Massive rise in unpaid taxes written off

Massive rise in unpaid taxes written off Massive rise in unpaid taxes written off

THE amount of unpaid council taxes and business rates written off in Worcester has almost tripled, according to shock new figures.

New data reveals how £110,000 of unpaid taxes were written off between October and December last year, compared to £43,000 in the previous three-month period.

The findings coincided with an economic nosedive, with GDP (gross domestic product) -0.3 per cent in the 12-week run up to Christmas.

Of the new write-offs, £105,000 of it was because of seven businesses not being able to pay, while £5,000 was from a householder. Although the exact reasons for each write-off is never made public, most business write-offs are down to the firms going bust.

The write-off means all the relevant bodies which benefit from taxes and business rates take a hit on their balance sheets – including the city council, fire and police services, and County Hall.

Councillor Andy Roberts, the cabinet member for finance, said: “If we didn’t write off bad debts in this way they would stay on the balance sheet and we’d end up looking extremely well off, which is not the case.”

A report on the move, which was accepted by the Conservative cabinet, said written records on each write-off are kept on a database and can be reinstated if any new details come to light allowing the debts to be chased.

Reasons for people not paying council tax can vary, but it can include residents moving away, householders dying, and those who refuse to pay, who are liable to be prosecuted. The latest findings follow the previous two financial years, when more than £1 million was written off in Worcester.

In 2011/12 the figure was £297,000, while in 2010/11 it was £760,000, when bosses decided to lump a series of historic unpaid taxes together.

About 98 per cent of taxes owed to the council were collected last year, a small improvement on 2010/11.

The figure compares well to other town halls, with the national average one per cent lower.

Overall, in Worcester, £48 million was handed over in council taxes and £37 million in business rates last year.

Comments(6)

reflector says...
9:00am Thu 14 Mar 13

I just hope that cuts in staffing have not lead to this increase. Reducing the numbers of staff whose job it is to recover monies owed to the authority would be very short sighted in the extreme.

Apart from the money lost which the Council can ill afford, it sends out the wrong messages to those who think that they might get away with it if the pursuit of those who have not paid in full is not relentless.

lizzyloolah says...
9:45am Thu 14 Mar 13

There is most likely no money to collect. Bailiffs are sent before the decision to write off is made. Given the current climate, I am impressed that only 2% was left outstanding.

Landy44 says...
1:37pm Thu 14 Mar 13

Has anyone ever considered that if the tax system were less complicated, and taxes were lower (which would be a result of a smaller public sector) then less people would need to be employed to police and collect taxes, and taxpayers would before likely to pay.

The current situation just tells me that the level of taxation is unacceptably high.

Ufortunately we have that huge debt to pay off as a country. I'll make a bet that it isn't paid off in my lifetime.

reflector says...
1:51pm Thu 14 Mar 13

I wholeheartedly agree about some taxes being far too complicated but surely Council Tax is pretty straightforward. They just value your property and it falls on the occupier to pay the relevant tax. Simple as that.

I'd just like to know how so many people are somehow managing to avoid paying it, particularly the one who owed £5,000 which must mean non payment for 4 years or so.

Don't forget, the Council doesn't lose the money - the rest of us just pick up the tab.

lizzyloolah says...
6:52pm Thu 14 Mar 13

The council rarely let anyone get away without paying their council tax/business rates for more than a years worth without sending in the bailiffs. Could the one be the owner of more than one property? A landlord maybe? File for bankruptcy, wipe your hands and walk away.

Samboy says...
10:38pm Thu 14 Mar 13

Not often I complain about the standard of reporting in the WN but that headline is sheer rabble rousing. The article makes clear that only 8 defaulters were involved, not hordes of tenants. Please avoid deliberate distortions in future.

click2find

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