INSIGHT
INSIDE: Valuation matters • Legal view • Professor Cleverley • Credit notes • Case law update • Viewpoint
September 2014 £6.50 www.irrv.net
ISSN
136
1-13
05
The calmbefore the
stormInsight previews the forthcoming
Scottish Conference, through the eyes of Jim McCafferty and David McLaughlin
The monthly journal of the Institute of Revenues, Rating & Valuation
IRRV national Council
election Your vote counts!
Go towww.irrv.net
IRRV INSIGHT
Managing Editor
John Roberts
Editorial Director
Lester Dinnie
Art Director
Don Tregartha
Designers
Clare Barker
Roddy Clenaghan
Copy Editor
Vicki Chastney
Publisher
Tregartha Dinnie
Ltd
IRRV
Chief Executive David Magor OBE IRRV (Hons) Northumberland House 5th Floor 303-306 High Holborn London WC1V 7JZ T 020 7831 3505 E [email protected] W www.irrv.net
Enquiries Membership 020 7691 8996 Conferences 020 7691 8987 Subscriptions 020 7691 8996
©IRRV 2014. Reproduction in whole or in part of any article is prohibited without prior written consent. The views expressed in this magazine do not necessarily represent the views of the Institute. Whilst all due care is taken regarding the accuracy of information, no responsibility can be accepted for errors. Any advice given does not constitute a legal opinion.
Features
Robert Brown BSc FRICS FIRRV
Carol Cutler IRRV (Hons)
Louise Freeth FIRRV
Gordon Heath BSc IRRV (Hons)
Roger Messenger BSc (Est Man) FRICS FIRRV MCIArb REV
Angela Storey Tech IRRV MCMI
Your IRRV Council:
IRRV PRESIDENT Richard Harbord MPhil CPFA FCCA IRRV (Hons) FIDP FBIM FRSA
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT Kevin Stewart FIRRV MAAT MCMI
Alan Bronte FRICS IRRV (Hons)
David Chapman IRRV (Hons)
Phil Adlard Tech IRRV MlnstLM MCMI
John Clark FIRRV
Tom Dixon RD BSc (Est Man) FRICS IRRV (Hons)
Ian Ferguson IRRV (Hons)
Richard Guy FRICS (Dip Rating) FIRRV MCIArb
Mary Hardman IRRV (Hons) FRICS MCMI
Paul McDermott IRRV (Hons)
Kerry Macdermott IRRV (Hons)
JUNIOR VICE PRESIDENTJim McCafferty IRRV (Hons)
Maureen Neave Tech IRRV
Nick Rowe IRRV (Hons)
Alistair Townsend IRRV (Hons) MCMI
Bob Trahern IRRV (Hons)
HONORARY TREASURER Allan Traynor FCCA IRRV (Hons)
2
INSI
GH
T w
ww
.irrv
.net
Advertising T 020 7691 8979 E [email protected]
Editorial John Roberts IRRV (Hons) T 07952 659 258 E [email protected]
Tregartha Dinnie Ltd Ibex House 5 Keller Close Kiln Farm Milton Keynes MK11 3LL T 01908 306500 W www.tregartha-dinnie.co.uk
IRRV INSIGHT is produced by Tregartha Dinnie Ltd on behalf of the IRRV.
Unless otherwise indicated, copyright in this publication belongs to the IRRV.
September 2014 ISSN 1361-1305
A message from the Deputy Chief Executive.
Log in to ‘magazines’ in themember area of www.irrv.net to hear the message online.
Cover story 18
The calm before the stormChange will take place one way or another
Insight previews the forthcoming Scottish Conference,
through the eyes of Jim McCafferty, and
The social contract and pinching the pennies
David McLaughlin has a challenge for councils and
contractors on how we best collect and enforce.
Editor’s welcome
3
Regular items
INSI
GH
T SE
PTEM
BER
201
4
John Roberts IRRV (Hons) is Managing Editor of the Institute’s magazines
“Welcome to the September edition of Insight.”
What’s in the next issue... • Lester Dinnie tracks down incoming President Kevin
Stewart, and it makes for an interesting read
• Simon Bailey and Capita share a technology ‘double header’
• the world of benefits according to Phil Adlard and Geoff Fimister.
Chief Executive’s notes 05
News and events 06
Education and membership 09
Running the Institute 10
From the archives 11
Faculty Board report 12
Benefits bulletin 13
Valuation matters 14
Case law update 17
Credit notes 21Geoff Fimister launches a new regular column,tracking the latest welfare reform developments
Collection & enforcement 22
Welfare reform 25
Legal view 26
Professor Cleverley 29The learned Professor returns, and this timehe offers timely advice on council tax bands andmonthly instalments
Technology 30
Doherty’s despatch 32
Viewpoint 34
Our ‘welcome’ often comments on the season we’re about to enter, almost inevitably linking it to yet another change of season in respect of revenues, rating, valuation and benefit issues. This month, though, we are entering another favourite time of the year – conference season! To celebrate, we feature the upcoming Scottish Conference, which is to be held once again in the sumptuous surroundings of Crieff Hydro. Institute Junior Vice President Jim McCafferty previews the event, whilst David McLaughlin from sponsors Scott & Co is on hand to document the very latest views from the enforcement industry. The welfare reform process is prominent this month, as we introduce a new column from a not so new contributor! Geoff Fimister charts the progress of Universal Credit in the first of a regular monthly feature, complementing the Department for Work and Pensions contributions, which have been a regular feature of our magazine for some time. The benefit agenda is also covered by Louise Freeth, as she turns her hand to this issue’s ‘Benefits bulletin’, and local authority Chief Executive Allen Graham’s ‘Viewpoint’ piece tackles the subject matter from a strategic perspective. Amongst another bumper crop of regular authors covering every aspect of the Institute’s broad professional brief, information technology guru Mel Poluck homes in on the growing use of social media, and focuses on the IRRV’s own foray into this vital area of every day life. Add into the mix our up to date ‘news and events’ feature, which chronicles the life and times of the Institute past and present, and once again we are confident that we are fulfilling the requirements of the professions which the Institute stands for – read on and enjoy!
IRRV Level 3 QCF Qualification
T: 020 7691 8974
W: www.irrv.net/courses
The IRRV now offers a work-based qualification. It is the Level 3 Diploma in Local Taxation, Benefits and Advice (QCF). This qualification is up to date with the changes that have taken place this year in the Local Taxation and Benefits areas. Candidates choose of one of four pathways to achieve the qualification, which are:
• Local Taxation
• Benefits
• Generic
• Advice
The Advice pathway will be particularly useful for officers who work in an advice role within a Revenues and Benefits Service or elsewhere. The Level 3 Diploma in Local Taxation, Benefits and Advice (QCF) replaces the Level 3 Diploma in Local Taxation and Benefits (QCF) and centres can start to register candidates immediately.
Completing this NEW qualification will allow the member of staff to obtain IRRV Technician membership and use the designation Tech IRRV.
Special Offer:
3 for 2 on multiple bookings* * This offer is valid on multiple bookings, with a minimum of 3 students from the same organisation.
INSI
GH
T SE
PTEM
BER
201
4
5David Magor OBE IRRV (Hons) is Chief Executive of the Institute
Of course 2013 was just the beginning. As we move forward
the funding of the schemes continues to be challenging.
Further cuts are inevitable, and the parameters of the schemes
will become less generous. It is therefore critical that local
authorities in England, Wales and Scotland exercise their
discretionary powers in accordance with the wider envelopes
of equality and European law. The need for this wider wisdom
is highlighted in the recent decision in The Queen on the
application of (1) Sheila Winder (2) Lisa Marie Dowen (3)
Sarah Hampton (the claimants) and Sandwell Metropolitan
Borough Council (the defendant) and The Equality and Human
Rights Commission (the intervener).
This decision carries a long title for a very significant
decision, which highlights the nature of the wider duties of
local authorities in their decision making, and the impact of
European law. The case centres on the residency condition
placed in the council tax reduction scheme of Sandwell
MBC. Over the last two years, the Institute has delivered
numerous webinars and seminars on the impact of council
tax reduction schemes on local authorities. The speakers and
presenters, including myself, have emphasised the importance
of consultation and legal scrutiny in the decision making
process. We have repeatedly reminded local authorities of the
importance of a rigorous equality impact assessment and the
need for consultation on the results of detailed consequences.
We are now approaching the time when local authorities will
be considering their schemes for the financial year beginning
on 1st April 2015. Changes will be necessary to meet the
demands of the continuing pressure of cuts in the overall
funding, together with the wider decisions of the forthcoming
Autumn Statement. It is now clear from the Sandwell decision
that the approach to any adjustments in schemes must be
accompanied by a proper evaluation of the equality impacts,
together with a wider consideration of the human rights
implications and the consequential consultation. It simply is not
enough to pay lip service to these important matters.
The decision making process in local government is well
established, but care must be taken to ensure this process is
properly subjected to rigorous legal scrutiny.
Chief Executive’s notes
“ We have repeatedly reminded local authorities of the importance of a rigorous equality impact assessment and the need for consultation on the results of detailed consequences.”
It’s a questionof discretion and judgement...and it’s critical for local authorities, advises David Magor.
On 1st April 2013 the council tax reduction schemes replaced the council tax benefit scheme in England, and brought with them significant cuts in entitlement. In Wales and Scotland common sense prevailed and the decision was made to fund the shortfall, thus sparing those in poverty the fear and anguish created by arbitrary reductions in income.
IRRV national Council
election Your vote counts!
Go towww.irrv.net
6
INSI
GH
T w
ww
.irrv
.net
What do you call a gatheringof Past Presidents and Honorary members?Not a competition for you, I’m afraid, but the answer is a fine opportunity to share stories and meet up with old friends who have all made their mark on IRRV history. This year’s event, held in central London in July,
saw some twenty dignitaries do just that, as the
collection of photographs illustrate.
Business rate appeals process changes delayedIn an open letter from the Department for Communities and Local Government, and following 70 responses to the consultation paper ‘Checking and Challenging your Rateable Value’, the government has decided to fold the consideration of reform of the business rates appeals process into the broader review of business rates administration, which is considering longer term reform taking effect after the next revaluation in April 2017.Respondents welcomed the government’s intention to reform the
appeals process, but argued that the government should consider
reform in the broader context of the review of business rates
administration, which the Chancellor announced in the Autumn
Statement 2013.
You can read more on this issue
in David Magor’s ‘CE’s notes’
on page 4, and in the
Faculty Board report
on page 12.
News and events
The President’s blog As Institute President Richard Harbord continues on the endless tour of Presidential duties towards the normality of life after the role, he invites members to share in his activities.You can find out exactly what
Richard has been up to over the
past few weeks by logging in to
http://richardharbord.blogs-pot.co.uk/.
IRRV Council election – make your vote count!Fellow, Honours and Diploma members of the Institute can now vote in the election of members to the IRRV’s national Council.This can be done via the website, or by requesting a postal ballot from
Deputy Chief Executive Gary Watson on [email protected] or
020 7691 8988.
This year, six seats are being contested by eleven candidates, and further
details of the process can be found on page 11 of June 2014’s edition of
Insight. The closing date for votes is 5pm on 26th September 2014.
7
INSI
GH
T SE
PTEM
BER
201
4It’s caption time again...Last month we focused on our ‘Reflections’ star of July’s edition of Insight, Past President Peter Fairhurst, and asked what could Peter be describing as he addresses the Metropolitan and Home Counties weekend school in 1981?
Our winner on this occasion is from Past President Dave Chapman, who has Peter saying, “I was minding my own business in Knotty Ash when I was mugged for my copy of Rating Law and Practice. One of them was so high and the other about this tall.” Lancashire is also represented by Ann Penn, with “The President was always good for leading the session on his favourite topic ‘Jive Hands’”, and “I’ll kick off the karaoke with “Everybody was Kung Fu fighting” ! And the mysterious Sucrologist has made an appearance again, with “Peter saying, ‘It was a sign that he was looking forward to meeting delegates in the bar later for a few drinks’.”
This month, we’re taking a break on the caption front, as we collect another batch of incriminating photographs at the forthcoming IRRV conferences. However, the feature will be back before the end of the year, so keep your thinking caps handy!
News of members
A big welcome...Institute organisational members Ross and Roberts are pleased to announce the appointment of Amanda Reynolds as their new Business Development Manager for the revenues market sector.Amanda is an experienced business
development professional with over
15 years experience in the delivery of
new business and account management for clients within both
the public and private sectors.
...and a fond farewell ...or simply see you again soon?After almost ten years with Ross and Roberts, Ray Hatchard is bowing out from the company to take a well-earned break, although he intends to keep his eye in with occasional consultancy work.Ray started out in 1973 in the rates department
of Bournemouth Borough Council, and joined the
Borough of Poole in 1988, where his ‘claim to
fame’ was being the first local government officer in England and Wales to
obtain a liability order for non-payment of the poll tax! Ray is also a Past
Chairman of the Institute’s Wessex Association.
“A genuinely nice guy who would make time for anyone.” Friends and colleagues from the IRRV were saddened to hear of the passing of Malcolm Campbell earlier this year, following a brave battle with cancer.
Malcolm began his career at Hull City Council, moving
to Holderness Rural District Council, where he stayed
through two local government reorganisations before
becoming a consultant for Rossendales in 1996. He also
became an active member of the Valuation Tribunal before
finally retiring in 2006, when he was awarded an IRRV
Certificate of Service.
Malcolm was always a proud member of the IRRV, joining the
Rating and Valuation Association back in 1966. He served as
the President of the Yorkshire and District Association in
1996/1997, and served on the Association Executive for over
15 years. He was the ‘MC’ at the Yorkshire Association dinner
for many a year, setting
a relaxed tone with his
affectionate belly
laugh – something
fondly remembered
by his friends and
former colleagues!
Outside of work,
Malcolm was a keen
and active member of
his local church, and
a passionate charity worker. He arranged annual trips to Lourdes for
others not as fortunate, something that he continued to do even after
his diagnosis. Our thoughts are with his family, especially his wife Jean
(photographed with Malcolm) and their two children. God Bless you
Malcolm – rest in peace.
John Clark FIRRV
A celebration of life: Malcolm Campbell
8
INSI
GH
T w
ww
.irrv
.net
Islwyn Lewis-Jones bringstales from WalesAfter 15 years as the Wales Conference Secretary and 17 years as Honorary Secretary of the North and Mid Wales Association, I have decided to put away
my quill and return to the ‘back benches’ on the Executive Committee.
I am currently very much in reflective mode, mulling over how the
Association has evolved in the intervening years from a situation where
we were dependent on an annual grant from the Institute to fund our
administration, to the present where we have capital reserves.
The Association’s enduring legacy is two fold – education and training and the Wales Conference.
Education and training, mentored from the outset by Eryl Rowlands
of Conwy, has been at the forefront of our agenda – delivering training
locally at the point of demand. Match-funding, the ‘brain child’ of
David Barnes of Flintshire, utilising accumulated Association funds,
has prompted a significant increase and take up in the number of
events held.
