Future of council tax in Scotland: Consultation analysis Final Report

5. Public engagement events

Introduction

This section summarises the discussions at the five public engagement events held as part of the programme of engagement on council tax reform. As shown in Table 5.1, 115 participants took part in these events.

Each public engagement event followed a similar format in which participants were assigned into one of four smaller groups/breakout rooms, giving a total of 20 groups across the five events. Each group had a facilitator (from Deciding Matters) and a notetaker (from EKOS).

The following topics were discussed at each of the events:

• Hopes and fears of council tax reform: Participants were asked to share their hopes and fears with regards to council tax reform.
• Exploring whether there is a need for reform: Each group was asked to consider whether they supported no change or revaluation.
• Exploring the nature of reform: Each group explored their preferred option in more depth, looking at the potential benefits and challenges. If revaluation was selected, the four reform options were considered and groups identified their preferred option.
• Individual voting exercise on reform options: Each participant voted to identify their personal preferred reform option from those their group had identified.
• Transitional measures: Groups considered what transitional measures would be helpful and how they might affect the personas.
• National versus local banding: Groups considered the implications of a localised revaluation compared to a national revaluation.
• Communicating change: Groups considered how they would like reform of the current council tax system communicated to households. (Added from Aberdeen event onwards).

Groups were also given five personas to consider the impact of their preferred reform option on people in different circumstances.

Appendix B provides more information on the approach and methodology, attendees, and discussion topics for the public engagement events.

No change or revaluation

For the first step in discussions around options for reform, groups at all five events were asked to select one option from: no change or revaluation.

No change

No group at any of the five events selected no change as their preferred option. Participants consistently viewed the current council tax system, based on 1991 property values, as outdated, unfair, and in need of reform. The common view among participants was that the status quo was neither appropriate nor acceptable.

A small number of individual participants expressed initial reservations, typically citing concerns about the cost of revaluation, uncertainty about outcomes, or scepticism about the accuracy of any new valuation exercise.

Revaluation

All groups at all five events selected revaluation as their preferred option. The main reasons given were consistent across events and participants were of the view that:

• The current system is based on 1991 property values, which are now significantly out of date.
• The existing banding structure does not accurately reflect current property values or the range of housing markets across Scotland.
• Revaluation is a necessary first step toward broader reform.
• The current system is regressive, with lower-income households in lower-value homes paying a disproportionate share of their income.

Many of the participants across all events also emphasised that they thought revaluation should not be a one-off exercise and that regular revaluation cycles would be needed to keep the system accurate and equitable. However, some groups cautioned against undertaking revaluations too frequently and felt there was a risk that this could distort the housing market or discourage property improvements. Some participants raised concerns or asked questions about the revaluation process itself, particularly around deliverability, transparency, cost, and the quality‑assurance checks that would be used to ensure accuracy.

There was also concern amongst some of the groups that changes to council tax bands could widen existing inequalities in the current banding system or create financial hardship for certain households. Participants highlighted that transitional measures would be important to manage any impacts of revaluation on households.

Exploring options for council tax reform

For the second step in discussions, groups were asked to select one of four reform options: 1) No further changes (pure revaluation); 2) Increasing the number of bands to 12 and making the system more differentiated; 3) Increasing the number of bands to 12 and making the system more progressive; and 4) Increasing the number of bands to 14 and making the system more progressive.

A pure revaluation (no further changes)

The pure revaluation option was largely dismissed by the groups across all five events. The overall view among participants was that updating property values while retaining the current 8-band structure would not go far enough and would miss an opportunity for more substantive reform. Participants felt that the existing bands are too few and too widely spaced, creating large jumps between thresholds, and that the system would not become more progressive through revaluation alone.

One group at the Glasgow event was an exception, selecting pure revaluation as their preferred option. They valued the familiarity of the existing 8-band structure, felt it would be simpler and cheaper to implement, and felt that revaluation alone could ensure households pay the correct amount based on current property values. However, this group also acknowledged challenges with pure revaluation including that it may not be progressive enough and could have a significant potential impact on those whose situation has changed (for example, people in high value homes with low or fixed incomes).

A revalued differentiated 12-band system

Support for a differentiated 12-band system was limited across the events. Four of the 20 groups selected this as a preferred option (for the Online and Edinburgh events this was one of two preferred options selected by one of the groups). Participants in these groups valued the more gradual transition between bands, the relative familiarity of the structure, and the potential for it to be easier to explain to the public.

At the Edinburgh event, participants valued this option as a fairer, middle-ground reform that would reduce bills for some lower-value properties and offer more consistency.

All other groups discounted this reform option on the basis that it would not sufficiently redistribute the tax burden by ensuring households in higher-value homes contribute more.

A revalued progressive 12-band system

The progressive 12-band system was broadly viewed by participants as a step in the right direction but not ambitious enough. Only one group, at the Inverness event, selected it as their preferred option. One group in Edinburgh selected this as one of two preferred options.

