Dudley's poor being 'dumped' on Sandwell taxpayers, say council tsars

Now they have launched a rebuke on neighbouring Dudley Council after being left counting the cost of a High Court ruling that judged their scheme to clamp down on 'benefits tourism' was illegal.

It has already had to provide support to people from more expensive areas such as Croydon, who have been forced to move because they were unable to afford London prices following the introduction of a £26,000 a year cap on benefits.

The Government also cut council tax benefit and left it up to councils to decide whether to pass on the cut to poorer households, meaning they had to pay more, or to absorb the costs within their budgets. Sandwell Council had decided to continue funding council tax reductions, despite cuts in Government funding, but said it would only do so for people who were already living in the borough for two years.

But its decision to withhold help from new arrivals fell foul of Mr Justice Hickinbottom, who said the authority failed to comply with Government policy and ensure council tax support schemes provided for the most vulnerable.

The verdict left Sandwell with a £40,000 legal bill and forced it to go back to the drawing board on its scheme to help people with their council tax bills.

As part of the judgement it emerged that Dudley Council paid tax to Sandwell on behalf of vulnerable women it was temporarily housing in a Midland Heart hostel in Blackheath, as they were not able to get a reduction due to the rule.

Between April 2013 and July 2014, Dudley Council paid £2,604.77 in respect of 10 women it was housing within the Sandwell borough.

Now Sandwell finance boss and deputy leader Councillor Steve Eling has hit out at Dudley over the case. "We have found cases of vulnerable people being dumped by London boroughs in our area without any kind of support but, we do not expect it to be done by our neighbours," he said.

"The court case was about three of these women who were placed in Sandwell by Dudley Council, and we forced Dudley to pick up the bills. We asked Dudley Council to tell the court that we had required them to carry out their duties in relation to these women, including meeting costs. But they refused to tell the court what happened."

A review into the case has now been launched by Dudley Council.

Leader Councillor David Sparks said: "This was a legal matter and had no member involvement. However, in view of the importance of the judgement I have asked for a review of the procedure."