Dafydd Edwards of Gwynedd’s vision of an ‘All Wales Forum’
became a reality on the 12th September 2000 at The Metropole,
Llandrindod Wells – the First Wales Conference. In his Presidential
address, he acknowledged that the “conference had been called for in
the context of the National Assembly’s increasing influence, and the
requirement for local government to co-operate to achieve best value”.
He concluded by stating, “that the conference would succeed and grow
Association news
as an annual event” – his confidence has clearly been vindicated.
Today the Wales Conference is firmly established on the Institute’s
conference circuit, and is widely acknowledged as the pre-eminent
convention in the Wales local government calendar.
Promoted by Ian Marshalsay of Ceredigion, 2012 heralded a
long overdue re-drawing of the Association’s geographical boundary
to recognise and bring into the fold Y Canolbarth – Mid-Wales,
creating a new designation, Cymdeithas Gogledd A Chanolbarth
Cymru, the North and Mid Wales Association.
The Association’s Annual Golf Tournament is without doubt the
most eagerly anticipated event in our calendar. Rivalry on the course
is keen, yet the competition engenders tremendous camaraderie.
The tournament, now in its 17th year, has cemented many
relationships, and it is gratifying to note that such is the spirit that is
promoted, retired members remain on the annual invitation list. The
success of this very convivial competition is without question due to
the organisational skills and inimitable humour of that indomitable
pair Dafydd Edwards and Phil Round.
We are where we are today as a consequence of the vision
and enthusiasm of the Executive Committee, driven forward by
a succession of proactive Presidents, and to them I owe huge
personal debts of gratitude.
I wish Bethan Lewis every success in her new role as the
Association’s first lady Secretary, and entertain no doubt that she will
bring to the post her own enthusiastic style of administration.
Islwyn Lewis-Jones IRRV
T: 020 7691 8972
W: www.irrvlearning.org.uk
For a free 24 hour trial of the programmes please contact:
Taking Control of Goods The IRRV Level 2 Award in Taking Control of Goods is awarded by the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuationt (IRRV) and has been developed in association with the Ministry of Justice and the enforcement industry to meet the certification requirements of all enforcement agents.
Who is the qualification for?The qualification is for enforcement agents and any other individual involved in Taking Control of Goods.
What does the IRRV qualification consist of and cover?The IRRV qualification consists of one Level 2 unit. The unit contains six learning outcomes which are easy to study for and test in a robust way: Role of enforcement agents; Practice of removal and sale of goods; Law relevant to enforcement agents; Relevant aspects of customer care; Practice of taking control of goods and How to manage conflict situations.
9
Education and membership
Congratulations to everyone!!
Kevin Stewart FIRRV MAAT MCMI is Senior Vice
President of the IRRV, and Chair of the Education
and Membership Committee
New members Latest vocational qualification successes
INSI
GH
T SE
PTEM
BER
201
4
NAME QUALIFICATION EMPLOYER
Chris Jones Level 3 QCF Revenues pathway Flintshire County Council
Liz Mallon Level 3 QCF Revenues pathway Flintshire County Council
STUDENT MEMBERSNAME EMPLOYER
Lisa Clarke Boston Borough Council
Gemma Creasey Boston Borough Council
Melanie Gage Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council
Jay Hicks-Keeley Sedgemoor District Council
Lee Houghton Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council
Harbinder Kaur Kang BNP Paribas Real Estate
James Nicholas Massey Valuation Tribunal Service
Greg Ritchie Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council
HONOURS MEMBERS NAME EMPLOYER
Dharsh Chander Liberata UK Ltd
Claire Cracknell Harrogate Borough Council
Lorraine King Breckland District Council
Robert Leppard Plymouth Valuation Office Agency
Jason Marrett Self-employed
ORGANISATIONAL MEMBERS NAME
Task Enforcement Ltd
It’s my turn again as Chair of the Education
and Membership Committee, to write the
column normally penned by Michael Hopkins,
and to vary the articles and provide a different
perspective. This time, even though it is an
article on Institute education and membership
matters, I wanted to add a more personal
perspective. By the time you read this, I will
have added a further volunteering experience
– the Glasgow Commonwealth Games of
2014 – to the others, such as the Tour De
France, and students will have received
the examination results that will have been
released on 20th August 2014. I do hope that
you have done well, but do remember never
to give up – if you work hard enough it is also
possible to succeed!
I distinctly remember failing my professional
examinations in 1985, and being told by the
Borough Treasurer at the time that I would
never ever pass exams. To be fair, he was right!
I was low in confidence, and did not have a very
good exam record at that time. I was lucky – in
the right place at the right time – that a new
Treasurer started at my council in 1986, and
gave me a last chance I did not really deserve.
The rest is history – along with a lot of hard
work, I now have three sets of letters after my
name, having not failed to pass any exam since
then, including getting a subject prize in the law
of housing benefit. I have also enjoyed a varied
career, and in October this year I will (all being
well!) become IRRV President, which for me is
both a huge honour and very humbling.
I wanted to tell you this personal story to
give you the motivation to do well (or even
give you the encouragement to study) at a time
when a number of our students undertake a
new level of exam, or start a course for the first
time. Work hard, and I am sure like me, you will
eventually do well. For the successful students
amongst you from the June 2014 exams, many
congratulations – I hope that you continue as a
member of the Institute (we need you, as you
are the Institute’s future!) – and I hope you get
as much satisfaction as I have had out of your
involvement with the IRRV. For some of those
successful students, such as prize winners and
fully qualified members, I hope to welcome you
in person at the Annual Conference in Telford,
as I hope as Chair of the Committee to be
presenting you with your certificates.
It’s Kevin Stewart’s turn to take the reigns, and this month he adds a personal touch to the education and membership agenda
Also, do please remember that we have
now launched our new Level 2 Enforcement
Qualification. Its formal title is IRRV Level 2
Certificate in Enforcement – Taking Control
of Goods (QCF). This is a new qualification,
that will ensure staff are trained in the new
enforcement rules that came into force on
6th April 2014. You can see further details
at http://www.irrv.net/qualifications/takingcontrolofgoods/.
Moving on to membership matters, I’ll add a
reminder for you to please try and encourage
colleagues or people you know to take up
membership of the IRRV. Further information
on becoming a member is available at http://www.irrv.net/membership/index.asp. I
know fewer and fewer organisations are paying
staff membership fees, but do remember that
you can get tax relief on any subscriptions paid.
Further details are available at http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/relief-subs.htm.
Running the Institute
Commercial Services CommitteeThe meeting was chaired by Ian Ferguson. Key
reports considered by the Committee included:
• Sales and sponsorship
• Conferences (including Performance Awards)
• Professional meetings and training courses
• Forum (and Benefit Advisory) Services
• Communications Working Group
(magazines, website and publications)
• Update on activities in Scotland and
Northern Ireland.
An update on sales and sponsorship was
provided to the Committee. Whilst exhibition
sales for the Welfare Reform and Benefits
Conference at Keele had been disappointing, the
Local Taxation and Revenues Conference held
in the same week attracted increased numbers.
In terms of Annual Conference, exhibition sales
were very strong, with numbers up on this time
last year.
The options next year for the above
conferences held at Keele were considered.
With the General Election scheduled for the
beginning of May, holding conferences in April
would bring problems. Likewise, conferences in
February or March would present difficulties for
practitioners, as this was their busiest time of the
year. The decision taken was to run with the two
conferences in the week commencing 15th June
2015 – the venue again being Keele University.
In terms of Annual Conference this year,
Committee reviewed the proposed structure
for the event, which included the programme.
Further work was needed to ensure the right
balance was struck between all areas of the
profession. It was left to the Chief Executive and
Deputy Chief Executive to take this forward, with
the Valuers’ Association looking at the valuation
stream on the Wednesday.
A real success this year had been the
professional meetings run by the Institute, a
number of which were run more than once to
cater for demand. In particular, the meeting run
in partnership with the Valuation Office Agency
(VOA) on completion notices was proving
popular, with further meetings on this topic
scheduled for the autumn. The Committee
recorded its appreciation to the VOA for their
support for these meetings.
The Committee was updated on the Forum
Service, and it was noted that over 200
organisations were now members. Members
have continued to join during the year (both from
the public and private sector); a trend that it was
hoped would continue.
Education and Membership CommitteeThe meeting was chaired by Kevin Stewart. Key
reports considered by the Committee included:
IRRV HQ was again the venue for the third quarterly cycle of council meetings in 2014. A summary of what was discussed is detailed below:
CouncilThe meeting was chaired by the President,
Richard Harbord. Key reports considered by
the Council included:
• Reports of the Standing Committees
• Fast-track procedure for removal
of membership
• Approval of OFQUAL Statement
of Compliance
• Chief Executive’s report
• President’s report.
At the end of the meeting, the President
presented gif ts to Carol Cutler and Richard Guy (both Past Presidents), who were
standing down from the Council this year.
Reference was then made to Tom Dixon
(again, a Past President) who was not
present at the meeting, but is also standing
down this year.
Policy and Resources Committee The meeting was chaired by Richard Harbord. Key reports considered by
Committee included:
• Management accounts as at 31st May 2014
• Governance and administration
• Media/marketing consultants.
The management accounts as at 31st May
2014 were reviewed. It was reported that
the financial position had stabilised since the
last meeting, and this was likely to be the
case at 30th June 2014. Income generated
from membership continued to be an area of
concern, although the outturns for professional
meetings in England, Wales and Scotland were
showing positive variances in the budget.
On governance and administration, the
President reported on the recommendations
from the Governance Working Group that had
met since the last meeting to consider the
following three issues:
• Size of Council
• Structure of Committees
(and their composition)
• Arrangements for Council meetings.
The recommendations were accepted, and
changes to the constitution would go before
the AGM in October. In the meantime,
elections to Council this year would proceed
as normal, and it was hoped that sufficient
nominations would be received to enable a
vote to take place.
• Membership
• IRRV courses
• Qualifications
• Certificate of Service
• Valuation matters
• Organisational membership packages.
As is the case at all meetings of this Committee,
members reflected on the membership drives
of recent years and why these had not proved
successful. The small working group set up
to review membership reported on various
initiatives to attract (and then retain) members.
Incentives for recruiting members were an option
being considered – this idea was to be worked
up before the next meeting.
The report on IRRV courses covered the
day release course in London, the distance
learning course, and the pre-examination course.
Bookings were now being taken for the day
release course scheduled to start in October
2014 at IRRV HQ. Recruitment for the distance
learning course remained ongoing, whilst it
was reported numbers attending the spring
pre-examination course at Keele this year had
increased from the previous year.
Law and Research CommitteeThe meeting was chaired by Gordon Heath. The
approach adopted at the last meeting to focus
on just a few key reports was continued at this
meeting - the reports being:
• Non-domestic rates: formulating
Institute policy
• Research update (oral)
• Future of council tax
reduction schemes (oral).
Committee was asked to consider the Institute’s
submission to the recent discussion paper on
business rates administration (England), with
a view of identifying which elements should
be included in a separate Institute policy
document on non-domestic rates. In addition,
Committee considered what amendments and
additions should be made to these points when
transposing the points in the response to the
proposed new policy reference document.
National Council is keen the membership is aware of what is discussed at its meetings. Should a member require further information on any of the reports considered by National Council, they should contact me on [email protected] .
Gary Watson chronicles all the action from the Institute’s July Council round of meetings
10
INSI
GH
T w
ww
.irrv
.net
Gary L Watson IRRV (Hons) is
Deputy Chief Executive of the IRRV
The Executive Committee next met on 2nd
November, with Mr Schiller (Vice Chairman)
in the chair. The minutes from the meeting
held on 5th October were agreed, and letters
of apology were read from Messrs Morton,
Cadman and Goddard – a telegram had also
been received from the Chairman, Mr Ager,
advising he was unable to attend the meeting.
A very short report on the finances was given
to the meeting by the Honorary Secretary; so
short it simply said the balance at the bankers
was currently £39. 8/7. He then referred back
to the resolution at the last meeting, when he
was asked to write to the vestry clerk at St.
Giles Bloomsbury with regard to a matter in the
public press of 15th August last on police court
summonses. To date, no response had been
received to this letter.
The annual dinner sub-committee then
reported on the various places they had visited
for the purpose of finding a venue for the
annual dinner next year. One can now see why
there was a clamour each year to be part of
this sub-committee! The only suitable venue
for the event was the Victoria Saloon Suite,
The Criterion, Piccadilly. Messrs Spiers and
Pond, the proprietors, had agreed to provide
a dinner, similar to a menu they produced, at
the sum of 5/-.
Mr Christopher Spiers and Mr Felix Pond
had purchased the property back in 1870, with
the official opening in 1873 after they had
spent £80,000 on building works. Now wine
merchants, they had previously organised the
first tour of Australia by an English cricket team
in 1861/62, as well as the first ever balloon
ride in Australia.
History tells us that the first floor of the
building (which contained the restaurant)
was seriously damaged by fire in 1895, with
restoration work costing a further £1,395.
Quite how this all impacted on the decision of
the sub-committee to recommend the annual
dinner be held at this venue, we do not know.
In any event, it was resolved to proceed.
For the record, The Telford International
Centre (where we are holding the gala dinner
this October) also has an association with
English sport, having previously been the
venue for the National Tennis Championships.
However, unlike The Criterion, Piccadilly, it can
also boast ample free car parking!
Moving on from the annual dinner, a letter
was then read from Mr Sutton of St. Albans,
the representative for Marylebone. In the
letter, he gave notice of his resignation from
the Executive, as he lived “so far away from
town”, and nominated Mr E Foot as the new
representative. No doubt he would be able to
get to meetings ‘on foot’.
It was agreed that the Honorary Secretary
should acknowledge receipt of the letter, and
express regret at the loss of his services after
his long connection with the Executive. It was
hoped he would use every opportunity to be
present at any future occasion, should any
serious matters arise.
The Chairman, Vice Chairman, Treasurer
and Mr White were then asked to work on
producing the annual report for 1895, and
the sought after places on the annual dinner
sub-committee were approved. At this point,
discussion returned to the annual dinner and
the guests to be invited. Association members
would be able to invite MPs and vestry clerks,
but this would be at their cost. The same
would apply to members of the press, although
invitations would only be extended to the Daily
Telegraph and Daily News, with the Association
bearing the cost. However, this decision
was only carried on the casting vote of the
Chairman, after an equal number of members
were for and against the proposal. At this point,
the meeting closed.
The sub-committee appointed to work on
the annual report met on 5th December to
agree the draft. This was then taken to the
final executive meeting of the year on 7th
December, with Mr Schiller again in the chair.
Apologies were received from twelve members
(one of which was the Chairman) and letters of
resignation were read from four members. The
minutes from the meeting on 2nd November
were then agreed. The annual report (with
some alterations and amendments) was
approved, and it was resolved 250 copies be
printed and sent to each member. At the same
time, it was agreed that 200 ‘books of words’,
with music, be printed for the annual dinner.
A letter from the Municipal Officers
Association was then read on a proposed
conference for Poor Law Officers to consider
the question of superannuation, and the
desirability of taking direct action to promote
a Bill in Parliament. The Association was
invited to send three representatives to their
next meeting, and after some discussion, this
was agreed.
