even if you appear on that list, you must submit an application for a reduction or exemption. The government states you’ll receive a 50 per cent reduction if all household members are ‘disregarded’.
You’ll receive a 25 per cent reduction if you’re liable for council tax and either all other occupants are ‘disregarded’ or you reside alone.
Apprentices may also qualify for reductions. To demonstrate that you’re exempt from paying council tax, you’ll require a declaration from your employer confirming that:
- you will not get in excess of £195 a week
- the training leads to a qualification accredited by a body recognised by the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual) or the Scottish Vocational Education Council (SVEC)
For further information, get in touch with your local council.
DfT update over new 10-year mandatory test for all drivers
The Government has also proposed a new test for drivers over a certain age
Transport minister Lilian Greenwood answered questions about a new road safety strategy (Image: Parliament TV)
The Government has provided an update about a proposed test every 10 years for all drivers. Transport ministers appeared in the Commons this week (January 8) to take questions from MPs about proposed new road safety rules.
The new Road Safety Strategy proposes major changes to driving laws, such as making learner drivers have a minimum of three to six months learning period between their theory and practical tests. Another change which is being considered is introducing mandatory eyesight testing for drivers aged over 70, as well as cognitive tests for older drivers.
At present, motorists must be able to read a number plate at a distance of 20 metres, but you do not have to provide any proof that you can do this. Leicester South MP Shockat Adam asked a question relating to this proposed new test, saying such testing should be expanded further.
He said: “The UK is one of the only countries in Europe that does not have mandatory sight tests until people have to renew their licence at the age of 70, so somebody could pass a driving test at 17 or 18, then not have an eye test until they are 70 years old. Does the minister agree that people should have a sight test every time their driving licence is renewed, which is every 10 years, to ensure that they are safe on the road?”
Transport minister Lilian Greenwood responded on behalf of the Government. She said: “No one should be driving on our roads whose eyesight does not meet the required standard. We have chosen to consult on eye tests for those over 70, but it would be good advice for everyone to have their eyes tested on a regular basis.”
280 crashes a year
Mr Adam also asked what action the Government is taking around the safety issue of glare from headlights. He cited RAC figures indicating there are 280 crashes every year caused by glare from headlights.
In response, Ms Greenwood said: “We have undertaken research on headlamp glare. I know that this is a growing problem, and I certainly recognise it as a driver myself.
“We are going to consider the outputs of the research that we already have and do further work, in addition to looking internationally at work on vehicle standards, but I absolutely want to take further action on headlamp glare.”
Other proposed measures in the Road Safety Strategy include reducing the alcohol limit for learner drivers and recently qualified drivers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland down from 80mg per 100ml of blood to around 20mg. The limit for all other drivers would be reduced to around 50mg, which is the current limit in Scotland.
Keir Starmer reeling as MPs set to debate snap election in Labour nightmare
The chair of the Labour party will respond to the mass call for the country to go to the polls
More than a million Britons would welcome the chance to go to the polls (Image: Getty)
The demand by more than one million citizens for an immediate will be debated in Parliament on Monday following a mass petition.
The petition, which received nearly 1,060,000 signatures, states: “We want an immediate General Election to be held. We think the majority need and want change.”
Monday’s debate comes as Politico’s poll of polls shows Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party is tied with the Greens on 16%, behind Kemi Badenoch’s Conservatives (18%) and Nigel Farage’s Reform UK (29%).
The constituency with the highest number of signatures (3,210) was the Essex seat of Brentwood and Ongar, held by Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Alex Burghart, widely considered a key ally of Mrs Badenoch.
He said: “My constituents in Brentwood and Ongar, along with over a million people across the country, have made their views clear on this Labour Government – the most unpopular in history. They have broken promise after promise and carried out U-turn after U-turn.
It is clear that people are crying out for a credible alternative. Only Kemi Badenoch and the Conservatives have the team and the plan to deliver the change this country needs.”
