The Journal for members of the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation
March 2002ISSN 1361-1305£5.50
• Local taxation and the EU
• Getting to knowcollection
• Errors overcommittal
Turning up the heat -the benefits phoenix rises
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 1
2 Insight March 2002
Director David Magor
Director’s Notes 2Inside News 3Case Law Corner 5From Here and There 6Around the Associations 8Viewpoint 9Education Corner 10June Exams Timetable 11Rating & Valuation / Letters 12Legal Update part 2 13International 17Benefits Conference 18Revenues Collection 20Legal Corner 22IT Roundup 23Benefits Bulletin 24IRRV Conferences & Meetings / Members 26Recruitment 27Performance Awards 28
Subscription enquiriesIRRV Publications Dept.41 Doughty StreetLondon WC1N 2LFT 020 7691 8975F 020 7831 2048E [email protected]
Design and AdvertisingTregartha Dinnie Ltd.2 Christchurch RoadTring, HertfordshireHP23 4EE
EditorialT 01992 505529F 01992 505547E [email protected]
AdvertisingT 01442 890000F 01442 891886
In this issue
The time for management
March 2002 issueISSN 1361-1305No. 4.08
Director’s Notes
Editor Kate Miller 01992 505529 Art director Sam Brierley Design Tregartha Dinnie 01442 892613 Advertising Caroline Jones 01442 890000
President Gary L Watson, IRRV.
Vice Presidents Tom M Dixon, BSc(Est. Man), FRICS, IRRV. Miss Carol A Cutler,IRRV Director David Magor, OBE, IRRV Council Mrs Kate Adams, IRRV,Simon D Bailey, IRRV. Peter S Coles, IRRV. Mrs Barbara Culverhouse, CPFA,IRRV. Mrs Suzanne C Dean, IRRV, CPFA. Pat K Doherty, IRRV, CPFA. GeoffreyFisher, FRICS (dip. Rating), IRRV. Richard J Guy, FRICS (dip. Rating), IRRV, MCIArb.Richard L Harbord, MPhil, CPFA, FCCA, IRRV, FIDP, FBIM, FRSA. Brian Hardy, LLB,
FRICS, IRRV. Simon Horsington, IRRV. Bruce G Jones FRICS, IRRV. Bill D Lovell,IRRV. Kerry Macdermott, IRRV. Roger G Messenger, BSc(Est. Man), FRICS, IRRV.
Miss Julie Miller, IRRV, Andy Milner, IRRV. Ms Jane Ratcliffe, IRRV. John CRoberts, IRRV. Eric Rose, FRICS, IRRV. Alan J Titheridge, CPFA, IRRV. Bob Trahern,IRRV. Allan Traynor, IRRV. Barry Wheeler, BA, IRRV. Nigel Woods, FRICS, IRRV.Roger W Young, IRRV.
EnquiriesDirectors Office 020 7691 8971Policy & Research 020 7691 8977Education 020 7691 8979Accounts 020 7691 8986Commercial Services 020 7691 8992
© IRRV 2002. Reproduction in whole or in part of any article is prohibited without priorwritten consent. The views expressed in this magazine do not necessarily representthe views of the Institute. Whilst all due care is taken regarding the accuracy ofinformation, no responsibility can be accepted for errors. Any advice given does notconstitute a legal opinion. Manuscripts and illustrations are welcome but on theunderstanding that the IRRV cannot be held liable for their safe custody or return.
No one would deny that management
and leadership skills should be given
a higher profile, at an increasingly
competitive time for practitioners in
all sectors.
I recently represented the Institute at
a seminar sponsored by the Council for
Excellence in Management and
Leadership (CEML) and the Property
Services National Training Organisation
(PSNTO). The event brought together the
chief executives and heads of education
from several professional bodies,
including the RICS and the Chartered
Institute of Housing. The day revealed a
broad consensus about the importance of
management and leadership training.
The need to develop management and
leadership skills has been recognised by
IRRV Council and is to form a key
part of the Institute’s education strategy.
As well as the new routes to Corporate
membership, the Education and
Membership Committee will develop
and launch a management diploma that
will enhance the range of assessment
opportunities available to members.
The intention is to enter into a partnership
with a leading university and provide a
portable qualification.
The development of management
skills was also a significant topic in
a seminar hosted by Work and Pensions
Minister Malcolm Wicks. It focused on
the need for structured housing benefit
training – one of the recommendations
of the Institute’s Committee of Inquiry
into benefits administration. The inquiry’s
recommendations continue to influence
the housing benefit agenda, as was
apparent at last month’s IRRV Benefits
Conference in Harrogate (see pg18).
The full report is now available and is
essential reading.
Local taxation proposals in the white
paper Strong Local Leadership – Quality
Public Services were the theme of a
meeting hosted by the DTLR as part of
the Institutes’ National Rating Conference.
Discussion centred on the difficulties
in devising transition schemes for both
business rates and council tax. There was
considerable concern at the requirement
for the business rate scheme to be self-
financing and to unwind by the time of
the next revaluation. The Institute will
be putting forward proposals for the
structure of the new scheme and
welcomes a debate on this issue in both
Insight and Valuer. Senior council
members will begin the debate over
the next few months – your contributions
would help the Institute formulate
its response.
Another key topic for future debate is
introduced in a new paper from the
Department of Work and Pensions (DWP)
entitled State Pension Credit – Implications
for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.
I believe this change in the law,
together with the associated proposals
on tax credits, will test the resilience of
those working in housing and council tax
benefit. More detail will appear in Benefit
magazine and on the Institute’s web site
in the next few weeks.
The implications are explained in the
following extract from the DWP paper:
“There will be a significant impact on
local authorities. From 2003, there will
be new rules to learn and apply, with
associated training and guidance, and
software changes. There will also need to
be a conversion exercise for existing
standard cases, to apply the new rules.
And because of the new, more generous
rules, we expect an increase of around
7% in people entitled to housing benefit
and council tax benefit. There may also
be a short-term increase in unsuccessful
claims when pension credit starts”.
All this and the new performance
framework – life couldn’t be simpler for
benefits practitioners! ■
This change in the law…will test the resilience ofthose working in housingand council tax benefit to the full
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 2
Welsh Assembly seeks simpler council tax billsThe Welsh Assembly is consulting on
how to improve and simplify thepresentation of council tax bills, thequality and accessibility of theinformation that accompanies the billand the use of electronic billing. Thedeadline for responses is 22 March. Thereview also aims to find a way to clarifyaccountability for the council tax.
Any regulatory amendments resultingfrom the Welsh consultation exercise willbe made in time for 2003-04. In England,amending regulations should enablechanges to the face of the council tax billto take place in time for the 2002-03billing round ■www.wales.gov.uk
Insight March 2002 3
Inside News
Inside News
Scottish LocalGovernment Billbrings local tax reforms
The Local Government Bill, scheduled to be
introduced to the Scottish Parliament in spring
2002, will give local authorities a general power to
promote and improve the well-being of their area,
provide a statutory underpinning for community
planning through a duty on councils and key
community planning partners, and introduce a
statutory duty of best value.
The Bill also includes a number of measures
affecting local taxation:
➔ Amendment of section 62(2) (and associated
sections) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 to
remove references to the district valuer as valuer.
This is to achieve better value for money and
ensure compliance with the relevant procurement
legislation;
➔ Exemption from rates of farm buildings used for
machinery rings, contract and shared farming
enterprises;
➔ Rate relief for new farm diversification enterprises;
➔ Extension of rural rates relief scheme to include
pubs, garages and petrol stations, automatic teller
machines and small food shops;
➔ A permissive power for the joint collection of rent
and council tax.
Under the small business rates relief scheme,
measures will include:
➔ Relief for any business, with a rateable value up to
and including £10,000, that occupies only one
property;
➔ Relief of 50% for properties with rateable value of
less than £3000. The percentage of relief available
will be on a sliding scale – in five bandings – for
properties with higher rateable values up to and
including £10,000;
➔ A ‘buffer zone’ for properties with rateable values
greater than £10,000 and up to and including
£25,000, which means they will pay no
supplement on the poundage rate;
➔ A supplement on the poundage rate for those
properties that are not eligible for rate relief, and
whose rateable value does not fall within the
‘buffer zone’ ■
Guidance issued on council tax implementation
Code of practice on obtaininginformationThe Social Security Fraud Act 2001
introduced powers for authorised
Department for Work and Pensions
(DWP) and local authority officers to
obtain information from listed
organisations about their customers, in
order to help combat fraud against the
benefit system. Version one of the
code of practice on obtaining
information relating to benefit fraud
was published on 28 January. It is
intended for local authority officers
authorised by the chief executive or
principal finance officer under Section
110A of the Social Security
Administration Act 1992.
The code sets out how they should
exercise their powers ■
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications
/dwp/2002/fraud_act/index.htm
Reading BC – revenues and benefit services (report issued 24 January, judged fair [one star] with promising prospects for improvement).
Oxford City Council – local taxation and credit income (24 January, poor, uncertain prospects for improvement).
