This compares a council's collection performance with similar councils (city councils with other city councils, rural districts with rural districts, and so on). It answers: is this council collecting better or worse than its peers? Above zero means it beats councils like it; below zero means it lags behind them.
| name | collection_rate_gap_class |
|---|---|
| dataset | 03-council-tax-collection |
| kind | constructed |
| type | numeric |
| unit | percentage points |
| grain | billing authority |
| role | outcome |
| source | formula: ct_collection_rate − mean of ct_collection_rate over authorities with the same Class (Table_9a cols 3, 9) |
| period | 2024-25 financial year |
| missingness | unknown |
| score_note | Peer-adjusted rate is the best like-for-like efficiency score here, though Class is a coarse comparator. |
| peer_group | council class (district / county / unitary / metropolitan / London) — not yet scored on the leaderboard |
The council's in-year collection rate minus the mean rate of its structural peer group (Class: districts vs mets vs London boroughs etc.). This is the main like-for-like efficiency score, controlling for the structural differences between authority types. Class is used because CIPFA nearest-neighbour lists are not present in datasets 01-12; it is a coarser peer group than deprivation-matched comparators.