Future of council tax in Scotland: Consultation analysis Final Report

3. Quantitative analysis

Introduction

Chapter 3 presents the quantitative analysis of the 14 closed questions, structured around the three themes in the consultation paper, alongside a thematic analysis of the qualitative feedback provided in the ‘other, please specify’ responses.

Whether the current council tax system needs to be reformed

The first section of the consultation asked respondents to provide views on whether the current council tax system in Scotland needs to be reformed, whether property values used to calculate council tax should be updated to reflect current market values (instead of using 1991 values) and how frequently valuations should be reviewed and updated.

Question 1: Do you think the current council tax system in Scotland needs to be reformed?

There were 1,282 responses to this question. Of these responses, 1,211 (94% of all who answered) were from individuals and 71 (6%) were from organisations. Of the individual respondents, 442 (37%) were in council tax Bands A-D and 649 (55%) from Bands E-H^[1].

Overall, 82% (1,050) of all respondents who answered this question were in favour of reform of the council tax system. A greater proportion of organisations than individual respondents favoured reform (97%, 69 respondents and 81%, 981 respectively), and less than one-fifth of all respondents (15%, 198) who answered this question thought the current council tax system in Scotland did not need to be reformed.

There was little difference between the views of respondents in council tax Bands A-D compared to those in Bands E-H in relation to this question (81%, 359 and 82%, 532 respectively were in favour of reform).

Table C.1 and Table C.2 in Appendix C provide a detailed breakdown of these results.

Question 2: Do you think property values used to calculate council tax should be updated to reflect current market values, instead of using 1991 values (that is, should there be a revaluation of every property in Scotland)?

As shown in Table 3.1, 1,281 respondents answered this question of which 1,213 (95%) were individuals and 68 (5%) were organisations. Of the individual respondents, 444 (37%) were in Council Tax Bands A-D and 651 (55%) were in Bands E-H.

Two-thirds (67%) of all respondents who answered this question thought that property values used to calculate council tax should be updated to reflect current market values.

Support was higher for updating property values amongst organisations than individuals (91% and 66% respectively). A sizeable minority of the individual respondents (29%) did not agree that property values should be updated.

Table 3.1: Do you think property values used to calculate council tax should be updated to reflect current market values, instead of using 1991 values?

Respondent type	Yes			No			Don’t know			Number responding to the question
-	%		n=	%		n=	%	n=		-
Individuals	66%		802	29%		351	5%	60		1,213
Organisations	91%		62	4%		3	4%	3		68
All answering	67%		864	28%		354	5%	63		1,281

There was little difference between the views of respondents in Bands A-D and those in Bands E-H in relation to this question with two thirds in each group agreeing that property values should be updated to reflect current market values (68%, 304 respondents and 67%, 435 respondents, respectively). See Table C.4 in Appendix C for more detail.

Question 3: How often do you think property values should be reviewed and updated for council tax purposes?

There were 1,240 responses to question 3, of which 1,176 were individuals (95% of all those answering) and 64 (5%) were organisations. Of the individual respondents, 433 (38%) were in Council Tax Bands A-D and 626 (54%) were in Bands E-H.

While the most favoured option was revaluation every 10 years (34% of all those answering), this preference was more marked in individuals than organisations (35% compared to 8% respectively). Almost one-quarter (24%) of all respondents selected ‘Other’ at question 3 and the analysis of these responses is presented below.

These results are summarised in Table 3.2.

The most favoured options for respondents in Council Tax Bands A-D were revaluation every 10 years (39% of these respondents) and revaluation every 5 years (25%). The pattern was similar for respondents in Bands E-H, with 36% and 21% in favour of revaluation every 10 years and 5 years respectively.

The results by council tax band groupings are presented in Table 3.3.

Table 3.2: How often do you think property values should be reviewed and updated for council tax purposes?

Respondent type	Every 3 years		Every 5 years		Every 7 years		Every 10 years		Other		Don’t know		Number responding to the question
-	%	n=	%	n=	%	n=	%	n=	%	n=	%	n=	-
Individuals	7%	82	23%	266	4%	51	35%	411	23%	274	8%	92	1,176
Organisations	8%	5	34%	22	5%	3	8%	5	38%	24	8%	5	64
All answering	7%	87	23%	288	4%	54	34%	416	24%	298	8%	97	1,240

Table 3.3: How often do you think property values should be reviewed and updated for council tax purposes? Responses by council tax band groupings

Respondent type	Every 3 years		Every 5 years		Every 7 years		Every 10 years		Other		Don’t know		Number responding to the question
-	%	n=	%	n=	%	n=	%	n=	%	n=	%	n=	-
Band A to D	6%	25	25%	110	4%	16	39%	167	17%	73	10%	42	433
Band E to H	7%	42	21%	131	5%	32	36%	224	26%	163	5%	34	626
I don't pay council tax	20%	3	20%	3	7%	1	27%	4	13%	2	13%	2	15
Don't know	8%	6	21%	16	3%	2	19%	14	35%	26	15%	11	75
All answering	7%	76	23%	260	4%	51	36%	409	23%	264	8%	89	1,149

Qualitative Analysis: Other please specify responses

There were 391 responses to the ‘other, please specify’ question, which asked respondents to provide more detail if they had answered ‘other‘ to the closed question. This includes some respondents who had selected one of the defined response options, or ‘don’t know’, as well as those selecting ‘other’. Of these 391 responses, 115 were identified as including comments relevant to the question. Analysis of the key themes from the relevant responses is reported below and analysis of the remaining responses is included in the later qualitative analysis.