Bolton MBC – local taxation service (24 January, fair, will probably improve).
www.bestvalueinspections.gov.uk
Best value inspections
The DTLR council tax information letter 1/2002 provides a question and answer
section on the need to show percentage changes on – and include best value
performance plan summaries with – council tax demand notices. It gives advice on
the treatment of payments in euros; authorities are reminded that it is entirely a
matter for each of them to decide whether or not to accept payment for council tax
in a currency other than sterling. If euros are accepted, care needs to be taken to
ensure that the fluctuating pound/euro exchange rate does not result in
underpayments ■
http://www.local.dtlr.gov.uk/finance/ctax/ctil/ctil24.doc
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 3
IBS Open Revenues
The Revenues & BenefitsManagement Solution
for Modern Government • Web Enablement
• Integrated Workflow & DIP• Call Centres / CRM
• Executive Information• Best Value Initiatives
To find out more about the latestdevelopments to IBS Open Revenues,
please call Claire Edwards on 01635 550088 or contact [email protected]
Inside News
4 Insight March 2002
Inside News continued
Inside News is compiled by Moira Hepworth,
IRRV Policy and Research Projects Officer
Enforcement reviewreport greeted withdisappointmentThe Lord Chancellor’s Department report of the advisory group on
enforcement service delivery proposes little or no change to theenforcement process for at least five years – a stance that has beenmet by criticism from some bodies, including the Association of CivilEnforcement Agencies.
The report concludes that the mix of both public sector and privateenforcement should be maintained for at least five years as it is goodfor creditors. It did not at this stage recommend any radicalrestructuring, merging or privatisation of civil court enforcementwork. It also confirmed the enforcement review’s basic principlesthat information is the key to effective enforcement.
It proposed that the work currently done by sheriffs should, intime, be open to other enforcement agents, subject to their attainingthe necessary standards, qualifications and performance.
However the report added that all creditors – including localauthorities and magistrates’ courts committees – should have to payup-front fees in all enforcement cases, not just county and high courtenforcement. “We believe it is the expectation of work being done fornothing which has driven down standards... and has led to asituation where disreputable bailiffs rely on exploitation and themanipulation of the fees structure”, the report says.
Institute Director David Magor is quoted in the report as saying,“The only way forward is to ensure that the enforcement agent istreated like any other contractor and is given every opportunity todeliver quality services, with a client-provided specification that isnot solely based on price”.
Chris Tye, Secretary of Association of Civil Enforcement Agenciessaid: “We are deeply disappointed in the report. It proposes noradical change in jurisdictions for five years. We were hoping forsomething more speedy. The government had promised that therewould be no jurisdictional monopolies within the courts and we havenow got to wait five years”■
http://www.lcd.gov.uk/enforcement/enfadgp/warrep.htm
NNDR billing calculationfiguresNNDR figures for England and Wales from 1990 onwards (the
multiplier/poundage, RPI, AF factor and rates of interest) andfigures for Scotland from 2000 onwards are available athttp://www.local.dtlr.gov.uk /finance/busrats/usefulnn.doc. Thenational rate multiplier for England for the year beginning 1 April 2002has been provisionally set at 43.7 pence in the pound. For Wales thefigure is 43.3 pence and for Scotland the provisional rate poundage is47.8 pence ■
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 4
Insight March 2002 5
Case Law Corner
Case law cornerThe following cases have been provided byLawtel, the UK’s leading online legalinformation service. For more information or for a free trial call 020 7970 4818,e-mail [email protected] or visit www.lawtel.com.
R v S P BLISS (VALUATION
OFFICER, LONDON
WESTMINSTER GROUP
INLAND REVENUE), EX PARTE
CURZON BERKELEY LTD (2002)
QBD Administrative Court (James
Goudie QC) 19/12/2001
Any hereditament, including a
composite hereditament, had to
be in single rateable occupation
or ownership, and could not be
described in the non-domestic
rating list so as to embrace
different parts of the hereditament
that were in different ownership
or occupation, whether domestic
or non-domestic. A freeholder was
not the “relevant person” for the
purposes of s.66 (2C) Local
Government Finance Act 1988,
which contained a patent
drafting error.
Application by the claimant
ratepayer (Curzon), an operator of
self-contained serviced short-stay
apartments, to quash decisions of
the defendant valuation officer
(VO) on 20 March 2001 to vary
the non-domestic rating (NDR)
lists for the years 1995 and 2000
for buildings at 39 Hill Street
(No.39) and 56 Curzon Street
(No.56) in London.
Curzon was the freehold owner
of No.39 but the long leasehold
owner of No.56. Each building
consisted principally of residential
apartments of various sizes, some
of which were let to third parties
on long leases, with the
remainder being used by Curzon
in its business. Both kinds of
apartment were interspersed over
each of the floors of the two
buildings. Before the decisions
complained of, the only
hereditament shown on NDR lists
for either building was for
administrative offices at No.56.
The VO decided that non-
domestic rates should be paid by
Curzon for the apartments
retained by it and the NDR lists
were amended for each building,
describing them as composite
“serviced apartments and
premises”. Curzon challenged the
VO’s decisions on the grounds
that:
(i) the new descriptions were
invalid and incapable of being
cured; and
(ii) it was not the “relevant person”
in respect of No.39.
The VO contended that Curzon
was not entitled to relief on the
grounds that:
a) Curzon had an alternative
remedy available to it, namely an
appeal to the Lands Tribunal; and
b) delay, in that Curzon’s claim
form was issued more than four
months after the decisions
complained of.
HELD:
1. Any hereditament, including a
composite hereditament, had
to be in single rateable
occupation or ownership, and
could not be described in the
non-domestic rating list so as
to embrace different parts of
the hereditament that were
in different ownership or
occupation, whether domestic
or non-domestic.
2. It followed that the new
descriptions given by the VO
were incorrect. However, the
error was capable of remedy
pursuant to Reg.4A Non-
Domestic Rating (Alteration of
Lists and Appeals) Regulations
1993 SI 1993/291.
3. In its capacity as freeholder of
No.39, Curzon was not the
“relevant person” for the
purposes of s.66 2C) Local
Government Finance Act 1988.
The court was satisfied that
that section contained a patent
drafting error, in that words
should be implied into it such
that the “property in question”
was defined not only as “a
building” but also as “a self-
contained part of a building”.
Inco Europe v First Choice
Distribution (2000) 1 WLR 586
applied. It followed that
Curzon’s second ground of
challenge succeeded.
4. The Administrative Court,
and not the Lands Tribunal,
was the appropriate forum
for determining the legal
and constitutional issues
about whether or not words
should be implied into a
taxing statute.
5. Although there was no good
reason for Curzon’s delay,
because of the public interest
in the point decided in
Curzon’s favour, the delay did
not constitute a reason for
denying it the relief to which it
was entitled.
VO’s decisions about No.39
quashed.
LTL 15/1/2002
T HUMPHREYS-JONES
(T/A CATHEDRAL FRAMES)
v ANTHONY WELSBY
(VALUATION OFFICER) (2002)
Lands Tribunal (P R Francis)
21/3/2001
Although the subject shop
premises were in a separate mode
or category of use from some of
the comparables upon which the
respondent relied, the evidential
value of those comparables was
undiminished. However, it was
appropriate to make an end
allowance in respect of shared
toilet facilities.
LTL 8/1/2002 ■
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 5
6 Insight March 2002
From Here and There
The recent publication by the Local
Government Association (LGA) Managing
the Public Face of Inspections is an informative
and helpful document that helps to guide
local authorities through the media maze
following an inspection by any one of the
numerous inspectorates.
But I cannot agree with the advice given on
page 11 under the heading of “Putting your
case on the day”, which relates to the issue of
providing information to the media following
an inspection report. The LGA advice is that
local authorities should “try to resist the
temptation to criticise the inspectors or to use
excuses such as poor resources”.
It is clear that the object of the advice is to
persuade local authorities to be more positive
about the inspection process. I agree – but it
must be a two way process in which the
inspectorate plays its part. What is missing
from the document is advice on what local
authorities should do when inspectors are
simply wrong about the facts, or unfair in
their criticisms.
I know of a number of local authorities,
including my own, which have criticised the
inspectors for getting things wrong. Indeed, on
a number of occasions, inspectors have had
errors of fact pointed out to them but have
declined to make corrections. That is in part
a process issue but nonetheless it leaves the
local authority no alternative but to “criticise”
at least the inspection process, in order to
support its own officers.
Unfair criticism has a serious effect on
morale. Local authorities that believe the
inspector’s criticism is misplaced are, in my
view, honour bound to defend their staff.
If this is seen as criticising inspectors so be
it – they are, after all, big boys and girls.
On the question of “poor resources” being
an excuse, many councils make decisions
between services that sometimes result in
reduced resources for a particular service.
Where the failure to resource a service
improvement plan is predominantly a political
decision, there is no reason why the council
should not give that as a reason. It is certainly
not for inspectors, as paid officials, to criticise
the democratic process.
The paper implies that lack of resources can
never be a legitimate answer to criticism from
any outside inspectorate. Yet that surely
cannot be so, unless a local authority clearly
has the resources but is failing to make the
best use of them.
In spite of the above comments Managing
the Public Face of Inspections is a useful paper
and can be downloaded from the LGA website.
Does inspection achieve itsobjective?Some interesting reports published by the
National Bureau of Economic Research from
Cambridge, Massachusetts, on the question of
audit and inspection of public sector bodies in
the USA indicate that an audit and inspection
regime may not have the desired effects of
driving up standards. It may even have the
opposite effect.
According to the reports, external audit
and inspection, particularly of police,
immigration and tax administration, can lead
to bureaucrats changing their behaviour to
achieve the objectives of the inspection,
which in turn leads to risk avoidance,
inefficiency and a worse overall service to
the public.
Interestingly, for American based research,
the researchers dismiss private sector solutions
and suggest that trusting the professionals
may lead to more effective public services.