Participants reported that the main advantage of this option was that higher-value properties would contribute a more proportionate share, while lower-value homes could see their bills fall. Common concerns raised by participants across all events included that the system might still not fully reflect ability to pay, that it might not address the regressive nature of the current system sufficiently, and that some groups (such as older people and asset-rich, income-poor households) could still struggle. There were also concerns amongst some participants that this option could disrupt the housing market by encouraging or forcing people to downsize.

A revalued progressive 14-band system

The progressive 14-band system was the most widely supported reform option by participants across the five events. Three or more groups at the Online, Aberdeen and Glasgow events selected it as their preferred option. At the Edinburgh and Inverness events, two groups selected it. Participants offered a number of views in support of their position, including that:

• This would offer greater progressivity, with higher-value properties contributing a larger share of council tax.
• More bands would create smoother, more gradual transitions between thresholds, reducing large jumps in bills.
• Bills under this option would be more closely aligned with actual property values.
• Lower-value homes could pay less, which would benefit lower-income households.

Participants across all events also raised concerns, including views that:

• Higher property value does not always equate to higher income, and those that could be described as asset-rich but income-poor could face higher bills than they can afford as a result of having a higher value property.
• The system could be complex to implement and explain to the public.
• This system could potentially discourage property improvements if higher values lead to higher bands.
• There could be impacts on housing supply and the housing market, for example, by encouraging downsizing or discouraging multiple property ownership.

The impact of council tax reform on specific personas was discussed extensively. Participants across all events agreed that a progressive 14-band system was most likely to benefit lower-income households in lower-value properties and most likely to present challenges for asset-rich, income-poor households and renters in higher-value properties. Participants noted that landlords might pass increased costs on to tenants.

Other reform options identified

Participants at some events suggested additional reform options beyond those presented. Common suggestions included removing council tax bands entirely in favour of a proportional property tax calculated as a percentage of property value, an income-related system based on ability to pay, and a land value tax.

Transitional measures

The groups considered what transitional measures would be helpful. All groups supported a package of transitional measures to accompany any reform of the current council tax system. Participants recognised that households face varied circumstances and might require different forms of transitional support.

Transitional Relief Scheme

Participants across all events were broadly supportive of a transitional relief scheme to phase in council tax increases, viewing it as a fair way to give households time to plan, adjust payments, and access support. The scheme was seen as particularly valuable for low- and middle-income households who move into a higher band but may not be eligible for the Council Tax Reduction (CTR) scheme.

Views on the level of the annual cap were mixed across all events. A lower cap (around 10%) was favoured by some for offering greater protection to more households, while others preferred a higher cap (around 25%) as a way to reduce implementation costs and move households to their full charge more quickly. Alternative caps (such as 15%) were suggested at both the Online and Inverness events as a potential middle ground.

Common questions and concerns raised across all events included: how transitional relief would be funded; whether the scheme should be means-tested; whether it would be applied automatically or require a household to apply; and how it would interact with annual council tax increases set by local authorities.

Deferral Scheme

There was limited support for a deferral scheme across all five events. The primary concern raised by participants was that deferring payments could allow households to accumulate unmanageable debt, with particular risks for vulnerable people. Participants were also concerned about deferred debt passing to family members on the death of the owner-occupier, and about the scheme potentially entrenching or worsening financial hardship over time.

Some participants did express the view that that a well-designed deferral scheme could be helpful in specific circumstances – particularly for asset-rich, income-poor households, older people, and disabled people. There was broad consensus across events that any deferral scheme should be opt-in, subject to strict eligibility criteria, and not available to all owner-occupiers.

Across all events, participants were unclear on how a deferral scheme would operate in practice, including: the applicable interest rate; the length of deferral; how deferred amounts would be treated on the death of the owner-occupier; and how the scheme would interact with regular revaluations and care home fees. Participants called for greater clarity on all of these issues.

Council Tax Reduction (CTR) scheme

All groups across all five events were broadly supportive of reforming and expanding the existing CTR scheme. The scheme was valued for being an existing, familiar mechanism that is already means-tested and understood by councils and households. Expansion of eligibility was seen as an important way to protect additional low- and middle-income households following any reform.

At a number of events, including Glasgow and the Online event, participants favoured an expanded CTR scheme in combination with other transitional measures, with CTR providing a longer-term safety net and transitional relief offering short-term protection.

A common concern raised at multiple events was the risk of low uptake if CTR support is not automatically applied – for example, if pensioners who do not claim pension credit also miss out on CTR support.

Participants at both the Online and Glasgow events also raised the question of whether allowances for eco-friendly investment or disability adaptations (which may raise property value) should be considered to avoid people being disproportionately affected by council tax reform as a result of home improvements.

National versus local banding

Groups were asked to discuss their preference for national versus local banding and were informed that consensus was not required. Many participants across all events found this exercise challenging, noting that it involved a large amount of technical information to process quickly.

National banding

Across all five events, the main perceived advantages of a national banding approach were consistency, simplicity, and lower administrative cost. Participants frequently highlighted that a national system would treat similar-value homes the same regardless of location, be easier to understand and administer, and be less expensive and complex to deliver than 32 separate local systems.