The Honorary Secretary then reported that
the annual audit would take place at his offices
on 2nd January 1896, and invited members to
be present. The indication from the minutes is
that the level of interest expressed by members
to be part of the annual dinner sub-committee
was not the same when responding to the
invitation to attend the annual audit. It was then
agreed the AGM in January would commence
at 5.00pm at The Criterion, Piccadilly, with the
annual dinner commencing at 6.30pm.
A Notice of Motion was then put by
the Chairman, Mr Schiller, that at the next
meeting, he would bring forward an item
as to the desirability of presenting a list to
the annual dinner with a view of collecting
donations on behalf of the benevolent fund.
The meeting then concluded, and it was
agreed the next meeting would take place on
11th January 1896.
Members are invited to contribute towards the feature and come forward with their own personal
memories of the Institute. The Deputy Chief Executive is also happy to try and answer any questions
on the Institute’s history. In addition, copies of previous articles can be provided on request.
Please contact him on [email protected] L Watson IRRV (Hons) is
Deputy Chief Executive of the IRRV
From the
“ However, this decision was only carried on the casting vote of the Chairman, after an equal number of members were for and against the proposal.”
Gary Watson discovers the busiest year yet, as he introduces the fourth part of his analysis of 1895
INSI
GH
T SE
PTEM
BER
201
4
11
12
INSI
GH
T w
ww
.irrv
.net
Faculty Board report
as a whole, and it is likely that those views will
be diverse.
The session will examine views on the
extent to which the Bill will empower
communities. The benefits and disadvantages
for public sector organisations as a
consequence of the provisions in the Bill
will also be explored. The capabilities
of communities across Scotland to take
advantage of the provisions in the Bill will also
be assessed.
The Institute will have comment to make
particularly regarding the specific provisions in
the Bill relating to non-domestic rates. Part 8
provides for reduction or remission of rates
for non-domestic properties (or ‘land and heritages’) in Scotland, to better reflect local
needs and support communities. It creates a
power to allow rating authorities to reduce or
remit non-domestic rates within their areas,
in any financial year from 2015/16 onwards.
This power will allow any rating authority to
create, if it wishes, local relief schemes for
any lands and heritages from which it collects
rates. It does this by inserting a new section
into the Local Government (Financial Provisions etc.) (Scotland) Act 1962.
The rating authority would need to have
regard to the interests of people who pay
council tax set by the authority before
creating or amending a relief scheme. This
is because any loss of income from non-
domestic rates incurred by the scheme must
be offset from other income raised by the
local authority. There will be amendments
made to the arrangements for pooling of
income from non-domestic rates and funding
Land and heritages inScotland
The Local Government and Regeneration Committee of the Scottish Parliament
will shortly commence its scrutiny of the
Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill. The policy objectives of this bill are
to empower community bodies through
the ownership of land and buildings,
strengthening their voices in the decisions that
matter to them, to support an increase in the
pace and scale of public service reform by
cementing the focus on achieving outcomes,
and improving the process of community planning. In doing so, this Bill aims to support
approaches that can contribute to improving
outcomes in all aspects of people‘s lives.
To help the Committee gain a greater
understanding of Par t B, relating to the
non-domestic rates aspect of the Bill, the
Institute, through its Scottish Association,
has been invited to give oral evidence at
the Committee’s Oral Evidence session on
1st October.
Also being invited to this round table session
are third sector community and voluntary
groups, and other interested stakeholders.
The Bil l was introduced to the
Parliament by John Swinney MSP in
June, and has been referred to the Local
Government and Regenerat ion Commit tee
for Stage 1 considerat ion.
A series of questions has been provided
within the public call for evidence issued by
the Committee, and the Institute has begun
discussion with its members to ascertain views
and comments. The Institute representative at
the evidence session will no doubt seek to be
appraised of the views of Scottish practitioners
of rating authorities will accommodate, and
remain unaffected by, the power to create
relief schemes.
I reported in the May issue of Insight that the
Institute had responded to the government’s
consultation on ‘Checking and Challenging
your Rateable Value’. The purpose of that
consultation was to make improvements to the
operation of the appeals process by providing
greater transparency in how rateable values
are established. The proposals would require
ratepayers to provide an explanation with
a formal challenge, and would introduce a
formal separation between the proposal stage
and appeal stage.
The Department for Communities and Local Government has recently reported
that there were over 70 responses to the
consultation from a range of local authorities,
rating agents, representative bodies and
individual businesses. Many of the responses
raised issues on the broader nature of the
current system, and argued that the reform
should be considered in the wider context of
the review of business rates administration,
which the Chancellor announced in the
Autumn Statement 2013. The government
has now decided to bring the consideration
of reform of the business rates appeals
process into the broader review of business
rates administration, which is considering
longer term reform taking effect after the next
revaluation in April 2017.
Moira Hepworth is the Institute’s
Policy and Research Manager
“ The Institute representative at the evidence session will no doubt seek to be appraised of the views of Scottish practitioners as a whole, and it is likely that those views
will be diverse.”
On the dawn of the Scottish Conference, Moira Hepworth’s Valuers’ Association report looks tothe north
INSI
GH
T SE
PTEM
BER
201
4
13
Let’s startwith ESA!As I write, we seem to be on the eve of what
may be a pretty good summer, weather
wise, but the same cannot be said of the
world of welfare reform. Not a day seems to
go past without the issue of welfare reform
being raised at a Select Committee or in the
Commons. It ’s a little difficult to judge who
may be ‘winning ’ at the moment, in terms
of the ruling party or the opposition, but from
what is being debated, it certainly doesn’t
seem to be those who should be at the heart
of the debate – the claimants themselves!
I’ve decided to stay away from the Universal Credit (UC) debate, tempting as it would
be to write about the expansion of the
pathfinders, changes to gateway legislation,
government response to the Select Committee
recommendations, response to the opposition
statement on the reform, the Commons
Urgent Question, or the further trialling sites
for LSSF.
Instead, I’d like to look at the issues
currently surrounding Employment Support Allowance (ESA) and Personal Independence Payment (PIP), two benefits
which provide assistance to some of the most
vulnerable customers.
Let’s start with ESA. As you may be aware,
there have been several evidence sessions
surrounding ESA before the Work and Pensions
Select Committee lately. This is particularly
important, given the fact that we have now
had the fourth independent review of the
Work Capability Assessment (WCA) and
the call for evidence launched for the fifth and
final statutory review.
This will be the second review of WCA
carried out by Dr Paul Litchfield, Chief
Medical Officer for BT Group – the previous
three reviews having been undertaken by
Professor Malcolm Harrington. I suppose
the question is whether or not the reviews
to date have altered the WCA significantly?
The conclusion of the reviews to date has
been that the WCA is conceptually right,
but that more needs to be done to improve
the system. The length and complexity of
the process contributes to dissatisfaction
and negative perceptions surrounding the
assessment. Dr Litchfield focused in particular
on improving conditions associated with
those suffering from mental health issues.
This builds upon the foundation of Mental Health Function Champions and improving
knowledge of mental health more broadly for
decision makers and healthcare professionals.
In a recent Parliamentary debate, one of
the opposition MPs cited a case where a
constituent was sanctioned because during
their WCA they suffered a heart attack,
and therefore could not complete the test.
The heart attack was actually diagnosed
by the medical professional undertaking
the assessment, but unfortunately the
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) decision maker still decided to apply
a sanction. Of course there will always be
extremes, and I’m not suggesting that this is
representative of all assessment decisions, but
it does illustrate the fact that perhaps the DWP
have moved too far towards viewing it purely
as a points based ‘tick box’ exercise, and
have lost track of the aim, which is to view the
claimant holistically.
You may recall that when the re-assessment
exercise was first introduced to determine
whether claimants in receipt of old style
disability benefits such as Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance should
convert to ESA or, having been found fit
for work, advised to apply for Jobseeker’s Allowance, there was a commitment to
complete this exercise by April 2014. That
date has now come and gone, so where are
we with that? Well, the Minister of State for
Disabled People confirmed “I missed that
deadline” recently, confirming that there
are 700,000 claimants currently in the ESA
backlog, of which approximately 100,000 are
re-assessment claims, and that re-assessment
has been slowed down substantially, although
there was no new deadline announced. To try
and speed the process up for new claimants,
they are now being encouraged to claim ESA
over the phone.
Appeals have been another area examined
closely, and it is hoped that, with the
introduction of mandatory reconsideration
prior to appeal, the number of appeals will
reduce and the quality of decisions being
made will improve significantly. The latest
Ministry of Justice (MOJ) tribunal statistics,
which are for January to March 2014, show
that there were a total of 655,900 cases
outstanding across all tribunal types. In
2013/14 ESA appeals accounted for 58% of
the share of appeals received (down by 29%
from 2012/13) but, despite this, the quality of
decisions appears to have been fairly stable,
with only 55% of DWP decisions upheld
on appeal. By comparison, housing benefit
accounted for only 3% of appeals, although
there was an increase from the 2012/13 figure
of 10,803 received, to 12,113. However, 77%
of the decisions local authorities made were
upheld on appeal. I’ll not comment further but
leave you to draw your own conclusions!
When I started this article, I’d intended to
also discuss PIP, but I seem to have run out
of space so I’ll just leave you with one last
thought. 7th July saw yet another debate in
the Commons regarding the implementation
of UC, at which an interesting statistic came
to light. There were then approximately 7,000
claimants receiving UC and 83,900 receiving
PIP, yet both were introduced at the same time
on a staggered basis!
Louise Freeth FIRRV MCMI is Revenues and
Benefits Change and Service Development
Manager with Liberata, and a member of
the IRRV’s national Council. Contact her
Benefits bulletin
There are other benefits out there that are struggling, discovers Louise Freeth, as she casts her net a little wider than Universal Credit
“ Appeals have been another area examined closely, and it is hoped that, with the introduction of mandatory reconsideration prior to appeal, the numbers of appeals will reduce and the quality of decisions being made will improve significantly.”
14
INSI
GH
T w
ww
.irrv
.net
Rating Recent Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decision: appeal by M Pearce (VO) –re-entitlement of VO to alter RV determined by VT. An appeal to the Upper
Tribunal (Lands Chamber) was allowed
with the UT Deputy President Martin
Rodger QC recording that, after hearing
the various arguments, he did not consider
that, following a VTE valuation decision
based on a mistaken understanding of
the facts, a VO is obliged to necessarily
follow the VTE’s valuation where an
alteration of the List is required due to
Material Change of Circumstances (MCC).
“A mistake of fact made by the VTE need
not be perpetuated and the VO is entitled”
...in considering an MCC... “to start from
scratch, giving appropriate weight to the
VTE’s decision.” This appeal was against
the Valuation Tribunal decision in West London Aero Club v Hazell VO where
the VTE President determined that the VO
was confined to follow the VTE’s valuation,
in any reassessment on a subsequent MCC,
even though it appeared to be based on a
significant incorrect (low) floor area of
some hangers.
The July 2014 decision is complex and
includes a further point in respect of
alterations of the RV subsequent to the
original VT decision in this case. The study of
the whole appeal decision is recommended
at http://www.landstribunal.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=1054.
Valuation Tribunal revised and extended Practice Statement PS A2 changes – issued on 1st August 2014,
this details key changes in respect of
necessary contacts/steps prior to a VT
hearing, and is effective from 1st October.
See http://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk/Attending_A_Hearing/PracticeStatements.aspx (includes
explanatory note).
The Valuation In Practice newsletter 33 (VIP33) is now on the Valuation
Tribunal website. It includes summaries
of revisions/changes in the VTE Practice
Statements effective from 1st May 2014.
The President’s guidance includes advice
on how to prepare a document bundle, and
that Statements of Case cannot be released
to others under section 32 of the Freedom
of Information Act 2000. It also includes
advice from the Registrar noting the High
Court decision in Adam v LO 2014, and
that Listing Officers may ‘correct’ a council
tax banding even where it was previously
agreed between the parties. See http://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk/vip_newsletter.aspx.
VIP 33 also summarises recent Valuation Tribunal decisions, including the following:
2005 Rating List: Royal Society of Medicine v Dunlevy VO – a West End
town house where a premium of £5.5m
had been paid for a 2004 125 year lease at
£37,000 pa, and a 2009 rent review agreed
representing 10% of office use value. The
mode and category of occupation was
considered, and viewed as a hybrid use of
conference and meeting rooms with bed
and breakfast accommodation, rather than
hotel or office use and values. Having regard
to Lotus and Delta Ltd v Culverwell VO & Leicester City Council 1976, the
panel took the rent of the appeal property,
analysed to £370,000 pa, as the starting
point and best evidence (although the rent/
premium did not accord to the basis of RV),
and determined that the 2005 List RV at
£307,500 was not excessive. The appeal was
dismissed. Go to: http://info.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/decision_document.asp?appeal=%2Fdecision_documents%2Fdocuments%2FNDR%2F599016869085%2F088N05.
Appeals on Wales/England pipelines –
in the Central Rating List, where
stage 3 of the contractor ’s test was
considered. Whilst stage 3 should
reflect the market (capital) value of the
hereditament, it was not the market
value of the business as a going concern
or based on productivity. Never theless
an allowance was made for functional
(not economic) obsolescence, and
the RV was reduced. See appeal no: 0002M89595/001N10 on the VT website.
Important reminder – new Code on Marketing Practice for Rating Services A new Code on Marketing Practice for Rating Services has been
added to the IRRV members’ Code of Conduct, effective from 1st July 2014. It concerns issues of seeking instructions, the conduct of marketing and telesales staff, marketing material and communications, professional
fees, contracts of engagement, plus complaints procedures. You can read the full Code in May Insight, or go to:http://www.irrv.net/documents/3/MARKETING%20CODE%202014.pdf.
Valuation matters
Valuers’ Association Monthly Page
V@MP
July Insight ‘Valuation matters’ Jon Bestow, Registrar & Chief Clerk with the
Valuation Tribunal for England, has pointed out:
‘In the July edition of Insight, on page 14, you make
two mistakes in your report under the heading
‘Rating’, in attributing the statement about tax
exemption being a privilege to the European Court
of Human Right and in implying that this statement
derives from the VTS’s Valuation in Practice, which
in fact states the position correctly, as explained by
the President of the Valuation Tribunal for England
in a recent decision.
‘The VO’s representative also made the point
that the exemption was a privilege, not a right,
citing the decision of the European Court of
Human Rights in the Mormon case. The remark
about a privilege and not a right – which does
not strike me as being an accurate or appropriate
statement – does not appear in the judgment
of the Court, but is found in a short concurring
judgment of two of the seven judges. It is not
helpful and is not a view that should be attributed
to the Court.’ (A. & N. Frozen Foods v. Alexander
(VO), 9 July 2014, para.17).
INSI
GH
T SE
PTEM
BER
201
4
15
Geoff Fisher is back with another collection of snippets from the world of valuation
September Valuer magazine – available for viewing now!Don’t forget that you can view the
latest edition of the IRRV’s Valuer
magazine by logging on to the
member area and clicking on
‘magazines’. In this month’sissue we feature the following:• Fromthetrenches – Tom Dixon’s often controversial
column pulls no punches• Caselaw – an update on everything legal from expert
Peter Brown, and analysis of all the latest cases from Gordon Heath
• ValuationinEurope – Chris Grzesik is on hand to keep readers up to date with real estate practice and TEGoVA developments• Urbanregeneration – researcher Gill Telford is on
the trail of local authority community asset transfers• GuySams on compulsory purchase and compensation• Valuationinpractice – Guy Harbord of Wilks Head
and Eve provides a case study on asset valuation• Lessonsinvaluation – Chris Barker goes beside the
seaside for his latest critique of valuation methodology• VTSupdate – Tony Masella presents the view from
the Tribunal corner.