Code of practice on obtaininginformationThe Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)
will be issuing shortly a code of practice on
obtaining information under Section 109A of
the Administration Act, from persons set out in
Section 109B(2A). The code will set out how
authorised officers will exercise the powers.
It is also intended that the code may prove
useful to persons from whom information may
be required and to members of the public who
wish to know more about the powers.
The Administration Act powers are wide
ranging and should prove effective in the
fight against fraud; however, they are also
potentially contentious and must be used
wisely. Local authorities must ensure that
proper arrangements are in place for
authorising requests for information and fraud
officers must make themselves conversant
with the law and use it properly. This is not a
charter for obtaining information in a cavalier
manner. Some fraud officers did not always
use correctly the previous authority for
obtaining information.
The courage to criticiseCouncils should defend theirstaff when inspectors getstheir facts wrong, says Pat Doherty
“You’ll make a mistake if you think I’ll correct them”
“It has its critics”
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 6
Insight March 2002 7
From Here and There
Extending the Sol Prosecution Service Since the closure of the local authority
prosecutions pilot, there appears to be an
acceptance that the government’s Sol
Prosecutions Service should offer a legal
service to local authorities to prosecute
for housing and council tax benefit
fraud offences.
This could:
➔ Ensure that Sol Prosecutions’ judgement,
knowledge and expertise was maximised,
which could potentially increase
success rates;
➔ Provide uniformity in the application
of sanctions;
➔ Ensure a cost effective service to those
local authorities – principally the smaller
ones – which are not geared up to fund
their own legal teams and consequently
use high street solicitors – often with little
expertise of prosecuting benefit fraud;
➔ Assist the wider government agenda of
joint working, currently being developed
through the joint regional board structure.
Clearly the key to this proposal is adequate
resources. Since Sol regularly uses high street
solicitors to appear in court, is the service
resourced to undertake local authority work?
My own authority currently refers
approximately 25 cases per year for
prosecution to the police and other local
authorities are in a similar position. Allowing
for some regional variation, if 200 local
authorities took up the Sol option, a
conservative estimate of local authority cases
being referred for prosecution could be in
the region of 5000. This would represent
an increase of nearly 50% in the Sol
prosecution workload.
Funding of this initiative will need to be
thought out. There must be no top slicing of
the current incentive scheme, which could
work to the detriment of those local authorities
that currently have satisfactory arrangements
in place for undertaking prosecutions.
Many local authorities are already well
down the road to prosecuting for benefit
fraud. Handled in-house, the local authority
keeps control and ownership of the cases and
they are progressed to court in a relatively
short time scale. This is not the situation at
present with Sol. Local ownership enables
queries and requests for further information
to be directed to the correct source and
resolved reasonably quickly. I suspect that
local authorities which take the Sol route
will find themselves having to deal through
a third party.
This proposal is, in principle, a good idea
and should be explored as it may help some
local authorities to get into the prosecution
arena. But it must be adequately resourced
and those local authorities that already have
arrangements in place must not suffer as a
result of top slicing the present subsidy.
Statutory InstrumentsSI 2001/3910 The Non-Domestic Rating
Contributions (Wales) (Amendment)
Regulations 2001
Under Part II of Schedule 8 to the Local
Government Finance Act 1988 billing
authorities in Wales are required to pay
non-domestic rating contributions to the
National Assembly for Wales. Rules for the
calculation of those amounts are contained
in the Non-Domestic Rating Contributions
(Wales) Regulations 1992.
These Regulations amend those by
substituting a new percentage in paragraph
3(1)(b) of Schedule 1 (deductions from gross
amount), a new multiplier in paragraph 2(12)
of Schedule 2 (assumptions as to gross
amount) and a new Schedule 4 (adult
population figures).
SI 2001/3916 The Non-Domestic Rating
(Designation of Rural Areas) (England)
Order 2001
The Local Government Finance Act 1988
provides for mandatory relief from non-
domestic rates for public houses, petrol filling
stations, general stores, food stores and post
offices, and discretionary relief for
hereditaments used for purposes beneficial
to the local community, in certain rural
settlements in areas designated as rural areas
by order of the Secretary of State. This order
designates further areas in England only,
in addition to those designated by SI
1997/2792, SI 1998/393, SI 1998/2836
and SI 1999/3158. This order provides for
all of England outside of the local authority
areas listed in the Schedule and the urban
areas shown on the maps to be designated
as a rural area.
SI 2001/3944 The Non-Domestic Rating
Contributions (England) (Amendment)
Regulations 2001
Under Part II of Schedule 8 to the Local
Government Finance Act 1988, billing
authorities are required to pay non-domestic
rating contributions to the Secretary of State.
Payments in respect of a provisional amount
of the contributions are made during the
financial year, final calculations and any
adjustments of payments being made after the
year ends. These regulations amend the rules
for calculation of contributions contained in
the Non-Domestic Rating Contributions
(England) Regulations 1992, with effect from 1
April 2002.
SI 2001/4022 The Social Security
(Loss of Benefit) Regulations 2001
These regulations relate to restrictions in
payment of certain benefits which apply
where a person has been convicted of one
or more benefit offences in each of two
separate proceedings and one offence is
committed within three years of the
conviction for another such offence – the
“two strikes” proposal.
Part I contains provisions relating to citation,
commencement and interpretation. The
regulations come into force on 1 April 2002.
Parts II to IV relate to various social security
benefits. Part V makes provision regarding
reductions in housing benefit and council tax
benefit during the disqualification period or
the relevant period and when those benefits
remain payable during those periods. Part VII
amends the Social Security and Child Support
(Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999
(SI 1999/991) so that no appeal to the
tribunal lies on the ground that a conviction,
which led to the restriction, was erroneous.
SI 2002/117 (c. 2) The Social Security
Fraud Act 2001 (Commencement No. 3)
Order 2002
This Order provides for the coming into force
of section 3 of the Social Security Fraud Act
2001, which makes provision in relation to a
code of practice about the use of information
powers. Section 3 came in to force on
28 January 2002 ■
Pat Doherty is Deputy Director of Finance at Harrogate
Borough Council and a Past President, IRRV
“Funding of this initiative will need to be thought out.
There must be no top slicing”
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 7
8 Insight March 2002
IRRV Council member Suzanne Dean was delighted to present a
certificate of service to Chris Swain, long-standing officer and
former President of the East Midlands Association.
Starting out in local government as a tea boy with Derby City
Council in 1966, Chris became Chief Revenues Officer with South
Derbyshire District Council in 1974, later becoming Assistant
Treasurer (Revenue) and now holding the position of Head of
Revenue and Revenue Divisional Manager.
A member of the Institute for 35 years, Chris has twice been
President of the East Midlands Association, Secretary for six years
and Membership Officer for five years. He was presented with his
award to the strains of “The Best” by Tina Turner! ■
Metropolitan and HomeCountiesWednesday 20 March
Venue: Alliance House, Caxton
Street, SW1
Speaker: John Kruse
Topic: Use of county courts for
recovery
Northern CountiesTuesday 12 March
Venue: Crowtree Leisure Centre,
Sunderland
Speaker: Steve Chamberlain
Topic: Benefit fraud
South WesternThursday 21 March 5pm
Venue: Moorland Links
Hotel, Yelverton
AGM
Sussex and SurreyThursday 21 March AGM
Venue: The Barn, Horsham
Council Offices.
Speaker: David Magor
AGM
West MidlandsTuesday 19 March 6.30pm
Venue: Old Royal Public House,
Birmingham
AGM and quiz
12 Association Diary
Around the Associations
Honours in East Midlands
Top Technicians: Lee Anderson, President of the Lancashire and Cheshire Association, presented certificates to students who passed their Technician exams (left to right) –Caroline Cope from Macclesfield BC, Fleur Vickery of Rossendale CB Ltd and Paul Manning of Macclesfield BC, while Lee Phanco of Wigan MBC received a letter of credit.
The Lancashire and Cheshire Association’s revenues andbenefits weekend refresher course, which has been running
for well over 20 years, has again been a success. Held inBlackpool in January, the weekend attracted 60 delegates fromWales and the north west of England.
Delegates heard from John Giblin of the Benefit FraudInspectorate about the topical issues of fraud and inspections. At the close of the course, IRRV Director David Magor presentedcertificates to the delegates.
“The weekend is made possible by the efforts of the 15national and local speakers who give up their time to make thecourse a success”, said Lee Anderson, Lancashire and CheshireAssociation President ■
Refresher course is fresh as ever
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 8
Insight March 2002 9
FREEDOMIN THE AIRRichardHarbordwonders ifthe whitepaper signalsa return toindependentlocalgovernment
ViewpointAgainst my entire nature, I detect
an air of optimism in local
government. There are signs that
the controls of central government over
local authorities – which have steadily
increased over the years (and years!) that
I have been in local government – may
be receding.
The most significant change is that
surrounding capital expenditure. This has
been well prepared for by local
authorities and should lead to an era
where capital expenditure needs no
specific approvals. It all depends on the
code of practice drawn up on prudential
guidelines, which have been constructed
to ensure that local authorities can only
invest in capital expenditure if they can
afford to do so, depending on
calculations from local authority
accounts and balance sheets.
Other areas in the local government
white paper need to be worked up
before any judgement can be made
about their effect. In particular, there are
the proposals for a new performance
framework for local authorities. It is good
news that the number and diversity of
performance indicators is to be reduced
and consolidated. On the other hand, if
additional freedoms and flexibility are to
be given to those authorities who are put
in a category called ‘high performing’,
with less to those ‘striving’ or ‘coasting’,
then they need to be got right.