The main concern raised across all events was that a national system cannot fully account for local market differences – particularly in rural and island areas where property values, housing supply, and the range of local services differ significantly from urban areas. Participants at some events (including Online, Glasgow, and Inverness) noted that places with fewer or different services should not pay the same as larger cities. One group at the Online event raised concerns that national banding could risk increased revenue being concentrated in more affluent regions.

Local banding

The main perceived advantage of local banding, raised by participants across all five events, was that it would better reflect local housing markets. This was considered particularly important for high-growth areas such as Edinburgh and the Lothians (where property values have risen sharply) and for rural and island communities (where values and circumstances differ significantly from national averages).

However, all groups at all five events highlighted significant drawbacks of local banding, including greater administrative complexity and cost; the risk that similar-value properties near a local authority boundary could pay different amounts of council tax; the potential for inconsistency or confusion; increased risk of appeals; and the possibility that local banding could be more susceptible to political influence. Participants at several events also raised concerns about the difficulty of aligning revaluation timescales across 32 councils.

Overall, while views were mixed across and within events, the balance of opinion was toward national banding as the simpler, more consistent, and less costly option, with a recognition that local protections and impact assessments could be needed – particularly for remote, rural, and island communities.

Communicating change

Groups at all four in-person events discussed how council tax reform should be communicated to the public.

Timing and lead-in

All groups across the four in-person events emphasised the importance of early, well-timed communication. Participants suggested at least one full financial year’s notice before any changes take effect, with some suggesting 18 months or more. The clear message across all events was that households should not first hear about reform through a revised banding letter. Groups expressed a view that communication should begin as soon as reform decisions are confirmed, even if some details are still being developed, and should be sustained and repeated throughout the transition period.

Explaining the rationale

All groups stressed the importance of transparent communication about the rationale for reform including why changes are being introduced, how decisions have been made, and what consultation informed decisions. Participants across all in-person events said this was important for building public trust. Participants felt it would be important to communicate clearly that reform is about equity and modernisation, and, where accurate, to reassure households that most will not pay more.

Communication channels and reach

All groups across the in-person events called for a multi-channel approach that combines traditional media (TV, radio, newspapers) with digital channels (social media, online advertising, short videos) and direct communication (personalised letters with council tax bills, repeated mailings). Outdoor advertising (for example billboards), community-based outreach through third sector organisations (such as Citizens Advice Bureau) and community councils, and in-person engagement events and drop-in sessions were also highlighted as important, particularly for reaching people who may not engage through mainstream channels.

Interactive digital tools, including postcode lookups and council tax calculators, were suggested as useful ways to help households understand what reform means for their personal circumstances. Participants also suggeted a dedicated website for council tax reform and and clear information on council websites as important ways of communicating council tax reform.

Personalised information

There was agreement across all in-person events events that communication should be personalised. Participants suggested letters showing each household’s current band, previous valuation, and new band, as well as clear information on any support available and how to access it. Practical tools such as FAQs, case studies, and persona-based examples were suggested by participants as ways to make the reforms feel relevant and accessible.

Clarity, simplicity, and tone

All groups at all in-person events suggested that information should be presented in plain English, using concise content, visual formats, and infographics. Jargon and dense text were considered by participants to be barriers to understanding information about council tax reform. A positive tone emphasising equity and the benefits of reform was also considered by participants to be important for building public confidence. Participants highlighted the need for information to accommodate different literacy levels and to avoid creating anxiety, particularly among vulnerable households.

Inclusivity and accessibility

All groups at all in-person events emphasised the importance of accessible communication, and highlighted the need for materials to be made available in multiple languages, alternative formats (Braille, audio, British Sign Language), and easy-read versions. Participants across all events also highlighted a need for dedicated support for people who are vulnerable, hard to reach, or digitally excluded was highlighted as essential across all in-person events, and stressed that non-digital options must complement digital channels. Participants also felt that in-person support mechanisms, including helplines, local authority drop-ins, and training for frontline staff, were important for ensuring all households can access the information and support they need.

Cross Cutting Themes

In addition to the main discussion topics, a number of cross-cutting themes emerged across the five events.

Progressivity and equity

All groups across all five events expressed a wish for a more equitable and progressive council tax system. There was general agreement that the current council tax system is regressive and that any reformed system should ensure that higher-value properties contribute a greater share.

Ability to pay and the asset-rich, income-poor problem

Participants at all events raised concerns about ability to pay. All groups across all five events raised a concern about the disconnect between property values and household income, and expressed the view that a council tax system based on property values does not directly reflect ability to pay. This concern was particularly prominent when participants discussed the persona relating to a retired homeowner on a state pension in a higher-value property. Participants across all events also raised concerns about ability to pay in relation to older people, disabled people, and long-term homeowners.

Housing market impacts

The potential impact of reform on the housing market was raised by groups at every event. The key concerns raised by groups included: the risk that asset-rich, income-poor households might be encouraged or forced to downsize; that landlords might pass increased costs on to tenants; that multiple property ownership might be discouraged; and that higher council tax in certain bands might affect housing supply.