General practiceThe Land Registry corporate website
(including practice guides and blog) has
moved to gov.uk , so it is now available
at http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/ (Land registry portal for business
e-services customers and ‘Find a
property’ is unchanged). In January, the
coalition government issued proposals
for privatisation of the Land Registry, but
announced in July the abandonment of the
proposals af ter consultation and protests.
The 2014 Conference of Commonwealth Heads of Valuation Agencies (CHOVA) took place in Toronto
Canada on 29/31 August, hosted by
MPAC (Municipal Property Assessment
Corporation) Ontario. Larry Hummel, Chief
Assessor of MPAC introduced the conference
focus of Evolution and Transformation,
with speakers from public sector
organisations around the globe. Keynote
speaker was Antoni Wisniowski, President &
CAO of the Municipal Property Assessment
Corporation, addressing the delegates on
Creating a Culture of Engagement in a Sea of Change. The International Property Tax Institute (IPTI) sponsored
a pre-conference workshop on 29 August
2014, and the UK Valuation Office Agency
(VOA) speaker on non-domestic rating
reforms in England was Niall Walsh, Chief
Operating Officer and Chief Valuer with the
VOA. Go to http://www.chova2014.com/[email protected].
Do you… or a colleague…want to study fora valuation diplomaor degree by flexible tailored learning? The RAU is inviting candidates
for this coming academic year,
2014/15, to do just that. Check out the
advertisements in this month’s edition of
Insight and Valuer, or find out more at:
http://dk5y2dlrctiai.cloudfront.net/2013/07/18/08/54/
53/728/DiplomaBScRealEstateValuationBrochuretext.pdf.
The July journal of the Recognised European Valuer (REV Issue No.8),
introduced by new TEGoVA Chairman Krzystof
Grzesik, notes that there are now 2,300 REVs
in 14 countries across Europe, including the
first Dutch REVs, awarded at the Amsterdam
real estate exhibition together with the launch
of the European Valuation Standards (EVS)
in the Netherlands. Check out http://www.tegova.org/en/p4912bb9b3a7d9.
European Valuation Standards EVS (REV
Journal No. 8) also includes an important
review by John Hockey (EVS Board Chairman)
of valuation certainty and market risk (See
EVS information paper IP3).
The RICS Code of Measuring Practice
is in the process of being replaced by a
new Professional Statement (PS) for Measuring , which is to be in accordance
with the RICS International Property
Measurement Standards (IPMS) (exposure
draft for offices published in June
2014). See http://www.rics.org/uk/knowledge/news-insight/news/ipms-for-offices--exposure-draft-out-for-consultation/andwww.ipmc.org.
Geoff Fisher FRICS Dip.Rating IRRV (Hons) REV is a Past President of the IRRV, and a member of the Institute’s Professional Conduct Committee
16
INSI
GH
T w
ww
.irrv
.net
Dave Cornes joins Phoenix
Institute member Dave, has a long and proven track record managing client contracts in the EnforcementIndustry and his primary focus will be to work with clients to enhance joint working practices andstrengthen our industry leading collection rates. Prior to joining Phoenix, Dave was heavily involvedin the development of the current Enforcement Agent professional examination and he is fully committedand passionate about maintaining high standards in Revenue Enforcement.
Enforcement and debt recovery specialist, Phoenix Commercial Collections arepleased to announce the appointment of Dave Cornes as Client Support Manager.Dave joins Phoenix at an exciting time during its growth and shortly after theintroduction of the provisions of The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
Dave is a Fellow of theIRRV and CIVEA andhe is the only person tohold both distinctions.
Raising Expectationswww.phoenixcommercial.co.uk
Andy CumminsGroup Marketing and Client Director comments,
“I am delighted to announce Dave’s appointmentas Client Support Manager, Dave has returnedto the industry following a period of illness andwe are fortunate that he chose to join the Phoenixmanagement team. I believe that this strategicappointment of a respected industry professionaldemonstrates our commitment towards providinga first class service with first class collection ratesto our clients.”
Phoenix-IRRVadvert-Dave-09-14.qx8_Phoenix_A4magadvert 15/08/2014 16:56 Page 1
INSI
GH
T SE
PTEM
BER
201
4
17
The fairness ofcouncil tax support scheme consultations Cast your mind back almost two years, to
the autumn of 2012, and no doubt you
will instantly recall that I wrote about three
cases... “which highlight[ed] the importance
of a transparent consultation process and the
need to carry out thorough Equality Impact
Assessments. In each case, a local authority
was challenged by members of the public
who were aggrieved at how decisions to cut
funding in particular service areas would
affect them”.
At the time, councils were in the throes of
consulting on their soon-to–be-implemented
local council tax support schemes. On
19th June 2014, the Supreme Court heard a
case considering local authorities’ obligations
when carrying out public consultations. It
is believed that it is the first time that the
Supreme Court has heard such a case. At
the time of writing we have not had the
judgement handed down, but, given we’re
approaching the time of year when we might
be looking to consult on amendments to our
local schemes, it ’s worth outlining the facts of
the case in anticipation of the decision later
this year.
The Supreme Court summary of the case
states that “the issues in R (on the application
of Moseley) (in substitution of Stirling (Deceased)) v London Borough of Haringey are billed as:
• the proper approach to consultations
generally and consultations conducted
pursuant to paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule
1A to the Local Government Finance Act
1992 in respect of proposed ‘council tax
reduction schemes’ (CTRS)
• whether a fair consultation requires that
consultees be informed “not just of the
proposals of the local authority but also
of the reasons for the proposals and be
given sufficient information to enable them
to critically examine the thinking that led to
the proposals”.
The law firm Irwin Mitchell represented a
resident, a single mother, who was challenging
Haringey Council’s consultation on their new
council tax support scheme. In common with
many councils, Haringey’s scheme resulted
in some people who had previously been
entitled to 100% council tax benefit having
to pay a proportion of their council tax.
In Haringey’s case this was around 20%.
The contention is that the consultation
was unlawful, and didn’t provide enough
information for people to make an informed
decision about the changes.
As prescribed by legislation, Haringey
consulted upon its scheme during the early
autumn of 2012. As many of you will recall,
the government then announced a transitional
grant scheme, which would allow councils
which agreed to limit reductions in support to
receive additional funding. This scheme was
announced in late October 2012, and as Steve
Freer, then CIPFA Chief Executive, noted in a
Guardian Professional article on 26th October
2012, “the timing of the announcement – with
no prior warning – comes after many councils
have already designed and consulted on
their own schemes. Qualification for the new
transitional grant is likely to be more a matter
of luck than skilful design. If schemes happen
to coincide with the government’s view of a
‘good’ benefit system, the councils concerned
will qualify for a windfall grant. If they do not,
authorities may find it very difficult to switch
to a qualifying scheme at such a late stage.”
Haringey Council decided that the
transitional grant scheme did not affect its
proposed scheme, and went on to adopt a
local council tax support scheme without
further consultation. The appellant argued
that the consultation process was unfair and
unlawful because:
• consultees had not been provided with
sufficient information to understand that
there were alternatives to the draft scheme;
and
• the council should have re-consulted when
the transitional grant scheme
was announced.
At the original legal challenge to the changes
in Haringey, lawyers described the council tax
changes across the country as “a postcode
lottery”. A Court of Appeal hearing in February
2013 ruled in the council’s favour, so Irwin
Mitchell applied to the Supreme Court on
behalf of Haringey residents.
It is important to note that the decision
can no longer be quashed, because the new
scheme has already been implemented;
however local residents hope that they
may still be able to influence the future of
the council tax support scheme, and have
asked the Court to order Haringey to repeat
the consultation if it finds that the first
consultation was unlawful.
“Haringey Council decided that the transitional grant scheme did not affect its proposed scheme, and went on to adopt a local council tax support scheme without further consultation.”
Deborah Davies IRRV (Hons) is
Customer and Benefit Services Manager
with Craven District Council – contact her
Case law update
...falls within Deborah Davies’s investigative remit
IRRV Annual Conference and Exhibition 2013Telford International Centre, 2nd-4th October 2013
BOOK NOW – www.irrv.net
IRRV Annual Conference and Exhibition 2014
Telford International Centre,
7th – 9th October 2014
BOOK NOW AT
www.irrv.net
IRRV Scotland Training andConferences Calendar Autumn 2014
T: 01382 456029
W: www.irrvscotland.org.uk
10 September Valuer Day
15 October Housing Benefit – Complex Cases
22 October Rent Collection during Welfare Reform
23 October Insolvency training day
24 October Managing Discretionary Housing Payments against competing demands
28 October Council Tax Masterclass
29 October Effective Telephone Debt Collection
4 November Non Domestic Rates training day
7 November Debt Collection in Revenues: The impact of welfare reform and Scottish Government policies
14 November Budget management in Revenues & Benefits including constructing the case for shared services
19 November Miscellaneous Income Conference
27 November Joint Conference with Money Advice Scotland
4 December Update on Corporate Debt – implementation issues
10 & 11 December Scottish Benefits Conference and Exhibition
IRRV Annual Conference
T: 020 7691 8987
W: www.irrv.org.uk
Telford International Centre, Telford 7 – 9 October 2014This year’s Annual Conference (and Exhibition) will take place in Telford from the 7 October 2014 (Tuesday) to 9 October 2014 (Thursday). The first day will consist entirely of plenary sessions whilst three separate streams (Local Taxation & Revenues, Benefits and Valuation) will be run on the second day. The final morning will provide delegates with a general update on everything that is happening within the Profession. The Performance Awards Gala Dinner will take place on the Wednesday evening when this year’s winners will be announced.
There are a range of packages to suit individual needs. We offer outstanding value for money. Our full conference package includes buffet lunches and refreshments, wine receptions and admission to our Performance Awards Gala Dinner.
Full conference passes available from only £445.50 (+VAT)Full day passes start at £175 (+VAT)
Special Offer:
3 for 2 on multiple bookings* * This offer is valid on multiple bookings, with a minimum of 3 delegates from the same organisation.
INSI
GH
T SE
PTEM
BER
201
4
19
Cover story
in some ways is illustrated by the often heard
joke that Scotland has more pandas than
Conservative MPs!
It seems however that the prevailing political
thinking in Scotland has caught on throughout
the UK, with parties now pledging to get rid of
the ‘bedroom tax ‘ (I use the term in common
usage, whilst appreciating it is not a tax or
even a subsidy for that matter) if the electorate
gives them the opportunity. The question that
occurs to me is why did it take so long? Is it a
late awakening to the inequities of this benefit
restriction, or is it because of the failure to
deliver the savings anticipated?
Structurally, Scotland has its own legal, education, rating valuation and court systems. We also have our own devolved
Parliament, and arguably the most progressive
homelessness legislation in Europe. All of
these differences are taken into account during
the conference. I have managed revenue and
benefit services both in Scotland and England,
and I currently earn my living as a consultant
both north and south of the border. I am
aware of both the differences and the areas
of common ground that exist. We experience
many of the same issues that impact on other
parts of the UK. For that reason we have always
welcomed speakers from outwith Scotland who
are willing and able to share their own good
practice and effective solutions.
The IRRV Scottish Association Executive
and Fraser Macpherson have worked hard
to try and provide a broad range of topics for
presentation to the delegates at the conference,
who reflect the full and diverse range of
membership within the Institute. In recent years,
largely thanks to our Association Vice President,
Joan Hewton, we have strengthened the
valuation content of our conference.
There are too many interesting topics
for presentation for me to mention them
individually. I am however looking forward to
those that look at the wider economic setting
and its impact on the funding of public services.
Writing about the forthcoming Annual Scottish Conference (3rd to 4th September 2014)
always feels a bit like the reverse of hearing the
first cuckoo of spring! Heralding a time when
the fun of summer is to be put to one side, and
the harsh realities of the autumn gloom, with
future funding cuts coming to steal any joy that
remains in our hearts.
But the Scottish Conference offers a real
opportunity for optimism, innovation and
inspiration. It presents the opportunity for us
to listen to speakers and talk to our colleagues.
At the very least it may just provide some of us
with the chance to reflect on the fact that there
are others in a much worse position than we
find ourselves. At best it will truly drive us on to
find ever more innovative solutions to both new
and perennial problems.
This year we do all this against the
background of the imminent independence
referendum, the presence of which has, for
some time now, added a range of caveats to
any prediction for the future in Scotland. One
thing I believe is that following the referendum,
change will take place one way or another. If
nothing else, the whole referendum preamble
has highlighted the differences in the socio-
political outlook in Scotland, when compared
to other parts of the UK with regard to social
housing and welfare matters in general. This
Whither the ‘Barnett Formula’?
Some may not appreciate it now, but this is
a good year. For me this is the calm before the storm. It is a time to prepare innovative
solutions before necessity forces invention
upon us. There will be structural changes and,
presumably, general funding reductions to local
government, the durability of Universal Credit is unproven at present, the expected
outcomes of the ‘bedroom tax’ have not been
delivered, council tax is looking both outdated
and inadequate for a modern future, and
the discussions over business rates retention
continue to rage on.
As well as the more technically informative
papers, there will also be some that will provoke
thoughts and innovations. As I said, this is the
year for it – we are unlikely to have a better
opportunity for a while. At the heart of this is the
question of whether we do things to the people
we serve or for the people we serve. And how
do we address this when looking at service delivery? In a cost cutting environment, do cost
efficiencies always trump public service?
I am also looking forward to a paper
on shared service, and must admit a
personal interest here. I joined with the
management team of a successful shared
service for a five month period, and on
another contract dismantled a shared
service for revenues and benefits. Currently
I am project managing the dismantling of a
shared service for IT. So I have seen both
an ef fective working model and have first
hand experience of the consequences of a
broken model. Both are possible – so what
determines success and failure?
Even the European Union has felt it necessary
to comment upon property taxation in the UK – change is on its way. The timing will,
no doubt, be affected by elections, so, in the
controversial area of local taxation, perhaps I
should say review is on its way. I know it does
not sound as dramatic, but it could keep the
tabloids in story lines for some time.
There are fundamental issues for the Institute
when considering the reform of local taxation.
To outline all of them would fill this edition of
the magazine, so I will just pick a few headline
points. There are some members who believe
that as administrators we should confine
ourselves to the mechanics of local taxation.
In doing so, we would look at the tax base in a
functional way. Does it deliver predictability and
stability of yield? Is it easy to collect and cheap
to administer?
Others, me included, argue that whilst the
administrative issues are very important, we
do not feel that is the end of the matter. We
Insight previews the forthcoming Scottish Conference, through the eyes of Jim McCafferty
Change willtake place oneway or another
should also consider the purpose, equity,
balance of funding with grants, affordability
and the economic impacts within the wider
taxation scene. I am sure there will be several
articles over the next few months in Insight
that address this and other aspects of local
taxation reform.