Revaluation when a property is bought, sold, or upgraded

Some respondents thought that property values should be reviewed and updated for council tax purposes when a property was bought, sold, upgraded, or had a change in use. Some said that revaluation should occur only at the point of sale, change, or upgrade while some other respondents suggested that revaluation at the point of sale, change, or upgrade should be in addition to a regular revaluation cycle.

Alternative timeframes for revaluations

Some respondents indicated that property values should be reviewed and updated for council tax purposes less frequently than every 10 years. The most frequently suggested alternative was a 20‑year revaluation cycle, followed by 25 years and 30 years, each proposed by a few respondents. Other suggestions ranged from every 15 years and 17 years to every 50, 75, or 100 years, again each mentioned by a few respondents.

Some respondents thought that property values should be reviewed and updated more frequently than a three‑year cycle for council tax purposes. These respondents supported annual revaluations.

Finally, a few organisations also suggested an alternative timeframe for how often property values should be reviewed and updated for council tax purposes and proposed that this should happen every three-to-five years or six-to-seven years.

Other revaluation triggers

A few respondents suggested that property values should be reviewed and updated for council tax purposes at the point of sign‑off by building regulations, rather than at the point of sale.

Options for council tax reform

The second section of the consultation asked participants for their views on options for council tax reform. This included questions on whether council tax band thresholds should be set nationally or vary by council area, what respondents considered most important in the design of council tax bands, and which potential council tax reform systems they most and least supported.

Question 4: Following a revaluation, do you think council tax band property value thresholds should be set at a national level or vary by council area?

There were 1,265 responses to this question. Of these, 1,202 were individuals (95% of all those answering) and 63 (5%) were organisations. Of the individual respondents, 435 (37%) were in council tax Bands A-D and 648 (55%) were in Bands E-H.

Overall, views were equally split with 48% of respondents who answered this question in favour of thresholds being set locally compared to 45% in favour of nationally set thresholds.

Organisations were more likely to favour national over local thresholds (68% compared to 21%, respectively) while individuals were more evenly split (49% for locally set thresholds compared to 44% for nationally set thresholds). These results are detailed in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4: Following a revaluation, do you think council tax band property value thresholds should be set at a national level or vary by council area?

Respondent type	Thresholds should be set nationally to be the same across all council areas		Thresholds should vary by council area based on local housing markets		Don’t know		Number responding to the question
-	%	n=	%	n=	%	n=	-
Individuals	44%	525	49%	593	7%	84	1,202
Organisations	68%	43	21%	13	11%	7	63
All answering	45%	568	48%	606	7%	91	1,265

Among respondents from council tax Bands A-D, a higher proportion indicated a preference for setting thresholds locally compared to nationally (54%, 237 respondents compared to 40%, 172 respondents) These results are shown in Chart 3.1 and in Table C.8 in Appendix C.

Question 5: Which of the following is most important to you in the design of council tax bands?

Question 5 asked respondents to select which they considered most important in the design of council tax bands. The options were:

• Ensuring tax rises between bands are gradual and predictable (differentiation).
• Ensuring households in higher value homes contribute more (progressivity).

There were 1,247 responses to this question, of which 1,181 (95% of all those answering) were individuals and 66 (5%) were organisations. Of the individual respondents, 433 (37%) were in council tax Bands A-D and 634 (55%) were in Bands E-H.

Overall, similar proportions of respondents who answered this question were in favour of progressivity and differentiation (38% and 41% respectively). Over two-fifths (42%) of individual respondents favoured differentiation whilst over a third (37%) favoured progressivity. Amongst organisations support was higher for progressivity than differentiation (55% compared to 18%).

One-fifth of all those responding to this question answered ‘Other’, and these responses are considered below. Table 3.5 provides a breakdown of these results.

Table 3.5: Which of the following is most important to you in the design of council tax bands?

Respondent type	Ensuring households in higher-value homes contribute more (progressivity)		Ensuring tax rises between bands are gradual and predictable (differentiation)		Other		Don’t know		Number responding to the question
-	%	n=	%	n=	%	n=	n=	%	-
Individuals	37%	436	42%	495	19%	228	2%	22	1,181
Organisations	55%	36	18%	12	24%	16	3%	2	66
All answering	38%	472	41%	507	20%	244	2%	24	1,247

While respondents in council tax Bands A-D preferred progressivity (56%, 241 respondents) over differentiation (28%, 121 respondents), those in Bands E-H preferred differentiation (53%, 339 respondents) over progressivity (24%, 149 respondents). These results are detailed in Table C.10, in Appendix C.

Qualitative Analysis: Other please specify responses

Question 5 included an option for respondents to provide more detail if they had answered ‘other, please specify’. There were 359 responses to the ‘other, please specify’ question, of which 49 contained comments that were relevant to the question. Analysis of the key themes from the relevant responses is reported below with the remainder included in the later qualitative analysis.

Changing the Valuation Bands

Some respondents identified a need for additional bands and/or adjusted band thresholds to help address the perceived regressivity of the current system. These respondents felt that the current system and banding structure did not accurately reflect current property values or did not sufficiently differentiate between properties of different values.

“The number of bands needs to be expanded significantly to account for the significant spread of property values, the latter being poorly accommodated by the low number of bands in the current scheme.” (Individual, Stirling, Band H)

“While not wanting to have the same valuation standard apply across Scotland as there are local differences, it is galling to see a £1m property in Glasgow banded as G same as a £300K house in East Lothian. The need to ensure relativity remains.” (Individual, East Lothian, Band F)

“For bands to more accurately reflect the value of homes. Currently, I own a 4-bedroom house, valued at approximately £360,000. Yet I am in a Band G bracket. I have seen houses for sale in excess of £800,000 that are in the same bracket.” (Individual, Aberdeenshire, Band G)

Differentiation and progressivity of equal importance

Some respondents felt that differentiation and progressivity should be equally important considerations in the design of council tax bands.

“Council tax design must avoid deepening inequalities by balancing progressivity with predictability so households can plan.” (Individual, Aberdeen City, Band E)

“The bands need to be more progressive but balanced with the differentiation model. Higher bands should contribute more but not in a way that it skews the opposite way with lower bands not paying their fair share. High value doesn't mean high income.” (Individual, Stirling, Band E)

“Both of these options could be a key feature of any reforms. Though tax should fall on those who can afford it most and who are disproportionately benefiting from the current system.” (Social Enterprise Scotland).

“Both differentiation and progressivity are important. Moreover, they are mutually achievable with a small number of bands if, like income tax, these bands defined a schedule of relative marginal tax rates. This would be more gradual and equitable.” (The Royal Society of Edinburgh).

Progressivity or Differentiation with caveats

Some respondents expressed support for progressivity but caveated their response in some way. In particular, these respondents noted that a progressive approach should protect low-income households while also ensuring that those in higher value properties paid an appropriate share.

“The council supports proposals for a more progressive tax system provided that adequate financial support is available to those who require it.” (East Lothian Council)

“The council tax system is regressive with those in high-value properties paying up to five times less proportionally than those in low-income properties. However, redistribution is achieved through public services as well as through progressive taxation, so the overall yield is equally important.” (Scottish Trades Union Congress)

“However, I do not think what you have set out goes far enough. A property valued at 1 million should pay ten times that valued at a hundred thousand. I would also add a land tax value so there is more to pay if your property covers a larger area.” (Individual respondent, Moray, Band A)

Similarly, a few respondents expressed support for differentiation but also provided a caveat or added conditions.

“Council tax is the most common debt advisers see, and arrears should be treated as preventable financial harm. Band design must prioritise gradual, predictable increases to avoid affordability shocks and enforcement. Smoother banding, strong transitional protections, deferrals, and empathetic collection would support prevention, financial wellbeing, and long-term resilience for households.” (Money Advice Scotland)

Local rather than national

A few organisation respondents said that the design of council tax bands being locally set was the most important consideration.

Question 6: Which of the potential council tax systems do you most support?

Question 6 asked respondents to select which council tax system they supported most. The options were:

• Revaluation with 8 existing bands.
• Revalued 12-band (differentiated) system.
• Revalued 12-band (progressive) system.
• Revalued 14-band system.
• The current council tax system with no revaluation.
• Don’t know.

There were 1,222 responses to question 6, of which 1,161 (95% of all those answering) were individuals and 61 (5%) were organisations. Of the individual respondents, 423 (37%) were in council tax Bands A-D and 627 (55%) were in Bands E-H.

The option with most support was a revalued 14‑band system (38% of all those answering, 463 respondents). This option attracted the highest level of support amongst all groups but was more marked for organisations than individuals (59%, 36 and 37%, 427 respectively). Support for revaluation with 8 existing bands was low amongst the organisation respondents.

There was little difference in respondents’ views on the other options, although there was more support amongst organisations for a 12-band progressive system (20% of organisations that answered, 12 respondents) than a 12-band differentiated structure (8%, 5).

Chart 3.2 provides more detail. The full data table can be found in Appendix C, Table C.11.

The strongest preference for both individual respondents in Bands A-D and those in Bands E-H was for a revalued 14 band system. This was more marked for the Bands A-D grouping than Bands E-H (47%, 200 respondents compared to 30%, 190 respondents). This is shown in Chart 3.3. The full data table can be found in Appendix C, Table C.12.

Question 7: Which of the potential council tax systems do you least support?

