Council tax bills to rise in two parts of Worcester after admin cock-up

Worcester City Council: says sorry for council tax error

Worcester City Council: says sorry for council tax error

First published in News Worcester News: Tom Edwards by , Political Reporter

PEOPLE living in two parts of Worcester are going to be paying more council tax than expected after an administrative cock-up.

The error means bills for householders in St Peter's and Warndon Villages will be slightly higher than first thought from April.

The average band D bill for homes in Warndon will be £1.01 more than first stated for the whole of 2014/15, while in St Peter's it will be 66p over the entire year.

The city council has apologised, saying due to legal reasons it is now too late to change the bills back.

Lesley Meagher, director of resources, said: “On behalf of Worcester City Council, I would like to apologise to the parishes and their residents for this error.

"The parish councils could compensate their residents in 2015/16 if they choose to raise a lower amount through council tax when they come to consider their budgets."

It means the actual knock-on affect is that St Peter’s Parish Council announced a two per cent increase in their element of a Band D Council Tax bill, but that has actually risen by six per cent.

Warndon Parish Council agreed a per cent rise, but the rise in practice is actually 11 per cent.

For the current 2013/14 financial year the Government replaced council tax benefit with council tax support, which meant that town halls received a 10 per cent fall in income from actual bills.

The Government provided a grant scheme to compensate for the loss of money, and it is the role of the local authority that sends out the bills – in this case the city council – to pass on the right proportion of that grant to parish councils.

When the 2013/14 budgets were being prepared the city council did not make a distinction to the two parishes about which parts of its income were the precept – the amount the parishes receive from council tax bills – and which parts were the grant.

Councillor Roger Knight, who represents St Peter's, said: "I would expect to see a reduction made next year to accurately reflect what's happened."

The mistake means St Peter’s Parish Council will receive £3,227 more than expected this year and Warndon Parish Council will receive an extra £1,168.

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:03pm Fri 28 Mar 14

skychip says...

I wonder who proof reads these articles - it is knock on effect not affect.
I wonder who proof reads these articles - it is knock on effect not affect. skychip
  • Score: 9

5:36pm Fri 28 Mar 14

CJH says...

skychip wrote:
I wonder who proof reads these articles - it is knock on effect not affect.
No-one proof reads them. No-one has a spell-checker. No-one has a basic grasp of grammar.
.
Am I alone in thinking they could use 'error' or 'mistake' in the headline instead of '****-up'? Sigh...
[quote][p][bold]skychip[/bold] wrote: I wonder who proof reads these articles - it is knock on effect not affect.[/p][/quote]No-one proof reads them. No-one has a spell-checker. No-one has a basic grasp of grammar. . Am I alone in thinking they could use 'error' or 'mistake' in the headline instead of '****-up'? Sigh... CJH
  • Score: 20

5:40pm Fri 28 Mar 14

CJH says...

CJH wrote:
skychip wrote:
I wonder who proof reads these articles - it is knock on effect not affect.
No-one proof reads them. No-one has a spell-checker. No-one has a basic grasp of grammar.
.
Am I alone in thinking they could use 'error' or 'mistake' in the headline instead of '****-up'? Sigh...
Hey! How come they can use the word c.ock in the headline, but it's been asterisked in my comment? Un-bloody--believabl
e.
[quote][p][bold]CJH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]skychip[/bold] wrote: I wonder who proof reads these articles - it is knock on effect not affect.[/p][/quote]No-one proof reads them. No-one has a spell-checker. No-one has a basic grasp of grammar. . Am I alone in thinking they could use 'error' or 'mistake' in the headline instead of '****-up'? Sigh...[/p][/quote]Hey! How come they can use the word c.ock in the headline, but it's been asterisked in my comment? Un-bloody--believabl e. CJH
  • Score: 16

11:59pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Guy66 says...

CJH wrote:
CJH wrote:
skychip wrote:
I wonder who proof reads these articles - it is knock on effect not affect.
No-one proof reads them. No-one has a spell-checker. No-one has a basic grasp of grammar.
.
Am I alone in thinking they could use 'error' or 'mistake' in the headline instead of '****-up'? Sigh...
Hey! How come they can use the word c.ock in the headline, but it's been asterisked in my comment? Un-bloody--believabl

e.
Comments are auto moderated and articles are approved by the editor. Fairly simple really!
[quote][p][bold]CJH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CJH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]skychip[/bold] wrote: I wonder who proof reads these articles - it is knock on effect not affect.[/p][/quote]No-one proof reads them. No-one has a spell-checker. No-one has a basic grasp of grammar. . Am I alone in thinking they could use 'error' or 'mistake' in the headline instead of '****-up'? Sigh...[/p][/quote]Hey! How come they can use the word c.ock in the headline, but it's been asterisked in my comment? Un-bloody--believabl e.[/p][/quote]Comments are auto moderated and articles are approved by the editor. Fairly simple really! Guy66
  • Score: -4

12:01am Sat 29 Mar 14

Guy66 says...

Yet another 'large man gentile' & balls up by the Labour lot!
Yet another 'large man gentile' & balls up by the Labour lot! Guy66
  • Score: 1

12:18am Sat 29 Mar 14

CJH says...

Guy66 wrote:
CJH wrote:
CJH wrote:
skychip wrote:
I wonder who proof reads these articles - it is knock on effect not affect.
No-one proof reads them. No-one has a spell-checker. No-one has a basic grasp of grammar.
.
Am I alone in thinking they could use 'error' or 'mistake' in the headline instead of '****-up'? Sigh...
Hey! How come they can use the word c.ock in the headline, but it's been asterisked in my comment? Un-bloody--believabl


e.
Comments are auto moderated and articles are approved by the editor. Fairly simple really!
I know it's automatic. I want to know why the double standard. And you really think that all the articles here are 'approved' by the editor? I doubt it very much. Does the editor approve all the spelling mistakes and bad grammar?
[quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CJH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CJH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]skychip[/bold] wrote: I wonder who proof reads these articles - it is knock on effect not affect.[/p][/quote]No-one proof reads them. No-one has a spell-checker. No-one has a basic grasp of grammar. . Am I alone in thinking they could use 'error' or 'mistake' in the headline instead of '****-up'? Sigh...[/p][/quote]Hey! How come they can use the word c.ock in the headline, but it's been asterisked in my comment? Un-bloody--believabl e.[/p][/quote]Comments are auto moderated and articles are approved by the editor. Fairly simple really![/p][/quote]I know it's automatic. I want to know why the double standard. And you really think that all the articles here are 'approved' by the editor? I doubt it very much. Does the editor approve all the spelling mistakes and bad grammar? CJH
  • Score: 8

12:33am Sat 29 Mar 14

themooman says...

I for one don't live in either of these areas my suggestion would be raise the council tax higher so I don't pay any at all ..... Discuss
I for one don't live in either of these areas my suggestion would be raise the council tax higher so I don't pay any at all ..... Discuss themooman
  • Score: -5

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree