Warm Home Discount 2025-26

Robbie64

^

Council Tax Benefit was deliberately left out of Universal Credit at the request of Grant Shapps, then Housing and Local Government minister, when Iain Duncan-Smith was devising the Universal Credit Scheme in 2011-12. The reason was that the Council Tax Benefit scheme was considered to be too problematic and expensive to include in UC (and was also easy to cut). Instead, Council Tax Benefit (which was funded by central Government) was abolished and replaced by the system of council tax reduction / support that we have now, where councils can set their own rules for people of working age.

Newcad

Whilst acknowledging that point - CT relief/reduction has never paid anything to anyone.

Whilst it is of benefit it has never been a "benefit". (Except in press misreporting).

HillStreetBlues

@Robbie64 is correct in calling them a benefit  as the regs at the time refered to them as such (The Council Tax Benefit Regulations 2006)

Newcad

Fair enough, but that's another debate.

What things are called, or what they actually are in practice.

tinalouise69

Newcad said:

Council Tax Reduction is not an "Income Related benefit".

Whilst it is Income Related it is not classed as a "Benefit".
That's because:

1. It does not pay anything to anybody. (It's a reduction of what you have to pay to your council).
2. It is not administered by Central Government. (The DWP or HMRC).

Think about it another way - If CTR was an Income Related benefit then it would be being migrated into UC like all of the old IR benefits are.

Thank you for the reply. I never realised that. Now it makes sense. Thanks again. 

Muttleythefrog

Newcad said:

Fair enough, but that's another debate.

What things are called, or what they actually are in practice.

lol... yes terminology always a problem... benefits versus something else.... we know for example Council tax discount (e.g. single person) is not considered a public fund  for immigration purposes... yet council tax support/reduction is even though as pointed out there is no payment but rather a reduction in bill... similarly Carer's Credit is considered a public fund yet New Style ESA/JSA is not.

Pleased the government have gone back to sense on Warm Home Discount in terms of complexity although admittedly it'll often go to those who don't have high heating costs including us to be honest. Having said all that; given how much bills have risen in recent times the WHD has lost virility. 

HillStreetBlues

Newcad said:

Fair enough, but that's another debate.

What things are called, or what they actually are in practice.

It's how you look at it.
With the old CTB a person would claim it and the Government would pay it, the council were the in the middle, your claim was though them and they reclaimed it from the Gov.
So from the Governemnt's POV it's a benefit as they have to cough up even though it was indirectly.

JKenH

Going back to WHD. If I have understood this correctly, the WHD is given by the energy supplier but not all energy suppliers are required to participate in the scheme - those with less than 150,000 customers are exempt. I also believe that the WHD is funded by the suppliers so those with a large number of customers eligible for WHD will face a bigger bill than those whose customer base has a lower WHD eligibility rate. The cost of funding this discount/rebate is I believe then passed on to other customers of that supplier, i.e. it is not centrally funded as a levy by HMG on all customers. Customers of those suppliers who are too small to participate in the scheme appear therefore to avoid this extra charge on the bills but customers of those suppliers with high WHD take up will face a disproportionately high levy from their suppliers. I would assume, perhaps incorrectly, that many customers who are eligible for WHD are not particularly energy savvy and as a consequence are on SVTs with SVT biased suppliers rather than the smart tariffs with the likes of Octopus, that many of us on these forums are aware of. Hence this policy may me quite discriminatory/regressive.

i apologise if all this has been discussed before and of course I apologise if I have completely misunderstood the situation. 

HillStreetBlues

JKenH said:

Going back to WHD. If I have understood this correctly, the WHD is given by the energy supplier but not all energy suppliers are required to participate in the scheme - those with less than 150,000 customers are exempt. I also believe that the WHD is funded by the suppliers so those with a large number of customers eligible for WHD will face a bigger bill than those whose customer base has a lower WHD eligibility rate. The cost of funding this discount/rebate is I believe then passed on to other customers of that supplier, i.e. it is not centrally funded as a levy by HMG on all customers. Customers of those suppliers who are too small to participate in the scheme appear therefore to avoid this extra charge on the bills but customers of those suppliers with high WHD take up will face a disproportionately high levy from their suppliers. I would assume, perhaps incorrectly, that many customers who are eligible for WHD are not particularly energy savvy and as a consequence are on SVTs with SVT biased suppliers rather than the smart tariffs with the likes of Octopus, that many of us on these forums are aware of. Hence this policy may me quite discriminatory/regressive.

i apologise if all this has been discussed before and of course I apologise if I have completely misunderstood the situation. 

Your figures are incorrect, it was 50,000 in 22/23  since 23/24 it's 1000 domestic customers https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-and-social-schemes/warm-home-discount-whd/warm-home-discount-whd-suppliers
The amount of suppliers under 1000 will be negligible.

kaMelo

As above, the criteria for the number of customers was significantly reduced but your other point is correct, the WHD is paid to eligible customers from a levy added to all customers bills.