Question 7 asked respondents to select which council tax system they least preferred of the options set out in the preceding question. There were 1,263 responses, of which 1,197 (95% of all those answering) were individuals and 66 (5%) were organisations. Of the individual respondents, 435 (37%) were in Council Tax Bands A-D and 645 (55%) were in Bands E-H.

Overall, the current council tax system with no revaluation was the least preferred option amongst respondents answering this question (41%, 521 respondents) followed by revaluation with 8 existing bands (19%, 234) and a revalued 14-band system (18%, 232).

A higher proportion of organisations than individual respondents selected the current council tax system with no revaluation as the option they least support (83%, 55 respondents and 39%, 466 respectively).

The results are summarised in Chart 3.4. The full data table is in Appendix C, Table C.13.

Individual respondents in Bands A-D and Bands E-H both selected the current council tax system with no revaluation as their least preferred option (45%, 197 respondents and 36%, 230).

Individual respondents in Bands E-H were more likely to choose a revalued 14 band system as their least preferred option than those in Bands A-D (23%, 146 respondents compared to 16%, 71). The reverse was true for revaluation with the existing 8 bands. This option was the least preferred for 23% (98) of respondents in Bands A-D compared to 18% (114) of those in Bands E-H.

Chart 3.5 summarises these findings. The full data table is in Appendix C, Table C.14.

Transition and mitigation

The third section of the consultation sought views on transitional measures, including a transitional relief scheme, a council tax deferral scheme, and proposals to change the existing Council Tax Relief (CTR) scheme.

Question 8: Do you support the establishment of a transitional relief scheme to limit how much a household’s council tax bill can increase each year following reform?

There were 1,259 responses to Question 8, of which 1,193 (95% of all those answering) were individuals and 66 (5%) were organisations. Of the individual respondents, 435 (37%) were in Council Tax Bands A-D and 640 (55%) were in Bands E-H.

There was majority support for a transitional relief scheme, with 79% of respondents who answered this question indicating their support. A transitional relief scheme was favoured by 92% of organisations (61 respondents) and 79% of individuals (939 respondents).

Chart 3.6 provides the breakdown by individual and organisation respondents. Table C.15 in Appendix C details these results.

Respondents in Bands A-D and in Bands E-H both showed support for a transitional relief scheme (79%, 343 respondents and 80%, 509 respectively). Table C.16 in Appendix C details these results.

Question 9: Which transitional relief scheme would you prefer?

Question 9 asked respondents to indicate their preference between two potential transitional relief schemes, described in the consultation paper as follows:

• Scheme 1: Council tax gross bill increases due to the reforms would be limited to the lower of 10% or £300 each year, over four years.
• Scheme 2: Council tax gross bill increases would be capped at the lower of 25% or £600 per year, over four years.

There were 1,237 responses to this question, of which 1,175 (95% of all those answering) were individuals and 62 (5%) were organisations. Of the individual respondents, 431 (38%) were in Council Tax Bands A-D and 626 (55%) were in Bands E-H.

The most common preference overall was for Scheme 1 (59% of all those answering). The option with most support amongst individual respondents was Scheme 1 (60%) while for organisations it was ‘Other’ (47%) (discussed below). Support for both of the identified relief schemes was low amongst organisations (24% for Scheme 1 and 19% for Scheme 2). Table 3.6 details these results.

Table 3.6: Which transitional relief scheme would you prefer?

Respondent type	Scheme 1: Cap increases at 10% or £300 per year		Scheme 2: Cap increases at 25% or £600 per year		Other		Don’t know		Number responding to the question
-	%	n=	%	n=	%	n=	%	n=	-
Individuals	60%	710	16%	186	16%	187	8%	92	1,175
Organisations	24%	15	19%	12	47%	29	10%	6	62
All answering	59%	725	16%	198	17%	216	8%	98	1,237

Differences between the council tax band groupings were small, with 63% (270 respondents) of those in Bands A-D and 60% (377) of those in Bands E-H selecting Scheme 1 as their preferred transitional relief scheme model. The data can be found in Appendix C, Table C.18.

Qualitative Analysis: Other please specify responses

There were 275 responses to ‘other, please specify’ for question 9, 93 of which were identified as containing comments relevant to the question. These responses suggested a range of alternatives to the proposed transitional relief schemes. The analysis of these responses is reported below, and analysis of the remaining responses is included in the later qualitative analysis.

Variations of transitional relief schemes

Some respondents proposed different models for a transitional relief scheme. These models are described in more detail below.

Some respondents expressed a preference for a transitional relief scheme based on household income on the basis that it would be important to ensure support for low-income households.

“A transitional relief scheme based on percentage of household income would ensure relief is based on ability to pay but should extend only while the present owner owns the dwelling. If sold or transferred, the new owner should expect to pay in full (minus personal discounts).” (The Common Weal)

“Scheme which is based on household income…so that those of least income get the most gradual increase and those on the highest household incomes don’t qualify for any gradual increase as they can afford to pay it outright if they are wealthy.” (Individual, North Lanarkshire, Band B)

A few respondents explicitly expressed support for a transitional relief scheme that varied the level of support according to property value or band.