Delegates at the conference will have a
head start on the debate, as I am sure that
change in local taxation is definitely one
matter on which they will seek the views of
speakers Professor Tony Travers and Dr Walter Boettcher.
Oh, it will be just like the old arguments
prior to the poll tax days – let’s see if we
can all do better this time. That includes
governments too, so please let’s not try a
poll tax version two on Scotland first! We like
to innovate here, but the UK government of
the day took it too far with letting us go first
in 1989.
I am confident all of these matters will be
discussed during the Conference. After that,
we can all retire to the bar and discuss the
weighty issues of the day. And football. At
last year’s Scottish Benefits Conference we
were entertained by the considerable musical
talents of Messrs Smith and Cunningham,
ably assisted on some numbers by Damian Bray and Paula Doherty. Here’s hoping
that high standard will be maintained at this
conference. The conference is once again
held in the beautiful setting of Crieff Hydro -
the perfect environment for us to feel relaxed
and inspired to discuss and debate these
important topics.
Finally, I would like to wish the Scottish
President, Les Robertson, and my fellow
members of the Scottish Association, good
luck for what I am sure will be an excellent,
challenging, stimulating and successful
Scottish Conference.
Jim McCafferty IRRV (Hons) is Junior Vice
President of the IRRV
“ We should also consider the purpose, equity, balance of funding with grants, affordability and the economic impacts within the wider taxation scene.”
The social contractand pinchingthe pennies
In Part 2 of this month’s cover story, David McLaughlin has a challenge for councils and contractors on how we best collect and enforce
Jean-Jaques Rousseau might have had his
less than progressive ideas – he wasn’t big
on equality for women, for example – but the
concept of the social contract has held up
pretty well over the years. Payment of council
tax is one of the most direct expressions of the
modern social contract in action. It is not the
major source of funding for services – there
would need to be a radical revaluation to
collect the £34 billion that is required to run
Scotland. But the £2 billion raised annually
from council tax does make a big contribution
to the £10 billion spent every year by local
authorities. Money raised locally and spent
locally for services that everyone can see
every day... or not see, but then they know
where to go to complain!
We are, collectively, very good at ensuring
this social contract is fulfilled. In the spirit of
a pushy parent asking what happened to the
lost one percent, we might of course complain
that it should be 100%, but an average of
95.2% across all thirty two local authorities is
a pretty impressive figure, especially given the
deep pockets of poverty in Scotland, and our
turbulent history of local tax gathering.
The positive relationship that exists between
council and taxpayer is, however, coming
under pressure. The reason is austerity – not
as it impacts on individuals, although there
is an inverse relationship between hard
times and cheerful taxpayers – but because
of the demands on councils to squeeze
savings out of every corner of their work.
The Summary Warrant process may
only impact on a very small minority
of eligible council tax payers, but social
contract apart, there is no doubting its
enforcement role. The 10% levy on
the collection of taxes from the less
enthusiastic citizens was originally designed
to cover the council’s cost of recovery.
It has now become more of a source of
income in itself, as some contractors’
commission rates have fallen steadily
to what are now unsustainable and
uneconomic rates for them.
Let there be no doubt that the job of a
local authority is to get as much as possible
for as little as possible. As a taxpayer
myself, I’d want no other philosophy. But
there is a point where quality and price
come into conflict in a way that undermines
the entire process, resulting in the failure
to appoint the most suitable, experienced
contractor to deliver the services and
performance required, and placing an
additional burden on the most vulnerable.
Most councils weight quality above price.
But companies who score very poorly in
terms of their quality service capability
can still win contracts by bidding un-
economically low on the pricing side of the
tender. It ’s simple maths! There is a danger
that squeezing of commission becomes
counter–productive, that the emphasis on
the perceived simple cost overwhelms the
quality aspect of the equation, and results
in a negative service and recovery impact.
Ensuring reluctant council taxpayers
remain part of the social contract is a tricky
business. It is a potential point of friction
between citizen and local government. The
acceptance of uneconomic commission 20
INSI
GH
T w
ww
.irrv
.net
Cover story (cont/d)
rates encourages the passing on of costs
and charges by the contractor to taxpayers,
as it becomes the main source of income to
the contractor, which many would consider
irresponsible, unfair and punitive. The potential
for bad PR at best and conflict at worst is a real
possibility. Consider, for example, vulnerable
individuals and their need for a sensitive and
responsible service.
Quality in service delivery is vital for all
public services, whether it ’s neat and tidy bin
collection or filling up holes in the road so
they last more than a few months. But quality
becomes even more critical when we are
dealing with the legal process and revenue
recovery, where errors can be extraordinarily
expensive. To push commission rates into a
zone where firms can only deliver by slashing
quality, passing on costs to the customer,
and not investing in their businesses is not
a good long term prospect. Some councils
have already questioned the sustainability
of bargain rail pricing. The temptation to
take what appears to be the cheap option is
understandably strong, but of course that may
turn out to offer poor value for money.
The other unintended consequence of
uneconomic commission rates will be the
reduction in competition in the market place.
There is an irony here. A competitive tendering
structure is created to obtain value through
healthy competition between a wide range
of companies. Creating an environment
where only the biggest can afford to bid
down to non-profitable rates can only narrow
competition and create hidden costs.
Against a background of excellent
performance and service delivery, our
challenge currently is to find ways of
maintaining levels of investment in the sort of
infrastructure that will continually create long
term economies and revenue gains to councils,
while retaining a fair, secure service in a
healthy competitive marketplace.
One suggestion I would make is to place
“ The acceptance of uneconomic commission rates encourages the passing on of costs and charges by the contractor to taxpayers, as it becomes the main source of income to the contractor, which many would
consider irresponsible, unfair and punitive.”
David McLaughlin is Managing
Partner with IRRV Scottish Conference
event sponsors, Scott + Co
a higher premium on innovation. There
are, for example, dif ferent ways of pricing
that will financially benefit councils directly
throughout the life of the contract and
beyond, and are fairer on the taxpayer
struggling to pay. However the current
arrangements in many instances simply focus
on the raw, low commission rates, as the only
way to evaluate cost.
Ultimately, a procurement regime which
does not recognise pricing innovation,
financial gains to the council, and leaves no
surplus for investment in new systems and
staff skills, can only lead to a downward spiral.
My challenge is for contractors and council
professionals to devise a way of bringing real
quality based competition and best value
principles back to the market place, while
ensuring that the business of collecting local
taxes continues to evolve and aspire towards a
100% collection rate.
J-J Rousseau’s views on tender briefs have
not been recorded, but he was pretty keen
on fairness and innovation. And he did know
that collecting local taxes isn’t just about a
simplistic cost model - it ’s also about value,
fairness and something that bonds individuals
and society together. It ’s too important to risk.
INSI
GH
T SE
PTEM
BER
201
4
21
IRRV national Council
election Your vote counts!
Go towww.irrv.net
22
INSI
GH
T w
ww
.irrv
.net
respond to different types of advertising? ” Just
as in the world of advertising, the principle of
collection is about finding that trigger point with the customer, calling that person at the right time, and using the right approach
or words. Using the full benefit of the new
regulations, contacting on previous ‘no go
days’ provides a different approach. Keeping
up the level of contact in a varied and flexible
way can make a real difference. Seven day working now provides proactive agencies
with an even greater chance of making that
crucial contact.
With most accepting that the country is now
slowly pulling out of recession, individuals’
circumstances are changing, wages are
increasing, confidence has started to increase,
people can see the light at the end of that
tunnel, and may be able to deal with debt with increased optimism. It is this mix of
differing contact strategies that can make a real
change, and provide real differences between
the various agencies and their effectiveness.
Just as in sales, keeping in contact and being
proactive can deliver real results, as individuals
respond to a more proactive approach that
focuses on supported compliance rather than
simple enforcement sanctions.
Another area of real change is that of
the effectiveness and approach to tracing
Why could returns be the ultimate test? Prior to and following the implementation of
the Taking Control of Goods Regulations
in April, there has been much debate as to
how the new world will impact on the second placement or ‘returns’ market.
Increasingly over the last several years, the
recycling of cases from one agency to another
by councils has been seen as a way they can
test the effectiveness of their first placement
providers and try an alternative to the costly
and often ineffective committal process.
With the new rules applying a 12 month
time line for the Taking Control of Goods,
some challenged whether the re-cycling of
warrants was any longer an option. However it
is now generally accepted that the 12 months
restriction on the Taking Control of Goods may
still apply to second placement cases following
the issue of a new notice of enforcement.It is fair to say that in the past, return cases
have sometimes been seen as a poisoned
chalice, with potentially considerable effort
expended for small return. Some local
authorities have seen the issue of cases as a
waste of limited council resource. However, I
believe that those who adopt the attitude that
it is not worth the effort are missing the point.
Both through mine and Equita’s
experience, the issue of cases to a second
placement or alternative agency can deliver
some real benefits to both parties. Following
the implementation of the new enforcement
structure, the requirement to issue a fresh
Notice of Enforcement provides an easy and
speedy contact approach. For the cost of a first
class stamp and minimal administration, the
reward of a debt collected and the revenue
generated for the enforcement agency via
the compliance fee means both parties can
really benefit.
When approached to consider the issue
of returns, I often face the question, “why
would a different firm do any better than my
incumbent company? ”
My answer would be, “why do people
absconders. Whilst most enforcement firms
will have search and trace facilities, either
through internal or external means, the range
of options is crucial now that we are living in
an age where the rental market is expanding
and people are not living in the same street for
generation upon generation.
When the cases are handed over to a new
firm as part of the second placement service,
extensive up to date data checks can be
carried out using a wide range of specialist
trace agencies and products. Once again this
pro-active approach can often find individuals
overlooked by the first placement firm, and
can deliver effective results.
In addition, from the local authority’s
perspective, the issue of second placement
cases provides the perfect opportunity to
audit the performance of your incumbent agencies, in particular where councils
continue to employ only one agency. This
process can provide three positive outcomes
to the council enforcement manager:
• if the second Enforcement Agent collects a
significant amount, this may mean that your
current firms are under performing
• if they collect zero, you may be satisfied that
your incumbent firms are working well
• if the secondary firm collect 2-5%, this
acts as a positive audit check, and most
importantly additional revenue recovered at
no cost to the authority.
Far from a barrier to the issue of second
placement debt, I believe that the post-April
world provides an even bigger incentive to
councils to seek that second collection option.
The recycling of returns should be
embraced, and seen as an opportunity for
both parties, not feared or as an unnecessary
administrative burden.
Collection & enforcement
Gary Carr providesthe answer
“ For the cost of a first class stamp and minimal administration, the reward of a debt collected and the revenue generated for the enforcement agency via the compliance fee means both parties can really benefit.”
Gary Carr is Equita’s Client Services and
Business Development Director
INSI
GH
T SE
PTEM
BER
201
4
23Alan Wood is Director of Development
with Whyte & Co
Collection & enforcement
Over recent years the enforcement sector has
faced an increasing number of situations where a
potential vulnerability is presented in an attempt to
either halt or possibly reverse the enforcement process and avoid additional costs.
Many of these claims are made after taking
what is often unhelpful or wholly inaccurate
advice from the plethora of ‘beat the bailiff’ websites found on the internet. Of course a lot
of these allegations of potential vulnerability
are made knowing that the risk to both council
reputation and ours is in jeopardy if complaints
are fed to the local or national media.
The amount of false or greatly exaggerated
claims in relation to potential vulnerability is
something our front line and contact centre staff
face on a daily basis.
Something that has become very evident over
recent years, and something I feel we have all
been a little guilty of, purely due to the volume, is
treating everyone as a liar – mostly because
we see so many false claims we can fall in to
the trap of thinking that everyone is a liar!
But what if the debtor claiming vulnerability is telling the truth?So how do we filter out the ones who are using
vulnerability as a tactic to avoid paying their bills,
and how do we ensure those that need our help,
support and guidance are not treated unfairly?
My company has recognised that local
authorities are losing an increasing number of
resources through enforced cutbacks, and as
a result we are starting to see an increase in the
genuinely vulnerable slipping through the net.
Fully assessing the extent of an individual’s
potential vulnerability, and how that situation
affects their ability to pay the debt based on
evidence being presented by telephone or via
email, can be difficult. In some cases it can
only be achieved by attending the debtor’s place of residence, or by engaging in what can
sometimes be a lengthy process of evidence gathering from a range of sources, followed by
adequate scrutiny and investigation.
One of the challenges we all face when
attempting to ask for sufficient evidence
is how that person feels about being
questioned on such personal matters, and
to do so without making it feel like we are
saying “you’re a liar – prove otherwise”, we
must be mindful that sometimes the very
act of asking for evidence on a potential
vulnerability can easily escalate into a
complaint if handled inappropriately.
With this in mind, we have created a
team of specially trained individuals called
the Remedy Support Team (RST), made
up of selected experienced certificated enforcement agents and senior contact centre staff. Between them they have many
years experience of dealing with the public
during the recovery of local authority debts.
This team has received direct training from
StepChange and Citizens Advice in potential
vulnerability of all kinds, and tailor made training in how we would deal with a wide
range of situations, using a mixture of case studies and current cases where a potential
vulnerability may be an issue.
In recent months it has become clear that
many cases of potential vulnerability, once
fully accessed, turn out to be totally or partly fabricated, and result in the case
being placed back in the work flow with
the relevant notes to the case file, and the
enforcement action continues.
Help from the RST can be accessed from
all areas of the business by our clients, via
client web access, our enforcement agents within each case file, and the
customer contact centre. This facility and
support is available seven days a week from
6am to 9pm.
In February this year, we became the first
enforcement agency, and one of the first
organisations in the UK, to be accredited with
BS 18477: Identifying and responding to consumer vulnerability.
Alan Wood describes a step forward in how to deal withthis tricky area
Vulnerability – what does it look like?
Croydon case studyA highly vulnerable debtor has received support from Croydon’s social services after his plight was uncovered by the council’s parking department and its bailiff partner, Whyte & Co.
The parking team became aware of the debtor’s problems after seeing an email he had sent to the revenues and benefits department. A spokesman at the London borough said, “It was clear from the tone of the email that the debtor was in a profoundly distressed state. He was contacting the department about his council tax arrears, but briefly mentioned that he also had parking fines.”
As a result, the parking team checked its system and discovered that the man had both an unpaid parking fine and a warrant.
The council asked Whyte’s remedy support team to intervene and a member of their team visited the debtor the following day to make an assessment, discovering that the debtor, who was in his late twenties, and lives alone, had been struggling to cope since suffering a series of strokes. The parking team then cancelled the parking fine and the warrant, and notified the social services department. The bailiffs also researched additional support available to him through the Stroke Association website, and provided the debtor details of the Association’s Croydon support group.
The council spokesman said, “If this man’s desperate situation had not been identified, and he had received further bailiff visits about council tax arrears and unpaid parking fines, this could have had serious consequences. It could have pushed him into a suicidal state of mind.”
Yes, would you credit it? Ministers and
spokespersons in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) say that
Universal Credit (UC) is fine and on course
for a successful delivery, albeit a bit more
slowly than originally planned. Meanwhile,
Labour says that things are so worrying
that, if elected, they will pause it for three
months, to reconsider how to take it forward.