Performance indicators measure
performance in the delivery of services
and also, at a higher level, the overall
financial health and governance of an
authority. It is important that the correct
mix be found for the performance
framework and that the process be
transparent and open, so it can be seen
how these judgements are made.
There is some nervousness about the
comprehensive spending review and
changes to the standard spending
assessment system for 2003-04. In my
authority, this year’s budget has not
been too traumatic, especially after we
resolved our little difficulties over the
calculation of the area cost adjustment.
But I am aware that even within London
there will be quite a wide spread of
council tax increases.
The central argument around the white
paper is whether local authorities
continue in the role of agents of central
government, mere local administration,
or whether they can return to being real
local government.
The white paper contains a promise
to make fewer ring-fenced and targeted
grants, although I think certain
government departments will find this
difficult. There is also an end to capping
in any name or guise, which is
very welcome.
Regular readers will know that I am
not entirely convinced that it is possible
to produce a grant distribution system,
which is robust, simple and fair. The last
few years have been littered with failed
attempts. The white paper promises a
new system based on “trends of
spending need” rather than “historic
patterns of spending” and states that the
new system will be “more intelligible and
transparent”. We shall see.
The other area, which had some early
action, is council tax discounts and it
will be interesting to see if any
additional funds generated will be
available for general use or ring-fenced.
For all these reasons the air of
optimism remains – perhaps after a long
period of close regulation and control we
can look forward to a more independent
and exciting future. However, long
experience tells me that I will need to
see the detail of the grant and
performance framework before I
actually remove the cork from the
champagne bottle ■
“I will need to see the detail of the grant and
performance framework before I actually
remove the cork from the champagne bottle”
Richard Harbord is Managing Director
of Hammersmith and Fulham LBC
and a member of IRRV Council
Viewpoint
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 9
10 Insight March 2002
EDUCATION Education Corner
The draft revised syllabus was completed before
Christmas and circulated to members of the
Education and Membership Committee for
comments, as well as to a limited number of
examiners and subject specialists. Following
feedback, a revised version was circulated at the
beginning of February and was considered by the
syllabus review sub-committee in the second week of
February. As Insight went to press, final changes were
being made and the draft was put to the whole of
the Education Committee and Council at the February
meeting for approval, in principle.
The draft syllabus will now made available for
further general comment by members and full
details of the syllabus and consultation process will
appear on the Institute’s web site.
Since the review process commenced in October
we have attempted to ask for comments at all stages
of the process.
I am extremely grateful to all those people who
have replied – their contributions were very valuable.
Further details will appear in the next edition
of Insight ■
Syllabus reviewmoves forwardGood progress is being made with this important initiative,says Peter Brown
Peter Brown is Chair of the Syllabus
Review Sub-committee
Examinationsannouncements
Discretionary housing payments (DHPs). It is recognised that DHPs are not payments of housing benefit. Since, however, they are generally administered in conjunction with housing benefit, the Examining Board has decided that questions on DHPs may be set in housing and council tax benefitspapers from June 2002.
New Preston centreThe Manchester examination centre is no longer available. A new centre in Preston will operate from June 2002. This will be at the Sharoe Green Building,University of Central Lancashire. Full details will be sent to all candidates wishing to attend the centre ■
Distance learning dispatchExam results are out and a number
of you have already been in touch.
By the time you read this you may well
have your new modules and already be
studying for the next examination.
We wish you well and assure you of our
support at all times.
It is always good to get letters (or
e-mails these days) where you can tell
that the writer is obviously pleased and
excited by the achievement. However,
there are also those who have not done
so well and their disappointment is
equally as evident. Again, we can help
all who fall into this category. In almost
every case, no matter how dire you feel
the situation to be, we can assist. If you
need help and have not been in touch
yet – don’t delay, we’ll be pleased to
hear from you.
Have you checked out the new
website yet? Look it up at
www.dlc.newport.ac.uk. I know there
have been a few hits and I have been
directing people to it. Through the
website you can now get all the forms
you need to enrol for the next level,
directly into your own PC. But if there is
some difficulty with this electronic
access, just let me know and we can
revert to the old steam method and put
an information pack in the post. Any
suggestions or comments about the
website will be most welcome.
As Easter approaches we are gearing
up for the Caerleon revision week. There
will again be a Distance Learning Desk
in the UWCN Boardroom with someone
from DLC in attendance at most times.
This is one of the few opportunities that
we get to meet many of you, so please
come and introduce yourself. I can’t at
this stage promise any freebies but I am
working on it.
If you want to make sure of seeing
someone you can always make an
appointment in advance by contacting
the office in whatever way is most
convenient to you.
I hope that the studying is going well
and that you are enjoying what you are
learning as well as finding it useful ■
Les Tuckwell, Manager, IRRV Distance
Learning Centre
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 10
Insight March 2002 11
CORNERJune Exams Timetable
MORNING SESSION (9.30am-12.30pm) AFTERNOON SESSION (2.00-5.00pm)
DATE LEVEL I LEVEL II LEVEL I LEVEL II
AND TECHNICIAN AND LEVEL III AND TECHNICIAN AND LEVEL III
Monday 10 June Level I Level II Level I and Technician Level IIUK Constitutional Framework Local Taxation Law and Practice* Introduction to Housing Law of Property
and Council Tax Benefits LawTechnician VOA/IRRV Qualification Pt.1 Level II (Scotland)Office Practice and Procedure Valuation Theory & Practice Scottish Law of Property
(Paper 1) (9.30am-12.45pm)VOA/IRRV Qualification Pt.1Valuation Theory & Practice (Paper 2) (2.00-5.15pm)
Tuesday 11 June Technician Level II Level I and Technician Level IIHousing and Council Tax Financial Management in Introduction to Non-Domestic Principles and Practice of
Benefits Administration the Public Sector Rating Law* Valuation for Local Taxation
(Paper 1) (9.30 to 11.30am)
Revenues Administration Level I and Technician(Paper 1) (9.30 to 11.30am) Introduction to the Prevention and
Valuation Tribunal Procedure Detection of Housing & Council
and Practice (Paper 1) Tax Benefit Fraud
(9.30 to 11.30am)
Wednesday 12 June Level I and Technician Level II Technician Level IIIntroduction to Council Tax Law* Housing Law Housing and Council Tax Housing and Council
Benefits Administration Tax Benefits Law and Practice
Level III (Paper 2) (2.00 to 4.00pm)
Business and Service Planning Revenues Administration Level IIIand Plan Management (Paper 2) (2.00 to 4.00pm) Revenues Administration
(9.30am – 12.45pm) Valuation Tribunal Procedure Benefits Administration
and Practice (Paper 2) Valuation Tribunal –
(2.00 to 4.00pm) Administration and Practice
Thursday 13 June Level I Level III Level I Level IIIBusiness Law Human Resource Management Principles of Accountancy Valuation for Local Taxation
(9.30am – 12.45pm) and Audit Welfare Benefits
Level I (Scotland)Business Law in Scotland VOA/IRRV Qualification Pt.2
Valuation Case Study
*Separate England/Wales and Scotland papersCandidates for Valuation papers should bring their own (clean) copies of Parry’s Valuation Tables, or similar
Timetable for examinations – June 2002
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 11
LETTERS LETTERS LETTERS
Rating & Valuation
12 Insight March 2002
On 12 December 2001 the Department of
Transport, Local Government and the
Regions (DTLR) published a green paper
entitled Compulsory Purchase and
Compensation – the Government’s proposals
for change. This should also be read in
conjunction with the planning green paper
published at the same time. Full details of the
proposals can be found on the DTLR website
at www.dltr.gov.uk/
The government accepts that the current
system is often slow and somewhat unfair.
Its new proposals are intended to make the
system “simpler, fairer and quicker”. Prior to
the publication of the paper, the DTLR had
issued five new information booklets on the
compulsory purchase order (CPO) system and
a Compulsory Purchase Procedure Manual,
published on 29 November 2001.
The government says: “A system which is
simple, fair and quick needs to have a clearly
defined legislative basis. It also has to strike a
balance between the objective of assembling
land quickly and efficiently for its future
purpose and protecting the interests of those
whose land is affected”.
The proposals are to provide a new clearer
and consolidated legislative base and to
widen the powers of planning authorities to
make CPOs. The legislation will clarify the law
on the requirements for the justification of the
orders. It will also include new procedures
for dealing with unopposed orders and
public inquiries.
The simplification of the system will
include a clear and unambiguous basis of
compensation, overcoming the previous
conflicts in case law or its application.
Furthermore, it will make a clear provision as
to the dates from when the various elements
of compensation are payable and will provide
for a fairer basis of compensation, to ensure
that the claimant is no worse off as a result of
the order, including:
➔ providing for an additional ‘loss payment’
in recognition of the compulsory nature of
the acquisition;
➔ a clear statement of the principles for
assessment of disturbance;
➔ compensation payable for actual losses
even if the scheme does not proceed;
➔ compensation for betterment offset only
against severance/injurious affection;
➔ improved provisions for buying the whole
site even if only part is required;
➔ improved advance payment arrangements,
including for mortgaged land;
➔ introducing an interim update of home-loss
payment thresholds rationalising statutory
blight provisions.
An initial reaction is that the proposals are
to be welcomed. They overcome many
criticisms of the current system, especially
with regard to the clarification and widening
of the compensation base. The new
procedures will also be welcomed by many
acquiring authorities and we should see a far
more effective and efficient compulsory
purchase system where the rights of both the
public and private citizens are taken into
account ■
I’d like to respond to the
comments (Insight, December
2001) on my earlier letter
concerning the merits of regular
revaluations of domestic
properties for council tax
purposes.
Michael Blank wonders where
I could have been living
throughout the 1970s and 1980s.
The answer is Scotland – that part
of the UK in which Margaret
Thatcher chose to try out the poll
tax before spreading the good
news to the rest of the country.
This part of the UK, unlike
England and Wales, has also had
the experience of regular
revaluations, whether we need
them or not. For that reason we
may know a wee bit about the
consequences.
In response to Tony Vickers’
view that the more frequently
assessments are carried out, the
more acceptable rating systems
become, I have a sneaking feeling
that an element of job creation is
emerging. The important issue in
determining council tax liability
is the banding of properties.
Whether a current value or one
related to an earlier date is used,
is irrelevant, to a certain extent,
as long as the basis is consistent.
Since valuation for council tax
seldom matched market value
(the only value a lay person can
readily understand), revaluation
will not help the process.
With regard to the concern
both correspondents have for the
idea of a local income tax, I do
not share the view that the
concept is misguided. It may not
have been tried in the UK, for a
variety of reasons, but any tax
which is based on the accepted
concept of ability to pay – and
which can also automatically take
into account changes in that
ability – may have some merit.
Tom Ogilvie
Haddington, East Lothian
Scotland
More on revaluations
Peter Brown is Professor of Property Taxation,
Liverpool John Moores University
Majorchanges putforward forcompulsorypurchaseReforms will be welcomedby acquiring authorities,says Peter Brown
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 12
Insight March 2002 13
Legal Update
LANDLORD AND TENANT –COMMERCIAL
AssignmentASHWORTH FRAZER LTD VGLOUCESTER CITY COUNCIL(CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT)[2001] UKHL 59Reasonableness of refusal ofconsent and likely breach ofuser covenant.
AUBERGINE ENTERPRISESLTD V LAKEWOODINTERNATIONAL LTD[2001] EGCS. 29Licence to assign butlandlord’s entitlement torescind prior to completion.
SCOTTISH MINISTERS VTRUSTEES OF THEDRUMMOND TRUST2001 SLT 665Consent of landlord.
CovenantsBHP PETROLEUM GREATBRITAIN LTD V CHESTERFIELDPROPERTIES LTD[2001] 3 WLR 277Landlord’s powers and duties– liability upon transfer offreehold reversion.
FLUOR DANIEL PROPERTIESLTD V SHORTLANDSINVESTMENTS LTD[2001] EGCS. 8Repair covenants – landlord’spowers and duties and theliability of the tenant for cost.
LONDON BAGGAGE CO(CHARING CROSS) LTD VRAILTRACK PLC (NO.2)[2001] L&T.R 19Entitlement to compensation.
LUMINAR LEISURE LTD VAPOSTOLEApplication for change of use.Consent withheld by landlordand consideration of thereasonableness of such refusal.
OCEANIC VILLAGE LTD VSHIRAYAMA SHOKUSAN CO LTD[2001] EGCS 20Lease implied terms –landlord restricted fromcompeting with tenant.
PETERSSON V PITT PLACE(EPSOM) LTD[2001] EWCA Civ 86Repair covenants – overlappingobligations to repair.
ForfeitureBLAND V INGRAM’S ESTATES LTD (NO.1)[2001] 2 WLR 1638Relief from forfeiture.
BLAND V INGRAMS ESTATES LTD (NO.2)Relief from forfeiture.
FULLER V HAPPY SHOPPERMARKETS LTD[2001] 1 WLR 1681Distress – demand for returnof overpayment.
Rent reviewsMCDONALD’S PROPERTY COLTD V HSBC BANK PLC[2001]36 E.G. 181Time limits – effect of lateservice of rent review notice.
STARMARK ENTERPRISES LTDV CPL DISTRIBUTION LTD[2001] EWCA Civ 1252Notices – review clausespecifying time limit forservice of counter notice andpresumption that time is notof the essence.
Lease renewalSUN LIFE ASSURANCE PLC V THALES TRACS LTD(FORMERLY RACAL TRACS LTD)[2001] EWCA Civ 704Statutory compensation.
Service chargesSTAPEL V BELLSHOREPROPERTY INVESTMENTSLTD (NO.2)[2001] 20 EG 231Construction of lease.
LANDLORD AND TENANT –RESIDENTIAL
CovenantsPEIRCE V CITY OFWESTMINSTERMeasure of damages due todisrepair and subsidence.
IBRAHIM V DOVECORNREVERSIONS LTD[2001] 30 EG 116Repairs to roof terrace of flat– considered part of “mainstructure” of building.
OBARAY V GATEWAY(LONDON) LTD[2001] L&TR 20Landlord’s powers and duties– charge on rent deposit.
Assured tenanciesGOODMAN V EVELY[2001] EWCA Civ 104Automatic continuation oftenancy. Definition of term of lease.
RAZACK V OSMANPossession orders –application for housing benefitdelayed. Discretion to adjournproceedings.
STIRLING V LEADENHALLRESIDENTIAL 2 LTD[2001] EWCA Civ 1011Agreements determined bycourt order – discharge of rent arrears – creation of new tenancy.
Breach of covenant
MOWAN V WANDSWORTHLBC[2001] 33 HLR 56Negligence – landlord’s liability to third party for actsof tenant.
Defective premisesTILLOTT V JACKSONHouse purchaser allegingnegligent installation of boiler– whether Defective PremisesAct 1971 s.1 applied.
EvictionR V KHAN (JAHINGER)[2001] EWCA Crim 912Unlawful eviction fromproperty – attempt to pervertthe course of justice.
Leasehold enfranchisementR V LONDON LEASEHOLDVALUATION TRIBUNAL ex p.DAEJAN PROPERTIES LTD[2001] EWCA Civ 1095Leasehold valuation tribunals– service charges. Jurisdictionto consider reasonableness.
SPEEDWELL ESTATES LTD V DALZIEL[2001] EWCA Civ 1277Tenant’s notices – proceduralrequirements.
LicencesEDWIN SHIRLEYPRODUCTIONS LTD V WORKSPACEMANAGEMENT LTD[2001] 23 E.G. 158Agreement for lease – withoutprejudice negotiations.
PossessionAMOAH V BARKING ANDDAGENHAM LBC(2001) 82 P&CR D6Possession orders –imprisonment of tenant.
LAMBETH LBC V HOWARD[2001] EWCA Civ 468Possession orders – right toprivate life. Harassment ofneighbour.
MARSHALL V BRADFORDMDC[2001] EWCA Civ 594Secure tenancies – paymentof arrears and the resumptionof tenancy.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OFMORRIS) V LONDON RENTASSESSMENT COMMITTEE[2001] EWHC Admin 309Termination of assuredtenancy – validity of notices.
ST ERMINS PROPERTY COLTD V PATEL (NO.2)[2001] EWCA Civ 804Termination – division ofdemised premises and validityof notices.
Secure tenanciesISLINGTON LBC VDEMETRIOUOccupancy – failure to resideat rented premises.
KNOWES HOUSINGASSOCIATION LTD V MILLAR2001 SLT 1326Transfer of interest fromqualifying to non-qualifying
landlord – alteration to statusof tenancy.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OFHARTLEY) V KENSINGTONAND CHELSEA LBC RENTOFFICER[2001] EWHC Admin 291Fair rent – supply of incorrectinformation on applicationform by landlord.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OF HAYSPORT PROPERTIESLTD) V WEST SUSSEXREGISTRATION AREA RENTOFFICER[2001] EWCA Civ 237Fair rent – redeterminationfollowing repair.
SPATH HOLME LTD V NORTHWESTERN RENT ASSESSMENTCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN[2001] EWHC Admin 541Fair rent – assessment.
