FOI Request - Review of 101003740246 Council Tax Relief Funding 2025–26
Request 101003797786
Review of 101003740246 Council Tax Relief Funding 2025–26
Dear Information Governance Manager:
RE: Stage 2 Internal Review Request – FOI Ref: 101003740246 – Council Tax Relief Funding 2025–26
I write to formally request an internal review of Moray Council’s FOI response dated 24 March 2025 regarding Council Tax relief funding for the 2025–26 financial year. I am well versed in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, which I'm sure has been demonstrated by my previous correspondence, but it's heartening to note your concerns.
Upon careful scrutiny of the Council’s response, I raise the following points:
1. Substantive Grounds for Review
a. Denial of Council Tax Relief Funding:
The response asserts that “the council received no funding for council tax relief,” while simultaneously acknowledging that additional Un- ringfenced funding was received for “local priorities” However, public statements by the Scottish Finance Secretary, dated 4 December 2024 and 12 December 2024, confirm that additional funding was allocated via the local government finance settlement specifically to mitigate council tax increases. Your response fails to reconcile this contradiction, constituting a material omission and misrepresentation of funding sources.
Her speech on 4 December 2024 made clear:
“And, while it will be for councils to make their own decisions, with record funding, there is no reason for big increases in council tax next year.”
https://scottishgov-newsroom.prgloo.com/speeches-and-briefings/scottish-budget-2025-26-finance-secretarys-statement-4-december-2024
And again, in the Scottish Government press release on 12 December 2024:
“Local authorities are to receive more than £1.5 billion in extra funding next year, enabling councils to freeze council tax or limit rises.”
https://www.gov.scot/news/15-billion-for-councils/
b. Failure to Disclose Financial Allocation or Impact Assessment:
You state that the funding has not been allocated for any specific purpose. Under FOISA 2002 and Section 13 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 (Best Value), there is a duty to ensure that any Un-ringfenced funding is lawfully and transparently used. This includes demonstrating that a proposed council tax increase is justifiable only after relief or offsetting support has been properly exhausted.
c. Procedural Breach of FOISA Section 15 (Duty to Advise and Assist):
You have failed to provide any internal assessment, meeting minutes, or budget papers explaining how the Council reached its decision that no council tax relief funding was applicable or how budget balancing considered this additional funding. This failure impairs transparency and is contrary to FOISA Section 15.
2. Request for Deadlock Confirmation
I also request that this internal review serve as a “deadlock confirmation”. Should the Council uphold its position that it received no Council Tax relief funding, I request written confirmation of this conclusion in your review decision. This will enable me to escalate the matter to the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC) and, if necessary, pursue formal remedies through the Local Taxation Chamber and Audit Scotland.
3. Requested Actions in Review
I request that the internal review:
1. Re-examine whether additional local government block grant funding (earmarked to mitigate council tax increases) was received, even if not labelled explicitly as “Council Tax relief”
2. Provide documentation on how this funding was treated within the Council’s budget-setting process.
3. Disclose any correspondence between the Council and the Scottish Government referring to discretionary use of this funding.
4. Confirm or correct the Council’s legal position regarding Council Tax relief funding for 2025–26 and provide the statutory basis for the Council’s assertions.
I acknowledge that following earlier correspondence and my formal representations, the Council has now provided the FOI response in PDF format. While this change of position is welcomed, it does not remedy the substantive concern