Unison thinks that central government will
struggle to implement UC and that it should
be reconfigured to be delivered by local
authorities, like housing benefit.
Who is right? UC has definite strengths, but
also real problems, risks and uncertainties.
Every advantage seems to have its downside:
• the mismatch between the different
structures and administration of means-
tested benefits and tax credits has always
caused problems, so bringing them together
makes sense. But the information and
communications technology will need to work
well if delays, backlogs and error are to be
avoided – and confidence does not seem to
be high much beyond DWP Ministers’ desks
• the interaction of tapers, income tax and
National Insurance contributions to eliminate
most of a low paid worker’s pay increase
has been much criticised in the past, and
a single taper will help to address this. But
at 65 per cent, the UC taper is still too high
(Iain Duncan Smith couldn’t get 55 per cent
past the Treasury). ‘Tax credit only’ cases will
have a higher overall deduction rate than
now. And there is a new complication, as the
single taper means lower ‘work allowances’ if
the UC calculation includes housing costs (a
complex tale for another time)
• speaking of work allowances (formerly
‘earnings disregards’) – they have a long
history of being allowed to decline in real
value, due to a failure to uprate them in line
with any inflation index. UC was supposed
to put that right, with much improved work
allowances moved to centre stage. However,
hardly has UC left the starting blocks, than
they have been frozen. Here we go again!
• given the uncertainties, most commentators
would prefer a slow roll-out to a big bang
that goes wrong – better late than chaos! But
it does mean that we are likely to have two
different systems running side-by-side for
some considerable time, unless unexpectedly
brisk progress is made sometime soon
• the Unison proposal also has its snakes and
ladders. Local authority administration would
bring assessments nearer to home for the
claimant and closer to local knowledge of
housing and labour markets. But they could
open a future door to fully local cash-limited
systems (like localised council tax support)
with potentially serious implications for
poverty and homelessness.
So what is Labour proposing?
The Labour ‘pause’In September last year, Labour set up an
independent Universal Credit Rescue Committee, ‘to look at how to rescue the
delivery, and improve the design, of the new
Universal Credit system’. The Committee was
chaired by Kieran Quinn, Leader of Tameside
Council, while other members included
representatives of trade unions, academia
and the information technology industry. It
reported recently and Labour has endorsed
the leading recommendations:
“...that an incoming Labour government
undertakes a full review of the Universal Credit
project, including assessing frankly which parts
of the project can be rescued, and an analysis
of the Business Case for the project.
They should publish the Business Plan
that results, and should report quarterly to
Parliament on progress against this plan.
They should invite the National Audit Office to
examine the Business Plan and each quarterly
report, and report to Parliament publicly
on these.”
The report criticises ‘a culture of secrecy’ and
‘good news reporting’ within the DWP that has
‘hampered effective scrutiny’.
While cautiously declaring that ‘we are
clear that any changes must be funded from
within the existing Universal Credit budget’,
the Committee recommends also that
such a review should look at issues around
second earners, payment of the children’s
element to the main carer, timing of pay
day, income reporting for self-employed
claimants, short-hours working, ‘passported’
benefits such as free school meals and health
charge exemptions, the local authority role
in supporting claimants, and the omission of
council tax support from UC.
There is particular concern over the
information and communications technology aspects of delivery.
What do you think?Your authority may be one of the early roll-out
councils or you may not yet have any cases, but
I’m betting you will have views. What do you
think? Is Labour right to propose a pause? Or is
the government right to predict that all will be
well if the programme is taken steadily forward?
Either way, has the Rescue Committee
flagged up the right issues for further
consideration? And do you agree with Unison
that it would be better for the national UC
scheme to be delivered by local authorities?
What are the advantages? What are the risks?
Do feel free to drop me a line on
[email protected] – whether
you want your name withheld or shouted from
the rooftops (that’s up to you!) we would very
much like to know how it looks from where
you are.
Geoff Fimister is a writer and consultant on
anti-poverty, housing and benefit issues
Geoff Fimister launches a new regular column, tracking the latest welfare reform developments. This month, he looks at the opposition’s approach, and wonders whether Universal Credit is going into Labour!
Credit notes
Would you credit it?
24
INSI
GH
T w
ww
.irrv
.net
INSI
GH
T SE
PTEM
BER
201
4
25
As readers will be aware, the introduction
of the Public Services Network (PSN)
changes the way your authority connects
to Department for Work and Pensions
(DWP) services.
Migration – work on the t ransi t ion
to PSN is almost complete. There are
only four author i t ies lef t to migrate over
to the new network . These si tes were
delayed due to the Individual Electoral Registration (IER) programme which
resul ted in necessar y ‘freeze ’ per iods
af fec t ing migrat ion scheduling. They are
expec ted to be completed in the nex t
few weeks.
Compliance – at tention is now on
the handling of the current 2014/15
compliance round.
What is DWP doing?Engagement and support – we are engaging
with Government Digital Services (GDS),
in the Cabinet Office, who now lead on PSN
in Business as Usual. We are working closely
to establish what DWP needs, to have ongoing
assurance on local authority (LA) compliance,
how this is best achieved, and where this LA
assurance function will sit within DWP. We also
continue to be involved in the work to establish
the service management support for PSN.
We are also liaising with Local Government Association colleagues to
feed into their work supporting the overall
compliance process, including the governance
and communications arrangements to enable
more collaborative working. The aim here
is a more co-ordinated way of dealing with
“We are working closely to establish what DWP needs, to have ongoing assurance on local authority (LA) compliance, how this is best achieved, and where this LA assurance function will sit within DWP.”
Welfare reform
Insight is pleased to welcome back the DWP team, who this issue provide an update on the Public Services Network (PSN)
common issues raised by councils.
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)DWP recently sought approval of the
Practitioners’ Operations Group members
to extend the duration of the current MoU
between the DWP and LAs for handling and
protection of DWP customer data. Revision
activity is currently underway, but to ensure
that the MoU does not duplicate or conflict
with compliance activity being undertaken by
GDS colleagues, we are working closely with
the GDS IA Specialist Team.
Where to go for more informationGeneral advice and support is available by
visiting the PSN webpage at https://www.gov.uk/public-services-network.
Northern Counties North Wales and North West Yorkshire and Humberside West Midlands East MidlandsEast AngliaNorth Thames Southern CountiesSouth Wales and South West Western Counties
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
IRRV Forum Service 2014
T: 01902 750889
W: www.irrv.org.uk/forums
The IRRV Forum Service has been providing a platform for discussion on revenues and benefits issues at both a national and local level since 1952. It is aimed at those involved in (or with an interest in) Business Rates, Council Tax, Sundry Debts and Welfare Benefits. Forum membership is on a corporate rather than individual basis and is open to all public bodies, local authorities and private companies, irrespective of membership / involvement in other Institute activities. The IRRV Forum Service enables members to network with hundreds of practitioners working within the above areas of the profession. At a time when budgets are being cut, one cannot afford not to be an IRRV Forum Service member.
Fees:
Local Authorities and not for Profit Organisations. . . . . . . . . £1050 pa
Other Organisations – includes membership of more than one region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Price on application
Additional places at meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £115*
*Special Offer:
3 for 2 on all additional places at meetings
Connecting professionals since 1952
26
INSI
GH
T w
ww
.irrv
.net
Legal view
ticking away under the liability order system
arising from human rights principles, such as
proportionality and certainty in enforcement,
and the prospects for any long term survival of
council tax in its current form in England are
no longer secure.
Turning to other parts of the United
Kingdom, whatever Scotland decides in
respect of its own independence, there is
one notable human rights issue to be faced
arising from the Scottish system of council tax
enforcement. This arises not from council tax
law, but from a feature of its own separate
legal system – for in retaining its own legal
system since 1707, Scotland has practised a
recovery system which in comparison with
English law looks thoroughly medieval!
It is not the delightful quaintness which
strikes one about some of the titles of officers
in the Scottish system, such as deploying
‘Messengers-at-Arms’, which looks set to
offend human rights principles. Rather it
is the Scottish procedures for obtaining a
summary warrant, the equivalent of the
liability order. In England and Wales, for
generations local authorities have applied
to magistrates’ courts for orders – warrants
of distress under the rates until 1990 – and
thereafter for all-purpose liability orders for
poll tax and council tax. Under Regulation 34
of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 applying in
England and Wales, the debtor is summonsed
to court ‘to show why he has not paid’, and is
afforded the opportunity of a hearing. Such an
opportunity has been inherent in English law
for generations, as part of natural justice.
However, as described in the latest council
tax guidebooks, under Scottish procedures for
summary warrant, there is no requirement for
the debtor to be heard or even be informed.
Scottish councils are within their rights to
simply go the Sheriff Court – the equivalent
of the magistrates’ court – and apply for
summary warrants, obtained by providing a
Human rights issuesare cropping up all over the United Kingdom
In 2015, the 800th anniversary of the signing
of Magna Carta will be commemorated as
a historic and significant legal anniversary,
celebrated as the occasion when major English
freedoms were enshrined, and significant
reforms introduced against the imposition of
summary and burdensome taxation.
2015 also looks set to be an election
year, though reform of local taxation does
not yet appear to be a likely issue. Indeed
currently, those concerned with the protection
of legal rights and property look less to Magna
Carta or to politicians, and more often to
human rights law. And when it comes to
the reform of local taxation in England, the
process seems to operate on a historic cycle
all of its own, with significant change occurring
about every 20 years – 1925, 1948, 1967 and
1988-92 – regardless of the electoral cycle.
The last big shake-up occurred in 1992,
with the introduction of council tax. The
prospect of major reform is slowly but
surely dawning again, regardless of a lack of
political interest or awareness. Council tax
bandings based upon increasingly antiquated
1991 values are becoming harder to justify,
whilst local authority finances struggle with
the inevitable increases of default arising
from the abolition of council tax benefit. Add various theoretical legal time bombs
certificate with certain prescribed matters
to the Sheriff. There is no summons and no
corresponding opportunity to be heard. The
result is the issue of a summary warrant or
decree without a hearing with the debtor
present. The summary warrant or decree
enables the authority to pursue the debtor for
up to 20 years with various recovery methods.
Thus, in a summary warrant application, the
debtor is without an opportunity to present
evidence that may show the rules on billing
have not been followed, that the sum has
been paid, or make any application to
postpone proceedings where an appeal may
lie to a valuation committee (the equivalent
to the Valuation Tribunal).
In recent years, Consumer Focus for Scotland and other bodies have obtained
legal opinions that consider such a summary
warrant procedure may be in breach of human
rights law and open to challenges under
the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 6 of
the European Convention on Human Rights
guarantees a fair and impartial tribunal and
the right to be represented in courts and
tribunals in the determination of civil rights
and obligations. Those who remember the
disappearance of the old local authority
housing benefit review boards and their
replacement with lower tier social security
tribunals (since further reformed under
the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act
2007) may know this was as a consequence
of human rights considerations. In denying
the debtor a right to be heard, the Scottish
procedure appears to be an infringement not
of natural justice – or at least the English law
concept which does not apply north of the
Border – but of human rights.
Now the Scottish Government is aware
of this problem. The issue was raised in the
Enforcement of Local Taxes (Scotland) Bill 2010 presented by John Wilson MP,
but this legislation failed to be passed by
the Scottish Parliament. Thus, the process
‘ However, as described in the latest council tax guidebooks, under Scottish procedures for summary warrant, there is no requirement for the debtor to be heard or even be informed.’
... says Alan Murdie
INSI
GH
T SE
PTEM
BER
201
4
27
in Scotland remains flawed and open to
challenge – and authorities could be faced
with claims for the recovery of unjustly
obtained sums relating to past applications.
Much will depend upon if and when the
European Court ever considers the matter,
should our own domestic courts be prevented
from doing so in the event of a pro-
independence vote.
More generally, throughout England, Wales
and Scotland, possible challenges under
European law may also arise from the ever
increasing complexity of the regulations.
Rights have to be clear to be capable of being
enforced, and the labyrinthine system that
operates in council tax may now be beginning
to fail in respect of this requirement.
Other legal changes have seen the
disappearance of the terms ‘husband ’
and ‘wife’ from local taxation law, with
the exception of those in polygamous
marriages, which is also a cause of
contention. The removal of the terms
‘husband’ and ‘wife’ arises with the
passing of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, and the issue of
the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2014 SI 107. Ef fectively, following the
enshrining of gay marriage in the law, the
concepts of ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ become
largely redundant for statutory purposes.
For instance, the Council Tax Reduction
Schemes and Prescribed Requirements
(Wales) Regulations 2013 for Wales
remove distinctions of gender between
men and women, whether married or
living together as husband and wife, and
substitute a new definition of a couple
( ‘cwpl’) in Wales to cover:
(a) two people who are either married to,
or civil partners of, each other and who are
members of the same household; and
(b) two people who are living together as if
they are a married couple.
Whereas in the past it was clear what
‘husband’ and ‘wife’ meant, and who those
parties would be based on gender, now,
whenever a welfare authority or billing
authority has to determine in (b) what
‘living together as married’ means, it does
so without any reference to gender. How
this works is anyone’s guess! For example,
simply sharing a bed together may not be
the equivalent of living together as a married
couple – and of course there are married
couples who have single beds. This vagueness
in the law has the capacity to generate
infinite argument as regards domestic
arrangements, whenever people of the same
sex living together are involved.
The only situation in which the terms
‘husband’ and ‘wife’ survive as functioning
concepts are in situations involving persons
in polygamous marriages. Regulation with
5(1) provide:
(a) a person is a husband or wife by virtue
of a marriage entered into under a law
which permits polygamy; and
(b) either party to the marriage has for the
time being any spouse additional to the
other party.
These provisions as yet do not extend
and encompass any persons in same
sex relationships.
On the subject of polygamy, Welsh Ministers
have created, for the second year running,
provisions for reductions for polygamously
married pensioners aged over 60, despite the
fact that not a single application for such a
reduction was made anywhere in the whole
of Wales during 2013. This was revealed in a
series of Freedom of Information Act requests
made to all 22 Welsh authorities granting
council tax reductions up to January 20th
2014, all confirming no polygamously married
pensioners had applied for a special reduction.
No-one had hitherto identified Wales as
a centre of geriatric polygamy, and the nil Alan Murdie is a Barrister
results from all local authorities indicates that
on this latter issue the Welsh Assembly has
been busy employing civil servants and lawyers
to create legislation actually affecting no-one.
This merited a brief mention in a throwaway
line by John Humphreys on Radio 4’s Today
programme in March 2014, but has otherwise
gone unnoticed (save for being confirmed by
the Secretary of State).
Certainly, these issues are livening up
discussions of council tax amongst legal
advisers in Wales. When speaking at a meeting
of advisers in Cardiff recently, attended by
a member of the Welsh Law Commission, I
learned that local perceptions were that the
changes were being driven principally by
political and ideological agendas, rather than
seeking to establish coherent and workable
local taxation systems. Advisers were also
considering potential use of the Human Rights
Act 1998 and the doctrine of proportionality
to challenge such enforcement methods as
bankrupting debtors over council tax.