LOCAL GOVERNMENTStatutory instruments –England and WalesLocal Authorities (AlcoholConsumption in DesignatedPublic Places) Regulations2001, SI 2831
Local Authorities (Alteration ofRequisite Calculations) (England)Regulations 2001, SI 216
Local Authorities (AlternativeArrangements) (England)Regulations, SI 1299
Local Authorities (CapitalFinance) (Rate of Discount for2001-02) (England)Regulations 2001, SI 384
Local Authorities (CapitalFinance, ApprovedInvestments and Contracts –Amendment) (England)Regulations 2001, SI 723
Local Authorities (ChangingExecutive Arrangements andAlternative Arrangements)(England) Regulations 2001, SI 1003
Local Authorities (Companies)(Amendment No. 2) (England)Order 2001, SI 3042
Local Authorities (Companies)(Amendment) (England) Order2001, SI 722
Local Authorities (Conduct ofReferendums) (England)Regulations 2001, SI 1298
Local Authorities (ElectedMayors) (Elections, Terms ofOffice and Casual Vacancies)(England) Regulations 2001, SI 2544
Local Authorities (Goods andServices) (Public Bodies)(England) Order 2001, SI 243
Local Authorities (Goods andServices) (Public Bodies) (England)(No. 2) Order 2001, SI 691
Local Authorities (Goods andServices) (Public Bodies) (England)(No. 4) Order 2001, SI 3347
Local Authorities (Members’Allowances) (England)Regulations 2001, SI 1280
Local Authorities (Model Codeof Conduct) (England) Order2001, SI 3575
Local Authorities(Referendums) (Petitions and Directions) (England)(Amendment) (No. 2)Regulations 2001, SI 1310
Local Authorities(Referendums) (Petitions and Directions) (England)(Amendment) Regulations2001, SI 760
Local Authorities (StandingOrders) (England) Regulations2001, SI 3384
Local Authorities (ArmorialBearings) (Wales) Order 2001,SI 1869
Local Authorities (Executiveand Alternative Arrangements)(Modification of Enactmentsand Other Provisions) (England)Order 2001, SI 2237
Local Authorities (ExecutiveArrangements) (Modificationof Enactments and FurtherProvisions) (England) Order2001, SI 1517
Local Authorities (Functionsand Responsibilities) (England)(Amendment) Regulations2001, SI 2212
Local Authorities (Goods andServices) (Public Bodies)(England) (No. 3) Order 2001,SI 1823
Street Works (Charges forUnreasonably ProlongedOccupation of the Highway)(England) Regulations 2001, SI 1281
Street Works (Inspection Fees)(Amendment) (England)Regulations 2001, SI 788
Street Works (Inspection Fees)(Amendment) (Wales)Regulations 2001, SI 2681
Local Authorities (Alteration ofRequisite Calculations) (Wales)Regulations 2001, SI 559 (W.24)
Local Authorities (AlternativeArrangements) (Wales)Regulations 2001, SI 2284 (W.173)
Local Authorities (ApprovedInvestments) (Amendment)(Wales) Regulations 2001, SI 3731 (W.308)
Local Authorities (CapitalFinance) (Rate of Discount for 2001/2002) (Wales)Regulations 2001, SI 1287(W.75)
Local Authorities (ExecutiveArrangements) (Decisions,Documents and Meetings)(Wales) Regulations 2001, SI 2290 (W. 178)
Local Authorities (ExecutiveArrangements) (Discharge of Functions) (Wales) ‰
Legal update 2002 Part 2 of Insight’s pull-out guide to case law andlegislation over the past year, compiled by Peter Brown
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 13
14 Insight March 2002
Regulations 2001, SI 2287 (W. 175)
Local Authorities (Members’Allowances) (Amendment)(Wales) Regulations 2001, SI 2781 (W.234)
Local Authorities (Proposalsfor Alternative Arrangements)(Wales) Regulations 2001, SI 2293 (W. 181)
Local Authorities (Proposalsfor Executive Arrangements)(Wales) Order 2001, SI 2277(W. 167)
Local Authorities(Referendums) (Petitions andDirections) (Wales) Regulations2001, SI 2292 (W.180)
Local Authorities ExecutiveArrangements (Functions andResponsibilities) (Wales)Regulations 2001, SI 2291(W.179)
Local Government (Best ValuePerformance Indicators) (Wales)Order 2001, SI 1337 (W.83)
Local Government andHousing Act 1989 (ElectronicCommunications) (Wales)Order 2001, SI 605 (W. 28)
Local Government Elections(Wales) Order 2001, SI 3540(W.287)
Local GovernmentInvestigations (Functions ofMonitoring Officers andStandards Committees)(Wales)Regulations 2001, SI 2281 (W. 171)
Local Government Act 2000(Commencement) (No. 2)(Wales) Order 2001, SI 1471(W.97)
Local Government (Best Value)Performance Indicators andPerformance Standards Order2001, SI 724
Local Government (Magistrates’Courts etc.) (Amendment)Order 2001, SI 612
Local Government Act 2000(Commencement No. 6) Order2001, SI 415
Local Government Act 2000(Commencement No. 7) Order2001, SI 2684
Local Government andHousing Act 1989 (ElectronicCommunications) (Wales)Order 2001, SI 605
Local Government Best Value(Exclusion of Non-commercialConsiderations) Order 2001, SI 909
Local Government OverseasAssistance (London PensionsFund Authority) Order 2001, SI 3618
Local Government PensionScheme (Amendment No. 2)Regulations 2001, SI 3401
Local Government PensionScheme (Her Majesty’s ChiefInspector of Schools inEngland) (Transfers)Regulations 2001, SI 2866
Local Government PensionScheme (Miscellaneous)Regulations 2001, SI 770
Local Authorities(Arrangements for theDischarge of Functions)(England) (Amendment)Regulations 2001, SI 3961
Local Authorities(Referendums) (Petitions and Directions) (England)(Amendment) (No. 3)Regulations 2001, SI 3915
Local Elections (Declarationof Acceptance of Office) Order2001, SI 3941
Local GovernmentCommission for England(Transfer of Functions) Order2001, SI 3962
Northern Ireland
Local Government(Discretionary Payments)Regulations (Northern Ireland)2001, SR 279
Local Government (GeneralGrant) Order (Northern Ireland)2001, SR 395
Local Government PensionScheme (Amendment No. 2)Regulations (Northern Ireland)2001, SR 64
Local Government PensionScheme (Amendment)Regulations (Northern Ireland)2001, SR 63
Local Government PensionScheme (Management andInvestment of Funds)(Amendment) Regulations(Northern Ireland) 2001, SR 62
Local Government PensionScheme (Pension Sharing onDivorce) Regulations (NorthernIreland) 2001, SR 61
Scotland
Local Government Finance(Scotland) (No. 2) Order 2001,SI 260
Local Government Finance(Scotland) Order 2001, SI 96
Local Government PensionScheme (Pension Sharing onDivorce) (Scotland) Regulations2001, SI 23
Case lawBEDFORDSHIRE CC VFITZPATRICK CONTRACTORSLTD (INTERIM PAYMENT)[2001] BLR 226Powers and duties – invalidcontracts. Tendering process.
BHATT V HOUNSLOW LBCEmployer’s duties –victimisation.
CAMDEN LBC V SONKOR[2001] EWHC Admin 41Licensing restaurants – openinghours – operating premisescontrary to condition in licence.
CLYDE SOLWAY CONSORTIUMV SCOTTISH MINISTERS2001 SC 553Contracts – tender procedure.
DELAWARE MANSIONS LTD V WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL[2001] UKHL 55Private nuisance from trees –land heave resulting from treeroot encroachment prior to
acquisition – freeholder’sentitlement to recoverremedial expenditure.
DOWNIE V FIFE COUNCIL2001 SC 793Reorganisation – transfer ofdelictual liability to successorauthority.
FAZENDA PUBLICA VCAMARA MUNICIPAL DOPORTO (C446/98)[2001] STC 560Car parking fees – localauthority acts coming underSixth Directive 77/388 Art.4(5)European Union.
FU V CAMDEN LBC[2001] IRLR 186Disability discrimination –employer’s failure to makereasonable adjustment.
IPSWICH BC V MOORE[2001] EWCA Civ 1273Moorings – no right for localauthority to grant licence orimpose fee overriding powerof port authority.
KEMPIN (T/A BRITISHBULLDOG ICE CREAM) VBRIGHTON AND HOVECOUNCIL[2001] EWHC Admin 140Street trading exemptions –ice cream vans. Meaning of“roundsman”.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OFARMSTRONG-BRAUN) VFLINTSHIRE CC[2001] 3 LGLR 34Procedure – requirement forproposer and seconderconsideration of democraticimplications.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OFBARRY) V LIVERPOOL CITYCOUNCIL[2001] EWCA Civ 384Public entertainments licences– registration scheme for clubdoormen.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OFDAVIES) V CRAWLEY BC[2001] EWHC Admin 854Property rights street – tradingschemes.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OFG) V BARNET LBC[2001] EWCA Civ 540Powers and duties with regardto local authority housing –foreign national with child “in need”. Duty to makeprovision.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OFLASHLEY) V BROADLAND DC[2001] EWCA Civ 179Councillors – misconduct –status of standards committeeproceedings.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OFLEMON LAND LTD) VHACKNEY LBC[2001] EWHC Admin 336Sale of land – obligation to obtain highest pricecommercial value ofconsideration.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OFLICHFIELD SECURITIES LTD) VLICHFIELD DC[2001] EWCA Civ 304Judicial review – delay.
ROBB V DUNDEE CITYCOUNCIL2001 HousLR 42Statutory nuisance – localauthority housing condensation,injury to health, causationsubsidence novus actusinterveniens, response tohazardous situation.
SEFTON MBC V UNITEDUTILITIES WATER LTD[2001] EWCA Civ 1284Sewers and drains – liability.Pipe built as a culvertedwatercourse.
WESTMINSTER CITYCOUNCIL V MENDOZA[2001] EWCA Civ 216Powers and duties with regardto sex establishments. Serviceof closure notice.
WIRRAL BC V EVANS[2001] 3 LGLR 30Occupational pensions –maladministration – advice to scheme beneficiaries –assumption of duty of care.
NON-DOMESTIC RATING
Statutory instruments
Non-Domestic Rating(Designation of Rural Areas)(England) Order 2001, SI 3916
Non-Domestic RatingContributions (England)(Amendment) Regulations2001, SI 3944
Central Rating Lists (England)(Amendment) Regulations2001, SI 737
Non-Domestic Rating (Alterationof Lists and Appeals)(Amendment) (England)Regulations 2001, SI 1271
Non-Domestic Rating (FormerAgricultural Premises)(England) Order 2001, SI 2585
Non-Domestic Rating (PublicHouses and Petrol FillingStations) (England) Order2001, SI 1345
Non-Domestic Rating (RuralSettlements) (England)(Amendment) Order 2001, SI 1346
Non-Domestic Rating (StudFarms) (England) Order 2001,SI 2586
Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) (England)(Amendment) Regulations2001, SI 846
Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) (Wales)(Amendment) Regulations2001, SI 2357
Rating (Former AgriculturalPremises and Rural Shops) Act2001 (Commencement No. 1)Order 2001, SI 2580
Central Rating (Wales)(Amendment) Regulations2001, SI 2222
Non-Domestic Rating(Alteration of Lists andAppeals) (Amendment) (Wales)Regulations 2001, SI 1203
Valuation for Rating (Plant andMachinery) (Wales)
(Amendment) Regulations2001, SI 2357 (W. 195)
Valuation Tribunals (Amendment)(Wales) Regulations 2001, SI 1439
Non-Domestic Rate (Scotland)Order 2001, SI 44
Non-Domestic Rates (Levying)(Scotland) Regulations 2001,SI 71
Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) (Scotland)Amendment Regulations2001, SI 115
Case lawCollectionMCMULLAN’S APPLICATIONFOR JUDICIAL REVIEW, RE[2000] NI 498Refunds of overpayment –sums paid under mistake oflaw – non exclusive nature ofrefund schemes.