“Relief should be limited to the lower (10%) and middle bands (25%) with the no relief for the highest bands who have likely been under paying the longest.” (Individual, West Lothian, Band F)

“Replicate the Non-Domestic Rates transitional relief scheme with a taper across the four years. The two proposed schemes suggested are at opposite extremes. There is a cliff edge on scheme 1 and scheme 2 doesn't help enough people.” (Individual, Stirling Band E)

A few respondents favoured a mixed transitional relief scheme based on tenure.

“A mixed referral scheme should be introduced based on tenure. Scheme 1 should be offered to those in rented properties who face far higher housing costs relative to their income than homeowners. Scheme 2 should be offered only to homeowners.” (Green New Deal Rising)

A few organisations suggested limiting council tax increases to one band per year.

“We believe that a practical relief scheme would be to cap any increase to one band per year. So, for example if a band increases from C to E, it would only be charged a Band D for year 1.” (Stirling Council)

A few respondents, mainly organisations, proposed combining different approaches or applying a phased transitional increase over several years.

“Combination of schemes or a transitional increase over the time period, for example, 10% capped increase in council tax in year 1, 15% capped increase in year 2, 20% capped increase in year 3, and 25% capped increase year 4.” (South Lanarkshire Council)

“We have highlighted options such as phasing in a new system alongside the existing council tax (reduction scheme), applying a new system to new property purchases only, or capping increases for a time limited period. We have not specified a preferred option.” (Oxfam Scotland)

A few respondents suggested that the proposed transitional relief schemes (Scheme 1 or Scheme 2) should be accompanied by a corresponding mechanism for households experiencing reductions, to ensure the overall approach remains cost‑neutral for the public purse.

Lower annual caps

Some respondents suggested a transitional scheme with an annual cap on increases lower than those in the two proposed schemes.

The most frequently suggested percentage cap was 5%, with some respondents suggesting that annual increases should not exceed this level. A few respondents proposed that the cap could start at 5% and rise gradually over time.

“5% and £150 max per year. Not everyone gets a 10% salary increase per year.” (Individual, City of Edinburgh, Band E)

“An increase of 5% maximum in first 2 years to allow people the chance and time to find an alternative affordable property.” (Individual, Dumfries and Galloway, Band F)

A few respondents favoured an alternative percentage cap to 5%, including suggestions for caps that sat between the two proposed transitional relief scheme options of 10% and 25%.

“Working in the middle, with a 18% to 20% cap to cover as much population as possible.” (Individual, City of Edinburgh, Band D)

“Cap increases at lower of 20% or £400. This will offer adequate protection to those worst affected, assuming the CTR scheme is enhanced, but reduce the national cost of such relief.” (Individual, Falkirk, Band G).

Alternative approaches to setting an annual cap

Some respondents suggested an alternative approach in which an annual cap could be set for a transitional relief scheme.

The most frequent comment, mentioned by some respondents, was that a transitional relief scheme should cap increases at the annual rate of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the Retail Price Index (RPI).

“Use inflation for increases in transitional relief scheme. This is in line with other household bills.” (Individual, Falkirk, Band E)

“Do not agree with any increases above rate of inflation.” (Individual, Scottish Borders, Band not supplied)

Some respondents, mainly organisations, favoured an approach that would cap any increases in banding to one band per annum.

“The Transitional Relief Scheme should limit increases in charge to one band per annum and if banding decreases this should be implemented immediately.” (Fife Council)

A few respondents argued for a transitional relief scheme that would work similar to the UK Government's Triple Lock pension commitment.

“Similar increases as in Triple Lock for pensions. No justification in limiting pension increases to 3-4% but allowing councils to annually increase council tax by upwards of 10%.” (Individual, Aberdeenshire, Band F)

Question 10: Do you support the establishment of a council tax deferral scheme for homeowners?

There were 1,269 responses to Question 10, of which 1,202 (95% of all those answering) were individuals and 67 (5%) were organisations. Of the individual respondents, 439 (37%) were in Council Tax Bands A-D and 646 (55%) were in Bands E-H.

Overall, 48% of all respondents who answered this question did not support a deferral scheme, while 39% were in favour. Support for a deferral scheme was stronger amongst organisations than individual respondents (52% compared to 38%). Table 3.7 provides the detailed results.

Table 3.7: Do you support the establishment of a council tax deferral scheme for homeowners?

Respondent type	Yes		No		Don’t know		Number responding to the question
-	%	n=	%	n=	%	n=	-
Individuals	38%	457	48%	580	14%	165	1,202
Organisations	52%	35	39%	26	9%	6	67
All answering	39%	492	48%	606	13%	171	1,269

The results for the two council tax band groupings broadly mirrored those of the individual respondents as a whole, with almost no difference between those in Bands A-D and those in Bands E-H. The full data table is in Appendix C, Table C.20.

Question 11: In your view, who should be eligible to receive support from a council tax deferral scheme?

Question 11 asked respondents to identify the groups that they thought should be eligible for a council tax deferral scheme, and respondents were able to select multiple responses. Overall, 1,193 respondents answered this question, of which 1,136 (95%) were individuals and 57 (5%) were organisations. Of the individual respondents, 416 (37%) were in council tax Bands A-D and 609 (55%) were in Bands E-H.

The most frequently selected groups from the response options were:

• Pensioners (60% of all those answering, 720 respondents).
• Households experiencing financial hardship (54%, 647 respondents).
• Disabled people (53%, 634 respondents).

A smaller proportion also selected households with children (27%, 328 respondents) and 22% (259) identified other groups. These responses are detailed in Chart 3.7. The full data table can be found in Appendix C, Table C.21.

Qualitative Analysis: Other please specify responses

There were 357 responses to ‘other, please specify’ for question 11, and 160 were identified as including comments relevant to the question. As before, the remainder are considered in the final qualitative analysis section.

Eligibility for deferral based on income-based criteria

Several respondents indicated that eligibility for a deferral scheme should be determined by income‑based criteria rather than pre-defined categories. These respondents highlighted low‑income households, asset‑rich but cash‑poor households, households in receipt of benefits, those just above the current council tax reduction scheme eligibility threshold, middle‑income households, or other vulnerable or at-risk groups that might experience financial difficulties.

Respondents supported income-based eligibility for a range of reasons, including a view that this approach would better target support to those in genuine need than a scheme based on broad categories. Some respondents expressed concern that basing eligibility on pre-defined groups could include people with different financial circumstances or changing circumstances (for example, ill health, caring responsibilities). Some also noted that a scheme based on income would help prevent households from experiencing further hardship as a result of changes to council tax.

“Deferral should be open to all to protect cash-poor households but charged at a modest interest rate so only those who genuinely need it use it, preventing abuse while ensuring fairness and liquidity protection.” (Fairer Share)

“The scheme should support low-income pensioner homeowners who could face financial harm as a consequence of reform. 70% of pensioners own their home outright and 11% (86,000) of those are in relative poverty with many more in financial hardship.” (Independent Age)

“Support from a council tax deferral scheme should be based primarily on ability to pay. It should also include low and middle-income working households who do not qualify for existing benefits but are still struggling with rising living costs.” (Individual, East Lothian, Band C)

Other groups or households which should be eligible for a deferral scheme

Several respondents identified a wider range of specific household types or circumstances that they thought should be eligible for a deferral scheme.

The most frequently mentioned groups here were single‑occupancy households, people living in rented accommodation, and people with caring responsibilities, each of which was raised by some respondents.

All other suggestions were each raised by a few respondents and covered a broad mix of household types and circumstances, including:

• A range of different household compositions and life stages such as single parent households, working households, young people, students, pensioners with students or other children at home, widows and widowers.
• Households that are financially vulnerable or at risk of hardship as a result of homelessness, ill health, or households needing essential repairs.
• People with less stable employment or additional financial responsibilities including self‑employed people, first‑time buyers, and households with a mortgage.
• Households for whom council tax bills would increase under a reformed system.
• People living in smaller homes, people in rural, remote or island communities, people living in listed buildings, and people who own empty properties.
• Other groups including farmers, migrants and military personnel posted to Scotland.

“Commissioners advised that eligibility for support should be based on need/risk of hardship regardless of membership of a particular group. It is, however, recognised that some households are at particular risk if their Council Tax payments increase and any deferral scheme should be designed in a way that is sensitive to this. In particular, homeowners who should benefit include those whose income is just outside of full council tax reduction. The Commission also noted that disabled people and carers, as well as homeowners in rural areas, should also have access to the scheme.” (Poverty and Inequality Commission)

“Single occupancy and people living in remote and rural or in the isles.” (Individual, Orkney Islands, Band D)

“Anyone who is struggling with affordability, for example, disabled people (disability price tag), fixed income, financial hardship, renters also don't benefit from the rise in house valuations. Canada has a good system.” (Inclusion Scotland)

No support for a deferral scheme with caveats

Several respondents who said they did not support the establishment of a deferral scheme caveated their response or offered suggestions about who should be eligible if a scheme were to be introduced. These respondents raised similar themes to those supporting the establishment of a deferral scheme, and the most frequently mentioned option was that a deferral scheme should be targeted and determined by income‑based criteria and financial situation rather than by belonging to predefined categories

“I don't support this at all. If applied, limit to pensioners and disabled people. I'm an owner-occupier - there's no reason I should be able to defer but renters suffer the increase in real time and are already in a more financially precarious position.” (Individual, Glasgow City, Band C)

“If a deferral scheme is introduced, then it should be very limited, as the CTR scheme should protect most low-income households. Eligibility should be limited to households who can demonstrate they are experiencing financial hardship.” (The Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation)

Universal access to a council tax deferral scheme

Some respondents emphasised that access to a deferral scheme should be universal and not restricted to any particular group.

These respondents considered this an equitable approach that would avoid what were seen as arbitrary distinctions between household types. While a few of these respondents noted that not everyone would use a deferral scheme, they considered it important that everyone should have the option if their circumstances warranted it. They highlighted that households could experience financial pressure for a wide range of reasons that were not always captured by fixed group categories.