Of course, all had heard various claims
by Conservative politicians that scrapping
the Human Rights Act 1998 might be a
manifesto commitment for the 2015 general
election. If so, significant reaction may be
anticipated not in Wales, but in a dif ferent
part of the UK, one where local taxation has
gone relatively unchanged for the past 25
years. This is in Northern Ireland, where the
old rating system remains.
Any removal of the Human Rights Act will
certainly be a live issue in Northern Ireland,
since its enactment in UK law is a term of the
Good Friday Agreement, which provided the
basis for peace in Ulster. Thus, to set about
unilaterally reneging on a key part of that
treaty seems an extremely risky step for any
UK Government to be contemplating!
IRRV Annual Conference and Exhibition 2013Telford International Centre, 2nd-4th October 2013
BOOK NOW – www.irrv.net
IRRV Annual Conference and Exhibition 2014
Telford International Centre,
7th – 9th October 2014
BOOK NOW AT
www.irrv.net
28
INSI
GH
T w
ww
.irrv
.net
IRRV Training Days 2014
T: 020 7691 8987
W: www.irrv.net/trainingdays
• Introduction to Business Rates Trainer:JanetAlexander 16September,IRRVOfficesLondon
• Introduction to Council Tax Trainer:JanetAlexander 17September,IRRVOfficesLondon
• Improving Your Website and Customer Access Channels Trainer:SimonBailey 18September,IRRVOfficesLondon
• Business Rates Master Class Trainer:JanetAlexander 13–14October,IRRVOfficesLondon
• Council Tax Master Class Trainer:JanetAlexander 20–21October,IRRVOfficesLondon
Wealsodeliverabespokeinhousetrainingservice.Thetrainingistailoredspecificallytotheclient’srequirementsandheldonsiteatyourofficesforconvenience.
Fees:
Prices start at £115 (+ VAT) per person
IRRV London Level 3 Certificate and Diploma Qualifications
T: 020 7691 8974
W: www.irrv.net/courses
The Institute is again offering a Level 3 Certificate and Diploma course for 2014/15IRRV Level 3 Certificate
The subjects on offer for Level 3 Certificate will be as follows:
• Council Tax Law• Non-Domestic Rate Law• Revenues & Local Taxation
Administration with Fraud• Welfare Benefits
Tutors: Gary Watson, Louise Freeth, Richard Pain
Fee: £1195.00 + VAT
IRRV Diploma
The subjects on offer for Diploma will be as follows:
Compulsory:
• Centrally Set Assignment• Elective Assignment• Management 1 & 2• Management Case Study• Revenues Administration &
Public Sector Finance
Optional (One of the following two subjects):
• Law of Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rate
• Welfare Benefits
Tutors: Sean Langley, Allan Traynor, Janet Alexander
Fee: £1410.00 + VAT
Special Offer:
3 for 2 on multiple enrolments* * This offer is valid on multiple bookings with a minimum of 3 candidates.
INSI
GH
T SE
PTEM
BER
201
4
29
Professor Cleverley
the discrepancy in the bandings of the two
properties. You could see if that information
is available in your own records, or you could
check with the valuation office. It could be
that the smaller property is correctly banded
and that there may be an issue over the other
property - for example, perhaps it is larger due
to the property having been extended, and no
banding increase has been applied because
there has been no change of owner since the
extension took place. If so, a report may have
been made, and the valuation office may be
holding a note to re-band the property when
there is a relevant transaction.
An increasing number of properties are
under-banded for this reason, leaving council
tax open to the criticism that the system
works to the advantage of the person who
makes their existing home larger, and to the
disadvantage of the person who cannot do that,
but who has to move to a larger house if they
need more space. Turning again to your case, it
is just possible that there has been an error in
the banding of the neighbouring house, and an
enquiry to the valuation office would be helpful
in ruling this out. If you are able to gather more
information, you may be able to placate your
taxpayer with a more complete explanation and
possibly avoid an unnecessary appeal.
Regards, Professor C
Dear Professor Cleverley,I work in the council tax office of a local
authority. We received an enquiry from a
resident who had recently moved into the
area, and on getting his council tax bill was
checking the valuation band. His property
is in Band D, and when he compared that
with his neighbour’s house he found that
the house next door was also in Band D,
despite being a much larger property. His
is a three bedroomed detached house with
one living/dining room. The other house has
five bedrooms, a separate dining room, and
a study. We replied explaining that valuation
for council tax is dealt with by the Valuation
Office Agency, telling him that as he has just
moved in he does have a right of appeal
against the banding. One of my staff says that
this property was subject to an appeal several
years ago, and the banding was confirmed as
correct. Should we have told the resident that
his appeal was unlikely to succeed?
Sincerely,
Ms Sally Forth
Dear Ms Forth, It isn’t always the best approach to a valuation
banding enquiry just to refer the taxpayer to
the Valuation Office Agency. The rights of
appeal should be explained, and it was proper
for your reply to do that, but best practice
would also mean considering why there is
Professor Cleverley is a pseudonym. He is a qualified member of the IRRV with over 40 years’ experience of revenues in administration and teaching. The problems published have all been submitted by members of the profession, albeit the names have been ‘anonymised’. The Professor’s replies are simply his opinion and should be treated as such. Questions are invited, but it is only possible to answer those that are selected for publication. Insight regrets that it is unable to enter into private correspondence.
The learned Professor returns, and this time he offers timely advice on council tax bands and monthly instalments
people will prefer this to the slightly smaller
payment each month which is provided by 12
instalments, but there will be others who will
take the opposite view. What Parliament did
with the amendment to the instalment scheme
from 2013/14 by way of the Council Tax
(Administration and Enforcement (Amendment)
(No.2) (England) Regulations 2012 was to give
taxpayers a choice. It did not seek to impose
either 10 instalments or 12 instalments, but
allows people to choose, as long as they do so
by giving notice to the council.
There is no provision in the regulations that
allows billing authorities to force 12 instalments
on taxpayers so that 10 instalments must apply
where notice opting for 12 instalments has not
been given. Your Council Leader could be told
that more publicity could by given to ensure
that residents are aware of the choice, but the
law does not allow her personal preference to
be imposed.
On the matter of discount for direct debiting,
this essentially requires a cash flow calculation
Dear Professor Cleverley,Our Council Leader has been impressed by
views expressed by the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government, Eric
Pickles, about 12 monthly instalments making
it easier to pay council tax. She would like our
council to give 12 monthly instalments to all
taxpayers as a matter of course. She has also
said that ministers have urged local councils to
act like the utility companies and give residents
a discount for paying by direct debit. I am
aware that discount is an option, but would it
be legal to give 12 instalments to all taxpayers?
Sincerely,
Barry Cade
Dear Mr Cade, Whilst 12 monthly instalments might
superficially seem to be advantageous to
taxpayers, there is an alternative view that
10 instalments give a ‘breathing space’ of
two months with no council tax to pay. Some
and an estimate of any potential administration
savings, to see whether it would be beneficial.
The discount cannot be given only to people
who change to direct debiting, but must be
given to all those who are already paying by
that method. For many authorities, giving a
discount to people who are already using the
payment method will represent a cost that can
only be met by further reductions in services,
or by increasing the council tax payable. The
cost of the discount cannot be shared with
the precepting authorities, and must be borne
entirely by the billing authority. Whether a
discount scheme would benefit any particular
council depends largely on what level of direct
debit payment has already been achieved by
other ways of promoting the payment method.
Regards, The Prof
30
INSI
GH
T w
ww
.irrv
.net
Technology
whilst making statements on issues that affect
our profession such as the implementation of
Universal Credit, business rate retention and
council tax collection levels.”
Twitter allows individuals and organisations
to select who to ‘follow’ and share messages
of up to 140 characters with all of them
at once. Rather than serve as a one-way,
reaction-based ‘broadcast’, it enables quick
interaction with limitless, wide-ranging people.
It also provides a way to easily monitor what
others say.
“We have, in the past, been seen as very
reactive rather than proactive. Tweeting is a
way of making our views heard whilst sharing
these views with whoever may want to
listen”, continues Gary Watson. “By following
others, we are picking up on issues we may
have otherwise missed or would have not
been brought to our attention straight away.
Members and practitioners can also have their
say on the Institute”, he says.
‘Live tweeting’ is an efficient way to share
ideas and information during events, with
attendee tweeters using a single phrase
or keyword preceded by the symbol ‘#’ to
demarcate messages relating to the event.
These hashtags also allow those who are not
in attendance to get involved in conversations.
At the most recent IRRV Annual Conference,
for example, tweets about the event were
projected on to a large screen in the main
auditorium. “It was used by delegates
throughout the conference to interact with
the IRRV. It was evident that social media
was working successfully for the IRRV and its
members”, Gary Watson tells Insight. “It was
very effective, and provided visual evidence
of members, delegates and speakers from
the conference engaging with the IRRV”.
Ahead of the conference, social media was
also used to promote the event, and during
conference week the number of followers
rose significantly.
In publicity around the release of its guide
Around the time of its inauguration in
1882, staying in touch with members of the
Metropolitan Rate Collectors Association was
simple. If you had to convey a message to
members, you would call a meeting.
Fast forward to 2014, and the Institute of
Revenues Rating and Valuation (IRRV), as it is
now called, has an almost overwhelming array
of communication media at its disposal such
as Linkedin, Flickr, YouTube, Pinterest and
Storify. And that is in addition to the mix of
email, phone and face-to-face contact. But the
point is, so does everyone.
Is it necessary to have so many forms
of communication? What works? And
importantly, is social media effective for you,
the employees of local authorities and, by
extension, for membership organisations such
as the IRRV?
The Institute recently began using social
media more seriously as part of a drive to
modernise the way it communicates, and
launched Twitter accounts for both the Chief Executive (@DavidLMagor) and Deputy Chief Executive (@GaryLWatson27)
alongside the existing general IRRV account
@the_irrv.
“Twitter gives us instant access to the
Institute membership as well as practitioners
working within our field,” says Deputy
Chief Executive Gary Watson. “This helps
getting a message out. We are focussing on
professional matters; trying to get a balance
between publicising our products and services
to social media for councils, The Society
of IT Management (Socitm) wrote, “failure
to engage with the [social media] trend is
tantamount to decrying the telephone at
the end of the 19th century”. “It’s a good
engagement tool”, says the Society’s Head
of Marketing Guy Barnett, speaking about the
organisation’s LinkedIn Group, which allows
anyone to freely access, write and respond to
updates and content. “I’m constantly approving
new members to the group but you do need
time to engage people in a discussion”.
Linda Cavender of the private sector
Trade Association Forum concurs – “The
biggest challenge with social media is the
time and resource needed to do it well. Very
few organisations have the staffing to have
someone on social media activities full time.”
Socitm also uses Storify for its events, a
tool which gathers all hashtagged tweets
and compiles them chronologically to create
a storyline, ideally suited to meetings and
conferences. Guy Barnett says this is “good
for assessing engagement”, and serves as a
kind of analytical device, providing data on
which links were clicked on the most, who
were the most vocal members and what the
key issues are.
Social media has other advantages too. “It is
very good at increasing traffic to the website –
80% of traffic from social media comes from
Twitter (@Socitm)”, concludes Guy Barnett.
The next steps, he says, are to develop the
organisation’s presence on social network
Google+ and to evaluate how many social
media followers and members are members
of Socitm in the offline world.
Among local government organisations,
social media use varies. The #litter2twitter report from professional services company
BDO last year found that 97% of UK councils
used it for external communications, based
on responses from 67 local authorities. Some
64% were using social media for customer
service, up from 45% in 2012.
“ Rather than serve as a one-way, reaction-based ‘broadcast’, it enables quick interaction with limitless, wide-ranging people. It also provides a way to easily monitor what others say.”
...declares Mel Poluck!
Social mediais here to stay
INSI
GH
T SE
PTEM
BER
201
4
31
There is an obvious place for social
media to help to drive down face-to-
face and phone contact from the public
in line with the self service agenda.
Some 35% of respondents to the
research said social media was leading
to a decline in calls. Take the Driver
and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA).
It uses its Twitter account, with more
than 10,000 followers, to respond to
customer enquiries and reduce calls.
Their aim is to resolve queries in a
single contact. DVLA contact centre
staff received training and during a
two week pilot practiced using Twitter’s direct
message function to tackle complex issues.
To develop the service, the agency followed
Government Digital Service’s freely available
social media Playbook. The guide is
intended for UK government as a whole, and
includes tips such as dealing with detractors
and building an editorial calendar to ensure
messages tie in with events in the wider world.
During emergencies such as severe
weather, flooding or school closures, the
ability of social media to reach large, targeted
groups in one hit makes it a powerful local
government weapon. The Local Government
Association last year predicted that 91% of
councils will be using Twitter to keep residents
updated on winter weather warnings like
gritting activity and road disruptions.
In its ‘Using social media in emergencies’
document, The Defence Science and
Technology Laboratory, an executive agency of
the Ministry of Defence, wrote that benefits
of social media for government include
increased access to audiences, increased
speed of public feedback, and the ability to
reach specific audiences on specific issues.
For local authorities, maintaining social
media accounts is usually the responsibility
of one or two members of staff, according
to an agreed organisational social media
policy. Guidelines often refer to responding to
residents’ complaints and use of appropriate
language and in the case of Monmouthshire
County Council, the caveat, ‘do not use social
media for council business unless you have
received appropriate training’.
Monmouthshire took the unusual step of
opening up social media access to all staff. To
reflect this inclusive stance, one page on the
council’s website provides a long list of the
council’s Twitter feeds, including those of the
Chief Executive, local museums and the local
youth apprenticeship scheme.
According to its website, Monmouthshire
took the step ‘to improve the way [staff] work
– social media can empower residents who
need to find out information about services
but it can open a new world of contacts and
knowledge to council staff and councillors too’.
The non-customer-facing entities that have
replaced Jobcentre Plus offices – benefits
centres – are also using Twitter to provide
information and guidance for claimants.
Watford benefits centre for example, tweets,
‘We will never contact you by email to
ask for bank details, passwords, or other
personal information. #phishing #scamaware
#keepsecure’. Other messages alert claimants
to alternative transaction channels – ‘Save
time do it online, making a new or repeat
claim to #JSA online is quicker’.
Mel Poluck is a freelance journalist
and copywriter. Contact her on
[email protected]. You can
also follow Mel on Twitter: @melpoluck or
connect with her on LinkedIn
“ For local authorities, maintaining social media accounts is usually the responsibility of one or two members of staff, according to an agreed organisational social media policy.”
Increasingly members, service users, revenues
and benefits professionals – all of us – are
becoming used to being able to interact rapidly
and personally with individuals, institutions
and public sector bodies alike. Once, only one
way communication was possible – and in
the case of public sector organisations, it was
usually on their terms.
Now, on our laptops, on our smartphones,
we have at our disposal, this most ‘social’
of media... and it is free! All you need is an
internet connection. We can communicate,
engage and collaborate with the most
influential of people at any time of day. The
model has changed.
Tell us what you think – you know how!
32
INSI
GH
T w
ww
.irrv
.net
Doherty’s despatch
property types by an estimated average
of £6.84 per week. This was comprised
of average contractual rent reductions of
£0.79 per week, and reduced LHA relative
to contractual rent of £6.06 per week.