Demand for an election was also strong in the Conservative-held seats of Castle Point (3,098), Braintree (2,995), Rayleigh and Wickford (2,950) and Maldon (2929), but also in Labour-held Portsmouth North (2,910) and Burnley (2,862) and Mr Farage’s Clacton (2,854).
Alex Burghart is Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary (Image: Getty)
Labour has given no indication it is considering a snap election.
The Government responded to the petition, saying: “This Government was elected on a mandate of change at the July 2024 General Election. Our full focus is on fixing the foundations, rebuilding Britain, and restoring public confidence in Government.”
The debate will last for up to three hours and Anna Turley, who chairs the Labour Party and is a minister without portfolio, will respond on behalf of the Government.
Rachel Reeves just slapped pensioners round the face again – this time she’s gone too far
The Chancellor has got herself into yet another state pension mess.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is in deep water over the state pension (Image: Getty Images)
I’ve already written twice about the chaos Rachel Reeves has created by freezing tax thresholds while letting the state pension rise under the triple lock. This will punish older pensioners. I concluded in my last piece that she’d dug a hole for herself. I’ve now realised that her hole is even deeper. And once again, it’s older pensioners who lose out.
The core problem is this. The personal allowance has been frozen at £12,570 for years and Reeves has now extended that all the way to 2031. Next year, April 2027, the new state pension will exceed the personal allowance, and will be instantly taxable for anybody who gets the full amount.
It means the DWP will pay the money, and HMRC will take instantly tax it.
To head off a looming administrative nightmare, Reeves announced a clumsy fix. Pensioners whose sole income is the new state pension won’t pay tax on it this Parliament, even after it rises above the allowance. That sounds fair until you look closer, which I have. Then it’s chaos.
There are two state pensions. The new state pension is a single-tier payment, made to those who retired from April 6, 2016. However, around eight million who retired before that date get the basic state pension, which may also be topped up by Serps or the state second pension. Under what Reeves laughably calls her “simple workaround”, this additional state pension will remain taxable.
So we now have a two-tier system where a chunk of the state pension older retirees receive is taxed, when it isn’t for more recent pensioners. That was bad enough. It gets worse. Every year, the new state pension rises under the triple lock. It goes up by earnings, inflation or 2.5%, whichever is highest. The basic state pension also benefits from the triple lock, so older pensioners feel some of the upside.
But additional state pension does not. Serps and S2P are uprated only in line with inflation, using the consumer price index figure from the previous September. There is no earnings link and no 2.5% floor. They don’t get the same guarantee.
It’s a weird anomaly that should have been fixed years ago. Instead, it’s been allowed to fester, to the detriment of older pensioners.
That hasn’t mattered much lately because inflation has been higher than both wages growth and 2.5%. But it matters now.
This April, both the new and basic state pensions will rise by 4.8%, in line with last year’s earnings growth. Additional state pension will rise just 3.8%, reflecting September’s inflation figure.
And now Reeves has layered another problem on top. Of course she has. Her tax bungle makes this imbalance even more damaging.
Inflation is expected to slide to around 2% this year. That’s below the triple lock floor of 2.5%. As a result, both the new and basic state pensions will rise by at least 2.5% in April 2027, and possibly more if earnings are higher.
Additional state pension will rise only with inflation, so potentially by just 2%. Maybe less.
This is the second hit for older pensioners, courtesy of the Chancellor. Not only do they face a smaller increase to their additional state pension, but every penny of it counts towards taxable income. Meanwhile, those on the new state pension alone get the full triple lock hike plus tax protection too.
This is insanely technical, but the result is simple. Older pensioners look set to get a smaller rise and potentially pay more tax on it.
The sheer complexity of our state pension system is absurd. Reeves has blundered in and made it worse by exempting one part of the state pension from tax while charging another. It’s a monstrosity.
The only saving grace for Reeves is that many older pensioners won’t understand what she’s done. Once they do, they’ll be seething.