“Everyone who wants it. Some people might be faced with a huge increase, be on a high salary but have a huge mortgage and other outlays.” (Individual, City of Edinburgh, Band B)

“Everyone. It's impossible to know the financial situation of those who happen to be affected by these changes.” (Individual, East Lothian, Band F)

Question 12: Should households who defer payment pay interest on the amount deferred?

There were 1,262 responses to Question 12, of which 1,199 (95% of all those answering) were from individuals and 63 (5%) were from organisations. Of the individual respondents, 440 (38%) were in Council Tax Bands A-D and 642 were in Bands E-H (55%).

Amongst those answering this question, 49% were opposed to households who defer payment paying interest and 41% were in favour. While 51% of the individual respondents expressed the view that households deferring payment should not pay interest, only 19% of responding organisations shared this view. Table 3.8 details the results in full.

The results by council tax band groupings mirrored those of the individual respondents. The data table for the results by council tax band grouping is in Appendix C, Table C.24.

Table 3.8: Should households who defer payment pay interest on the amount deferred?

Respondent type	Yes		No		Don’t know		Number responding to the question
-	%	n=	%	n=	%	n=	-
Individuals	40%	478	51%	607	10%	114	1,199
Organisations	59%	37	19%	12	22%	14	63
All answering	41%	515	49%	619	10%	128	1,262

Question 13: Do you think the Council Tax Reduction (CTR) scheme should be expanded to support more households following any reform?

There were 1,262 responses to Question 13, of which 1,200 (95%) were individuals and 62 (5%) were organisations. Of the individual respondents, 439 (37%) were in Council Tax Band A-D and 644 (55%) were in Bands E-H.

Half (51%) of all respondents who answered this question were in favour of the CTR scheme being expanded to support more households. This view was markedly stronger amongst organisations (85% of organisations were in favour of expansion) than individuals (49% supported expansion).

Overall, a third of the respondents (33%) did not support expansion of the CTR scheme. Table 3.9 details the results.

Table 3.9: Do you think the Council Tax Reduction (CTR) scheme should be expanded to support more households following any reform?

Respondent type	Yes		No		Don’t know		Number responding to the question
-	%	n=	%	n=	%	n=	-
Individuals	49%	589	35%	415	16%	196	1,200
Organisations	85%	53	5%	3	10%	6	62
All answering	51%	642	33%	418	16%	202	1,262

Analysis of the responses by council tax band showed that support for expansion of the CTR scheme was stronger among those in Bands A-D (60%, 263 respondents) than those in Bands E-H (41%, 263). The full data table can be found in Appendix C, Table C.26.

Question 14: Which changes to the Council Tax Reduction (CTR) scheme would you support?

Question 14 asked respondents which of two options for change to the Council Tax Reduction (CTR) scheme they would support (respondents could select one or both or could also select ‘no changes needed’). The options were:

• Option 1: Broaden eligibility criteria for CTR scheme to include low-income households where the property moves into a higher band due to council tax system changes.
• Option 2: Change CTR so support is withdrawn more gradually as rising incomes move individuals out of eligibility.

There were 1,244 responses to this question, of which 1,181 (95% of all those answering) were individuals and 63 (5%) were organisations. Of the individual respondents, 439 (38%) were in council tax Bands A-D and 627 (54%) were in Bands E-H.

An equal level of overall support was expressed for the two proposed changes to the CTR scheme (42% of all those answering this question for each).

Support for the two options was stronger among organisations than individuals (59% compared to 41% for option 1 and 60% compared to 41% for option 2). Individuals were more likely than organisations to report that no changes were needed (20% compared to 3%). Organisations were also more likely to select ‘Other’ compared individuals (43% versus 10%). These responses are discussed below. Table 3.10 details the findings.

Table 3.10: Which changes to the CTR scheme would you support?

Respondent type	Option 1 (broader eligibility)		Option 2 (gradual withdrawal)		No changes needed		Other		Don’t know		Number responding to the question
-	%	n=	%	n=	%	n=	%	n=	%	n=	-
Individuals	41%	485	41%	487	20%	234	10%	122	12%	143	1,181
Organisations	59%	37	60%	38	3%	2	43%	27	6%	4	63
All answering	42%	522	42%	525	19%	236	12%	149	12%	147	1,244

Over half (52%) of respondents in Bands A-D supported Option 1 compared to over one-third (34%) of respondents in Bands E-H. A higher proportion of respondents in Bands E-H compared to those in Bands A-D reported that no changes were needed to the CTR scheme (23% versus 14%, respectively).

Table 3.11: Which changes to the CTR scheme would you support? Responses by council tax band groupings.