This implies that, in aggregate, 89% of the
incidence of reduced LHA entitlements was
on tenants, and 11% on landlords. However,
this masks substantial variation across some
claimant groups (see below)
• the reforms reduced the probability that
claimants move house by an estimated 0.3%
per month, on average, when transitional
protection began (protection which would be
forfeited with a house move); but increased
the probability that claimants move house by
an estimated 0.5% per month, on average,
11 months after being rolled onto the
reformed system
• there is some evidence that the reforms
have reduced the number of bedrooms that
claimants choose to rent, on average. The IFS
did not find significant effects of the reforms
on the types of locality in which claimants
choose to live, as measured by an indicator
of local deprivation levels
• the reforms’ impacts in reducing LHA
entitlements in given types of property
were unsurprisingly higher for demographic
and geographic groups who had higher
entitlements to start with. These include
claimants in London (average reduction
of £13.39 per week) and lone parent
claimants (£8.43 per week). The reduction
in entitlements in London was also relatively
large in proportionate terms, at 6.6% of
January 2011 entitlements, as opposed to
5.4% for all claimants
• there is evidence that the reforms led
to relatively substantial, and statistically
significant, reductions in rental values in the
suburbs of London and in the East Midlands.
In both of those areas – and in contrast
to other parts of GB – the majority of the
estimated incidence of LHA reductions fell on
Complaints, council tax and the effect of yet more cuts
Econometric analysis of the impacts ofLocal Housing Allowance reforms onexisting claimantsIn a recent report, ‘The Econometric analysis
of the impacts of Local Housing Allowance
reforms on existing claimants’, the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) stated that housing
benefit cuts have had little impact on the level
of rents, and tenants have borne the brunt
of the reductions in benefit. Through their
analysis, the IFS identified the following:
• the Local Housing Allowance (LHA)
measures examined in the report were rolled
out to existing claimants between April 2011
and December 2012. The dates at which
particular claimants were affected by the
reforms were linked to their annual claim
reassessment dates. Otherwise, identical
individuals observed at the same time in the
same area could, therefore, face different
LHA systems. The analysis in the report
exploits this feature of the roll out, in order
to estimate the causal impacts of the reforms
on existing claimants for up to eleven
months after being rolled onto the reformed
system, using administrative data on housing
benefit claimants in Great Britain.
• eleven months after being rolled out,
the LHA reforms had reduced existing
claimants’ maximum entitlements in given
landlords rather than tenants. IFS estimates
also suggest that a small minority (six per
cent) of claimants living as a couple without
dependent children saw a fall in their average
contractual rent level due to the reform,
which was sufficient to offset their reduction
in LHA entitlement almost entirely (i.e.
almost all of the incidence seems to be on
their landlords). There is no clear pattern as
to how the estimated incidence of the LHA
reductions varies with the density of LHA
claimants in local private rental markets
• other claimant groups who saw relatively
large reductions in LHA include those
particularly likely to be affected by
the increased scope of the Shared
Accommodation Rate (SAR), the national
LHA caps (binding in parts of inner London),
and the abolition of the five room rate. There
is evidence that the property choices of each
of these groups were affected. Claimants
likely to be affected by the SAR change –
most single childless individuals aged 25
to 34 who were not previously in shared
accommodation – were, due to the reform
package, an estimated 12.9% more likely
to be in shared accommodation 11 months
after the point of impact – those likely to
be affected by the national caps were more
likely to move out of the capped areas of
Inner London. There is some evidence that
those likely to be affected by the abolition of
the five room rate were more likely to move
to cheaper properties with fewer bedrooms,
reducing the average fall in their income
after housing costs from £17.52 to £12.56
per week
• for groups particularly likely to be affected by
the SAR change and the abolition of the five
room rate, the reforms reduced rental values
by a statistically significant amount (£4.80
and £11.69 per week respectively). As a
result, more than one third of the incidence
of the LHA reductions in given properties for
these groups fell on their landlords.
“From this report it would appear that tenants do not necessarily take the full impact of a cut to housing benefit - their landlords might end up sharing some of the pain via reduced rents.”
...are the latest concernsfor Pat Doherty
INSI
GH
T SE
PTEM
BER
201
4
33
From this report it would appear that tenants
do not necessarily take the full impact of a
cut to housing benefit – their landlords might
end up sharing some of the pain via reduced
rents. Nearly a year after entitlements were
reduced, though, it seems that about 90% of
that reduction, on average, was felt by tenants.
Also, the report does not capture the long
term impact of the changes, as LHA continues
to change and new schemes evolve.
Complaints about councils’ tax and benefits services up 26%According to the Local Government Ombudsman’s (LGO) annual report for
2013/14, there were 18,436 new complaints
and enquiries specifically about local
authorities, down from 18,940 in 2012/13.
However, the proportion of complaints
about benefits and council tax increased by
26%, as local authorities introduced council
tax support schemes following localisation and
a 10% funding cut.
These were also areas where the LGO
was more likely to uphold complaints after
detailed investigations, the ‘Review of Local
Government Complaints 2013/14’ stated.
Around half of the complaints about both
benefits (49%) and adult social care (48%)
were upheld.
It is not surprising that issues around council
tax and benefits were areas of concern for
complainants, as this is where there has been
increasing pressure on local authority budgets.
When the government passed responsibility
for administering council tax support, it cut the
funding for it, and this left councils facing an
impossible dilemma of having to seek more
income from council tax, or making bigger cuts
to local services.
Further call for a revaluation of council tax valuesThe British Property Federation (BPF)
has called on all political parties to undertake
a revaluation of council tax properties.
Interestingly this follows on from the European
Commission also urging the government to
reform council tax to remove ‘distortions’
caused by basing the system on property
values that are more than two decades old.
The BPF believes that government
failures to revalue properties for 23 years
have brought the council tax system ‘into
disrepute’, with valuations from 1991 – when
the tax was established – still being used to
allocate homes to charging bands. They range
from Band A for properties worth less than
£40,000 to Band H, for those valued at more
than £320,000.
The BPF, which represent the commercial
property industry, said a revaluation should be
in all parties’ manifestos, and that politicians
need not fear the wrath of voters who saw
their council tax bills increase following a
revaluation, it stated, as research from the
Joseph Rowntree Foundation showed 70% of
taxpayers would see only a negligible change.
According to the Foundation’s research,
there would be, for example, 17.3% net
gainers in the north, compared to 22.9% net
losers in the south. The steepest property
price rises were in London, but even there
about half of bills would be largely unaffected.
The BPF made the following observations:
• earmarking any increased tax revenue from
Pat Doherty FIRRV CPFA is an independent
consultant and a Past President of the
Institute. If you wish to comment on anything
in this article, please email him at pkd@
pkdconsultancy.co.uk
“It is not surprising that issues around council tax and benefits were areas of concern for complainants, as this is where there has been increasing pressure on local authority budgets.”
a revaluation and making it available for
affordable housing in or near the area where
it was raised would help make revaluation
more publicly acceptable
• the BPF also backed the creation of ‘one
or two’ bands higher than Band H, as an
alternative to the ‘mansion’ tax on homes
valued in excess of £2m, proposed by Labour
and the Liberal Democrats
• politicians, through their continual
postponement of a council tax revaluation,
are bringing the credibility of council tax
into disrepute
• if a tax is to be based on property values,
then there has to be a revaluation more
than every 23 years
• technical advances since 1991 meant a
revaluation need not be expensive or viewed
as an ‘insurmountable administrative obstacle’.
IRRV national Council
election Your vote counts!
Go towww.irrv.net
Allen Graham is Chief Executive
with Rushcliffe Borough Council34
INSI
GH
T w
ww
.irrv
.net
Viewpoint
of implementing a good design. I found this
an extremely interesting exercise, and was
struck by the fact that one of the key elements
of good design is the ability to admit mistakes, learn from prototypes, pilots and
feedback . This was emphasised by the fact
that James Dyson produced in excess of 900
prototypes before getting it right with his now
famous vacuum cleaner. Maybe therefore,
whilst it is extremely understandable to
criticise and voice our frustrations, we as
a profession should remain prepared to
acknowledge and encourage the DWP to
continually review the design process, make changes, and even sometimes admit a new version will be required.
I was really pleased and encouraged to read
the contribution from Pete Challis in the July
edition of Insight, which positively promoted
how local government could be the central
delivery partner for UC in the future. I believe
such positivity is essential in ensuring we as
a sector remain in the best placed position to
ensure our citizens and the most vulnerable
gain consistent access to much needed
support within a range of circumstances. The
approach and argument highlighted within the
article was in my view exactly what the Local Support Services Framework document (DWP February 2013) was designed to
reinforce and promote.
“ It’s one small step...”
The phrase “it’s a marathon not a sprint” is
sometimes overused. Some might believe
it is entirely appropriate in respect of
the development and implementation of
Universal Credit (UC), which is currently
plodding along at a slow pace, making many
water stops to take stock, then continuing to
plod on again hoping to make it, but not being
quite sure whether it will survive the distance.
To me, however, I would liken the programme
more to the race to land on the moon,
which I witnessed as a child (scary to think
that was more than 45 years ago!).
Whilst most may be clear on the mission,
sometimes it still feels like a dream and an
impossible aspiration. However, slowly but
surely we are beginning to witness small incremental progressions, which suggests
it just might eventually become a reality.
Such immense visions or projects often rely
upon a large cast of experts, designers and
believers to make them become a reality.
Certainly, I would suggest these professionals
are in plentiful supply in respect of the UC
programme, and just being close to the
governance structures does give you an insight
into the complexity of bringing this aspiration
to fruition. I have been fascinated that through
clear determination and a well-argued case by local government, the original
assertions presented by the Department
for Work and Pensions (DWP) have been
changed from believing they could implement
it without the involvement of local government
and also within an impossible timescale, to
embracing the talents and organisational
structures of local government in becoming a
key delivery partner, whilst accepting that the
programme must be developed slowly and in
a controlled manner.
In my work with the Local Government Association, and in particular as a member
of the Local Government Delivery Council, I recently attended a design workshop
which worked through the essential principles
It is clear that there remain considerable
challenges that will need to be overcome if
UC implementation is to become successful.
I believe that local government has a key
role to play in working across our own
service area boundaries to reduce the risk
of duplication or confusion for citizens,
and lack of data sharing opportunities. The
progression and development of a number
of key programmes by separate government
departments are often attempting to achieve
specific outcomes, but involve the same
citizen groups. In particular, the Troubled Families Programme (Department for
Communities and Local Government), Better Health Care Fund (Department of Health)
and Prevent agenda (Home Office) appear
to be focussed upon changing behaviours,
promoting intervention and providing
support services which all too often cut
across the citizens’ ability to either secure or
remain in employment.
As a local authority Chief Executive, I
sometimes wonder if these programmes are
actually competing in the race to be the
first on the moon (much like the USA and
Russia were all those years ago) rather than
collaborating to ensure we design the best
modernised system which will ensure the
citizen can access the support they need in
the most efficient, transparent and cost-effective way.
I remain convinced that local government
remains the best placed public service
organisation to deliver all these agendas, and
if encouraged and allowed to contribute to
refining and redesigning the key components,
will be able to take pride in contributing to
the aspiration of simplifying access to support
services close to our communities, whilst
assisting more people into paid employment.
“I found this an extremely interesting exercise, and was struck by the fact that one of the key elements
of good design is the ability to admit mistakes, learn from prototypes, pilots and feedback.”
...recalls Allen Graham, but could it at last be a step in the right direction for local government and Universal Credit?
T: 020 7691 8972
W: www.irrvlearning.org.uk
The IRRV’s range of IRRV Online Training programmes provide ideal learning material for practitioners in all aspects of Housing Benefit & Council Tax Benefit, Business Rates and Council Tax.
The IRRV Basics programmes are designed for new entrants or those without prior experience of the subject matter.
The IRRV Pro programmes are designed for the experienced practitioner and take a learner from a basic awareness level up to a high standard of in-depth knowledge.
They also act as an invaluable up-to-date reference and refresher tool for the experienced practitioner.
The virtual library of IRRV online training programmes includes:
• Council Tax Basics• Council Tax Pro• Business Rates Basics• Business Rates Pro• Employment and Support
Allowance• Benefits Basics• Benefits Pro
IRRV Online Training programmes help you to meet efficiency targets because:
• The programmes are up-to-date and maintained on a daily basis;
• The unlimited user licence ensures that all your staff can benefit from the programmes;
• The courses give you and your managers peace of mind knowing staff have access to extensive information at their finger tips 24 hours a day.
For a free 24 hour trial of the programmes please contact:
IRRV Distance Learning
T: 020 7691 8984
W: www.distancelearning.org.uk
Achieve Your Potential with IRRV Distance Learning Courses
IRRV Certificate Level 3
This course is designed for those who wish to gain a professional qualification and further their careers.
Streams available:
• Revenues and Welfare Benefits Stream
• Business Rates Stream• Valuation Tribunal Stream
Fee: £1260.00 + VAT
IRRV Professional Diploma
This course is designed for those who wish to progress to senior positions. The Professional Diploma leads to the highest level qualification, IRRV Honours.
Stream available:
• Revenues and Welfare Benefits Stream
Fee: £1410.00 + VAT
Special Offer:
3 for 2 on multiple enrolments* * This offer is valid on multiple bookings with a minimum of 3 candidates.
T: 020 7691 8988
Introducing this year’s finalists –
Team AwardsRevenues Team of the Year
• Chelmsford City Council
• East Devon District Council
• Edinburgh City Council
• Taunton Deane District Council
Benefits Team of the Year
• Chelmsford City Council
• East Devon District Council
• Fife Council
• LGSS on behalf of Northampton Borough Council
• Taunton Deane Borough Council
Most Improved Team of the Year
• Cornwall Council
• LGSS Norwich City Council
• Luton Borough Council
• Newham London Borough Council
• Oxford City Council
• Southwark London Borough Council
Excellence AwardsExcellence in Debt Management
• Glasgow City Council
• Liberata and North Somerset Council
• Renfrewshire Council
Excellence in Innovation (Local Authority)
• Argyll & Bute Council
• Enfield London Borough Council
• Luton Borough Council
• Taunton Deane Borough Council
Excellence in Innovation (Non Local Authority)
• Audit Commission
• Capacity Grid
• Rossendales Ltd
• Valuation Office Agency
Excellence in Partnership Working (Public / Private)
• Elevate East London
• London Revenues Group and Bacs Payment Schemes Ltd
• Rossendales Ltd and Census Partnership
Excellence in Partnership Working (Public)
• City of Edinburgh Council
• Essex Benefit Managers
• Oxford City Council
• Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council & Kingston Upon Thames London Borough Council
• West Oxfordshire District Council and Cotswold District Council
Excellence in Social Inclusion
• Cheshire West and Chester Council
• Liverpool Direct Ltd
• Melton Borough Council
• Oxford City Council
Excellence in Staff Development
• LGSS on behalf of Northampton Borough Council
• Northgate Public Services
• Oxford City Council
IRRV Performance Awards 2014
W: www.irrv.net/awards