ValuationASSESSOR FOR HIGHLANDAND WESTERN ISLESVALUATION JOINT BOARD V A2001 SC 473Valuation of dwelling houses.
ASSESSOR FOR HIGHLANDAND WESTERN ISLESVALUATION JOINT BOARD VMACLEOD2001 SC 476Valuation panel deletingproperty from council taxvaluation list Scotland.
BLISS (VALUATION OFFICER) V LAMB & SHIRLEY LTD[2001] EWCA Civ 562Retrospective legislation –alteration to rating list.Meaning of “hereditament”.
HUMPHREYS-JONES (T/ACATHEDRAL FRAMES) VWELSBY[2001] RA 67Valuation of shops – useclasses, existing use ofproperty on material day.
LA BOULANGERIE LTD VJACOBS (VALUATION OFFICER)[2001] RVR 167Retail premises – effect oftemporary closure of lanerunning past side entrance.
UNITED SERVICES & SERVICESRENDERED CLUB (TOOTINGAND BALHAM) LTD VTHORNELEY (VALUATIONOFFICER)[2001] RA 145Valuation basis of members’clubs.
WAR MEMORIAL HOSTELCOMMITTEE OF THEPRESBYTERIAN CHURCH INIRELAND V COMMISSIONEROF VALUATION FORNORTHERN IRELAND[2001] RA 166Exemptions – residentialaccommodation. Student hallsof residence, primary purposeof accommodation.
WARREN V CARSON(VALUATION OFFICER)[2001] RVR 35Valuation of retail parks,rateable value of retail unit atout of town shopping centre.
Legal Update
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 14
Insight March 2002 15
WILLIAMS (VALUATIONOFFICER) V SCOTTISH &NEWCASTLE RETAIL LTD[2001] EWCA Civ 185Valuation of shops and publichouses – relevance of existinguse of property, rebus sicstantibus.
PROPERTY
BARCLAYS BANK PLC V GOFF[2001] EWCA Civ 635Repossession – whether bankhad discharged duty to ensureindependent legal advice hadbeen taken.
BATT V ADAMS[2001] 32 EG 90Adverse possession – necessaryintention to possess.
BHULLAR V MCARDLE[2001] EWCA Civ 510Oral agreement for transfer ofland – all affected parties tobe heard.
CANALSIDE HOUSINGPARTNERSHIP V ALISquatting – interim orders –violation of Human Rights.
FRANCES HOLLAND SCHOOLV WASSEF[2001] 29 EG 123Party walls – repairs.
JA PYE (OXFORD) LTD VGRAHAM[2001] EWCA Civ 117Adverse possession – intention.
JONES (AGNES) V JONES(WILLIAM)[2001] N.I. 244Licences – right of residencegranted in return for transferof farm to son – exclusiveoccupation.
JONES V MORGAN[2001] EWCA Civ 995Mortgages – redemption –agreement to transfer interestin property to mortgagee.
KINGSALTON LTD V THAMESWATER DEVELOPMENTS LTD[2001] EWCA Civ 20Land registers – rectification.
LAMBETH LBC V BLACKBURN[2001] EWCA Civ 912Adverse possession –squatting – intention to remainin possession of property.
LEEMAN V MOHAMMED[2001] EWCA Civ 198Leases – overriding interests –evidence of occupation.
POWELL V CHELTENHAM BC[2001] RVR 144Closing orders – compensation.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OFBERESFORD) V SUNDERLANDCITY COUNCIL[2001] EWCA Civ 1218Commons – established use.
REES INVESTMENTS LTD V GROVESunreportedPossession orders – suspension.
Defective premisesTILLOTT V JACKSONHouse purchaser allegingnegligent installation of boiler– whether Defective PremisesAct 1971 s.1 applied.
Sale of landBIRCHAM & CO NOMINEES(NO.2) LTD V WORRELLHOLDINGS LTD[2001] EWCA Civ 775Pre emption rights.
GROSSMAN V HOOPER[2001] EWCA Civ 615Contract terms – agreement todischarge third party debt.
HANSON V SOUTH WESTELECTRICITY BOARD[2001] EWCA Civ 1377Completion – conditions ofsale and validity of notice tocomplete.
NATIONWIDE BUILDINGSOCIETY V JAMESBEAUCHAMP (A FIRM)[2001] EWCA Civ 275Contract for sale of land –mortgagee’s powers and duties.
OMAR V EL-WAKIL[2001] EWCA Civ 1090Conveyancing – deposits –failure to complete and returnof deposit.
RAVENOCEAN LTD VGARDNER[2001] NPC 44Constructive trusts – expenditureby prospective purchaser.
Rights of wayGUISE V DREW[2001] 82 P&CR D 25Prescription – change involume and character of use.
FERNLEE ESTATES LTD VSWANSEA CITY AND COUNTY COUNCIL[2001] EWHC Admin 360Bridleways – addition todefinitive map – presumeddedication of path.
Covenants and easementsBATCHELOR V MARLOW (NO.2)[2001] EWCA Civ 1051Easements – right to park.
BETTISON V LANGTON[2001] UKHL 24Profits a prendre – grazing.
DAVIES APPLICATION, RE[2001] 1 EG 111Restrictive covenants –variation of obsolete covenant.
IPSWICH BC V MOORE[2001] EWCA Civ 1273Moorings – no right for localauthority to grant licence orimpose fee – overriding powerof port authority.
PARAGON FINANCE PLC V CITY OF LONDON REALPROPERTY CO LTD[2001] 98(35) LSG 37Easements – right to light.
SNELL V BEADLE (OTHERWISE SILCOCK)[2001] UKPC 5Property rights.
SOCIAL SECURITY
Statutory instruments
Social Fund Cold WeatherPayments (General)Amendment Regulations2001, SI 3368
Social Fund Maternity andFuneral Expenses (General)Amendment Regulations2001, SI 3023
Social Fund Winter FuelPayment (Amendment)Regulations 2001, SI 3375
Social Security (Breach ofCommunity Order)(Consequential Amendments)Regulations 2001, SI 1711
Social Security (Breach ofCommunity Order) Regulation,SI 1395
Social Security (Claims andInformation and Work-focusedInterviews for Lone Parents)Amendment Regulations2001, SI 1189
Social Security (Claims andPayments) AmendmentRegulations 2001, SI 18
Social Security (Contributions)(Amendment No. 2) (NorthernIreland) Regulations 2001, SI 314
Social Security (Contributions)(Amendment No. 2)Regulations 2001, SI 313
Social Security (Contributions)(Amendment No. 4)Regulations 2001, SI 2187
Social Security (Contributions)(Amendment No. 5)Regulations 2001, SI 2412
Social Security (Contributions)(Amendment) (NorthernIreland) Regulations 2001, SI 46
Social Security (Contributions)(Amendment) Regulations2001, SI 45
Social Security (Contributions)(Re-rating and NationalInsurance Funds Payments)Order 2001, SI 477
Social Security (Crediting andTreatment of Contributions,and National InsuranceNumbers) Regulations 2001,SI 769
Social Security (Credits andIncapacity Benefit)Amendment Regulations2001, SI 573
Social Security (Hospital In-Patients) AmendmentRegulations 2001, SI 944
Social Security (IncapacityBenefit) AmendmentRegulations 2001, SI 1305
Social Security (Incapacity)(Miscellaneous Amendments)Regulations 2001, SI 2979
Social Security (IndustrialInjuries) (Dependency) (Permitted Earnings Limits)Order 2001, SI 911
Social Security (InheritedSERPS) Regulations 2001, SI 1085
Social Security (Invalid CareAllowance) AmendmentRegulations 2001, SI 538
Social Security (Jobcentre PlusInterviews) Regulations 2001,SI 3210
Social Security (Literacy etc.Skills Training Pilot)Regulations 2001, SI 2710
Social Security (MedicalEvidence) and StatutoryMaternity Pay (MedicalEvidence) (Amendment)Regulations 2001, SI 2931
Social Security (MinimumContributions to AppropriatePersonal Pension Schemes)Order 2001, SI 1354
Social Security (MiscellaneousAmendments) (No. 2)Regulations 2001, SI 652
Social Security (MiscellaneousAmendments) (No. 3)Regulations 2001, SI 859
Social Security (MiscellaneousAmendments) Regulations2001, SI 488
Social Security (Notification of Change of Circumstances)Regulations 2001, SI 3252
Social Security (ReciprocalAgreements) Order 2001, SI 407
Social Security (Reduced Ratesof Class 1 Contributions)(Salary Related Contracted-outSchemes) Order 2001, SI 1356
Social Security (Reduced Ratesof Class 1 Contributions, andRebates) (Money PurchaseContracted-out Schemes)Order 2001, SI 1355
Social Security (Widow’sBenefit and RetirementPensions) AmendmentRegulations 2001, SI 1235
Social Security Act 1998(Commencement No. 13)Order 2001, SI 2316
Social Security Amendment(Capital Disregards andRecovery of Benefits)Regulations 2001, SI 1118
Social Security Amendment(Capital Disregards) (No. 2)Regulations 2001, SI 3481
Social Security Amendment(Capital Disregards)Regulations 2001, SI 22
Social Security Amendment(Discretionary HousingPayments) Regulations 2001,SI 2333
Social Security Amendment(Joint Claims) Regulations2001, SI 518
Social Security Amendment(New Deal) Regulations 2001,SI 1029
Social Security Amendment(Personal Allowances forChildren and Young Persons)Regulations 2001, SI 2980
Social Security Amendment(Residential Care and NursingHomes) Regulations 2001, SI 3767
Social Security Amendment(Students and Income-related Benefits) Regulations 2001, SI 2319
Social Security Amendment(Volunteers) Regulations 2001,SI 2296
Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 2000, SI 207
Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations 2001, SI 910
Social Security Commissioners(Procedure) (Amendment)Regulations 2001, SI 1095
Social Security Contributions(Deferred Payments andInterest) Regulations 2001, SI 1818
Social Security Contributions(Share Options) Regulations2001, SI 1817