Respondent type	Option 1 (broader eligibility)		Option 2 (gradual withdrawal)		No changes needed		Other		Don’t know		Number responding to the question
-	%	n=	%	n=	%	n=	%	n=	%	n=	-
Band A to D	52%	227	48%	212	14%	61	9%	40	9%	41	439
Band E to H	34%	212	37%	233	23%	146	10%	63	15%	91	627
I don't pay council tax	33%	5	67%	10	33%	5	0%	0	0%	0	15
Don't know	43%	32	31%	23	26%	19	16%	12	11%	8	74
All answering	41%	476	41%	478	20%	231	10%	115	12%	140	1,155

Qualitative Analysis: Other please specify responses

There were 207 responses to ‘other, please specify for Question 11, and 118 were identified as including comments relevant to the question. These responses proposed a range of amendments to the current council tax reduction system, while some expanded on the options presented in the closed question. As before, the remaining comments are considered later under the final qualitative section.

Broadening eligibility for CTR

Some respondents suggested that the eligibility criteria for CTR need to be expanded to consider more groups. In particular, these respondents suggested a need for greater support for low-income households.

Some respondents highlighted that all individuals with a disability, regardless of income, should be eligible for CTR. A few respondents felt that parents of a child/children with a disability should also be eligible for CTR.

“Council tax reduction should be available for middle class or middle earners with children or who are disabled, live alone as well as low-income households” (Individual, North Lanarkshire, Band B)

Some respondents felt that there should be higher income thresholds to further extend eligibility for CTR and support more households.

Some respondents also provided a range of groups and/or people who they felt should be eligible for CTR, this included eligibility for:

• Pensioners (over state pension age).
• Those on maternity leave.
• A greater proportion of low-income households.
• Those who pay factor fees.
• Parents with a child/children with a disability.
• Households with children.
• Couples with no children.

“CTR should also automatically apply to pensioners and the disabled.” (Individual, North Lanarkshire, Band not supplied)

“Introduce higher income thresholds and higher allowances for children to support the increasing number of children in poverty in households where someone is in work” (Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland)

Expanding on existing council tax reductions

Some respondents felt there should be further reductions for those already eligible for council tax reductions. Most frequently, respondents noted that the single adult discount should be increased from 25% to 50%.

“If a tenancy is a single occupancy (i.e. lives alone) they should pay 50% council tax not the current 75% - as they have half the income of a 2-person household.” (Individual, North Lanarkshire, Band not supplied)

“Single households or households where only one person generates an income need lower rates than households with several earners.” (Individual, Argyll and Bute, Band F)

A few respondents also suggested that student households should receive discounts based on the number of students living in a property, rather than using a flat rate of 25%.

“Student discount should be proportional to the number of students living in the property rather than a flat 25% (i.e. an HMO with 4 bedrooms where 3 residents are student should pay 25% of their band rather than 75%)” (Individual, City of Edinburgh, Band F)

Other changes to the current CTR scheme

Some respondents suggested other changes to the CTR scheme. These were each raised by a few respondents, and included:

• Introducing a means-tested system which does not solely rely on income thresholds.
• Removing the £16,000 savings cap to increase eligibility for low-income households who have savings.
• Simplifying the CTR scheme with lower discounts available for groups such as student households or single adult households.
• Integrating CTR with the benefit system to automate discounts or exemptions.
• Removing restrictions to allow Councils to backdate CTR to eligible households.

“Fife Council would advocate reducing the taper from 20% to 10% but would also increase (double) the current earnings disregards and remove the £16,000 capital limit but retain the tariff income calculation. We would also review the non-dependant deductions within the CTR scheme and remove any restrictions on Councils ability to backdate CTR to eligible Households.” (Fife Council)

“Should be less reductions, students should pay more since Edinburgh is being saturated with student accommodation, that is more demand with less money coming in.” (Individual, City of Edinburgh, Band G)

“No automatic discount for 'single occupier' or 'student households'. Means-tested discount only” (Individual, West Lothian, Band B)

Withdrawing CTR support more gradually as rising incomes move individuals out of eligibility

Some respondents expanded on the option to withdraw CTR support more gradually. These respondents highlighted that withdrawing support more gradually would help households by reducing sharp increases in council tax bills as their financial situation improves.

“We would favour any criteria that avoids cliff edge withdrawal of support.” (Association of Taxation Technicians ATT)

“It's important to gradually reduce CTR thresholds otherwise there will be a point where people won't work harder otherwise they will reach a point where CTR is withdrawn and they have less money than before.” (Individual, West Lothian, Band D)

Respondents who do not support CTR

Some respondents stated that they do not support CTR at all. This viewpoint was expressed exclusively by individual respondents, who provided a variety of reasons for this view, including:

• All households should pay council tax as they all use council services and amenities.
• Those who receive benefits are already receiving financial support and should not receive reductions to their council tax.
• The council tax system should be proportional to income and remove the need for a reduction scheme.
• CTR is complex and results in additional costs for local authorities to administer.

“The creation of CTR creates a bureaucracy that adds costs to the council budget for no benefits...And there will be an appeal process adding more waste to the system.” (Individual, West Dunbartonshire, Band B)

“Don't think there should be a reduction. People living in high value properties do not always have high income but are still expected to pay more” (Individual, Falkirk, Band G)