Social Security Contributionsand Benefits (Northern Ireland)Act 1992 (Modification ofSection 10(7)) Regulations2001, SI 965
Social Security Contributionsand Benefits Act 1992(Modification of Section 10(7))Regulations 2001, SI 966
Social Security Fraud Act2001 (Commencement No. 1)Order 2001, SI 3251
Social Security Fraud Act20011 (Commencement No. 2) Order 2001, SI 3689
Social Security Pensions(Home Responsibilities)(Amendment) Regulations2001, SI 1265
Social Security Revaluation ofEarnings Factors Order 2001,SI 631
The Social Security Fraud(2001 Act) (CommencementNo. 1) Order (Northern Ireland)2001 SR No. 415
Social Security (Notification of Change of Circumstances)Regulations (Northern Ireland)2001 SR No.420
TOWN AND COUNTRYPLANNING
Statutory instruments
Town and Country Planning(Fees for Applications andDeemed Applications)(Amendment) (England)Regulations 2001, SI 2719
Town and Country Planning(General PermittedDevelopment) (Amendment)(England) Order 2001, SI 2718
Town and Country Planning(General DevelopmentProcedure) (Scotland)Amendment Order 2001, SI 245
Town and Country Planning(General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Amendment Order2001, SI 244
Town and Country Planning(General PermittedDevelopment) (Scotland)Amendment (No. 2) Order2001, SI 266
Town and Country Planning(Limit of Annual Value)(Scotland) Order 2001, SI 164 ‰
Legal Update
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 15
16 Insight March 2002
Case lawPlanning policyKINGSLEY V SECRETARY OFSTATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] 82 P&CR 9Structure plans – statement ofgeneral development policy.Erroneous inclusion inmemorandum to plan.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OFHOLDING & BARNES PLC) VSECRETARY OF STATE FORTHE ENVIRONMENT,TRANSPORT AND THEREGIONS[2001] UKHL 23Planning policy – right to fairtrial – bias.
AdministrationCARTER COMMERCIALDEVELOPMENTS V BEDFORD BC[2001] EWHC Admin 669Commencement of proceedingswith ulterior motive –appropriate mode of challenge.
ANDERSON V PERTH ANDKINROSS COUNCIL2000 SCLR 987Measure of damages –planning certificate. Negligentmisstatement as to planningzone.
CALA MANAGEMENT LTD VSCOTTISH MINISTERS2001 SLT 1219Inquiry procedure – refusal toadmit report lodged late –natural justice.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OFPARKYN) V RESTORMEL BC[2001] EWCA Civ 330Ultra vires acts – refusal toquash unlawful planningdecision – compensation.
AdvertisementsKENSINGTON AND CHELSEALBC V HARVEY NICHOLS & CO LTD[2001] EWCA Civ 702Planning control, scaffolding –digital display containedwithin safety screen fabric of a building.
AppealsR (ON THE APPLICATION OFFERNBACK) V HARROW LBC[2001] EWHC Admin 278Environmental impactassessments – assessmentdeemed unnecessary – noduty to reconsider decision.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OF HENLOW GRANGE HEALTH FARM LTD) VBEDFORDSHIRE CC[2001] EWHC Admin 179Planning procedures – offer tosurrender established usecertificate.
R V SECRETARY OF STATEFOR THE ENVIRONMENT,TRANSPORT AND THEREGIONS EX P. DEANBANKINVESTMENTS LTD[2001] J.P.L. 1212 (Note)Business parks – admissibilityof fresh evidence.
Change of useR (ON THE APPLICATION OFLOWTHER) V DURHAM CC[2001] EWCA Civ 781Waste disposal – burning offuel recovered from wastesolvents.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OFTAPP) V THANET DC[2001] EWCA Civ 559Certificates of lawfulness –limitations on future use.
Development and local plansR (ON THE APPLICATION OFWINDSOR AND MAIDENHEADRBC) V SECRETARY OF STATEFOR THE ENVIRONMENT,TRANSPORT AND THEREGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 84Development plan policies.
FIRST CORPORATE SHIPPINGLTD (T/A BRISTOL PORT CO) VNORTH SOMERSET DC[2001] J.P.L. 1209 (Note)Local plans – docks. Landavailable for expansion –rejection of inspector’srecommendations.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OFST JAMES HOMES LTD) VSECRETARY OF STATE FORTHE ENVIRONMENT,TRANSPORT AND THEREGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 30Development plans – greenbelt planning inquiries, materialconsiderations, correction oftypographical errors.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OFTORRIDGE DC) V SECRETARYOF STATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] JPL 1195Planning permission – localplans, impact of non-conformity upon existing localplan, relevance of proposedlocal plan.
RACEPEAK LTD V SECRETARYOF STATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 531Development plans – housingpolicy, importance of localeconomy in application of plans.
EnforcementBAKER V SECRETARY OFSTATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 39Change of use – previouslawful use as residentialaccommodation.
MABEY V SECRETARY OFSTATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] PLCR 26Alleged change of use – rightto family life (Human Rights).Retrospective legislation.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OFBENHAM-CROSSWELL) VSECRETARY OF STATE FORTHE ENVIRONMENT,
TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 146Appeals – locus standi ofapplicants.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OFCONNAUGHT QUARRIES LTD)V SECRETARY OF STATE FORTHE ENVIRONMENT,TRANSPORT AND THEREGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 76Time limits – lack ofdevelopment within time limit.
SAGE V MAIDSTONE BC[2001] EWCA Civ 1100Time limits – incompleteinterior works.
SOUTH BUCKINGHAMSHIREDC V FLANAGAN(2001) 98(30) L.S.G. 40Extent of agent’s authority toagree to withdrawal of noticeson local authority’s behalf.
TAYLOR & SONS (FARMS) VSECRETARY OF STATE FORTHE ENVIRONMENT,TRANSPORT AND THEREGIONS[2001] P.L.C.R 25Variation – inspector’s powerto vary notices.
THURROCK BC V SECRETARYOF STATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS (NO.2)[2001] EWHC Admin 128Immunity – meaning of“continuous use”.
WIGGINS V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] P.L.C.R 22Enforcement notices – wastemanagement – continued use of land without planningpermission.
Green beltR (ON THE APPLICATION OF ST JAMES HOMES LTD) V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT,TRANSPORT AND THEREGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 30Development plans – planninginquiries.
GypsiesBASILDON DC V SECRETARYOF STATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] JPL 1184Green belt – gypsies – relevanceof personal circumstances
VAREY V UNITED KINGDOM(26662/95)Caravan site in green belt – rightto family life (Human Rights).
Listed buildingsFOXLOW LTD V SECRETARYOF STATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] JPL 1215 (Note)Listed buildings –reinstatement underenforcement by planningauthority.
MineralsSTAFFORDSHIRE CC V RILEY[2001] EWCA Civ 257Implementation of planningpermission – removal of topsoil.
Planning permissionBARNET LBC V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 642Affordable housing – financialviability.
CHAPMAN V UNITEDKINGDOM (27238/95)[2001] 33 E.HRR 18Planning permission – right to family life (Human Rights).Gypsy landowners andenforcement of planningrestrictions.
CLARKE V SECRETARY OFSTATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 800Gypsies – right to private life.Refusal of planningpermission for residential useof caravan – existence ofalternative conventionalhousing.
FAREHAM BC V SECRETARYOF STATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 462Mobile homes – permanentdwellings.
MACGAY LTD V SECRETARYOF STATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] PLCR 21Motorway service stations –impact of fresh policystatements.
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE CC VSECRETARY OF STATE FORTHE ENVIRONMENT,TRANSPORT AND THEREGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 293Material considerations –safeguarding land for futureuse as school.
OLD ENGLAND PROPERTIESLTD V TELFORD AND WREKINCOUNCIL[2000] 3 EGLR 153Change of use – compensation.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OFTORRIDGE DC) V SECRETARYOF STATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] JPL 1195Impact of non-conformity uponexisting local plan – relevanceof proposed local plan.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OFTRUSTEES OF THE FRIENDSOF THE LAKE DISTRICT) VSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THEREGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 281Secretary of State – power towithdraw or revoke “call in”direction.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OFWINDSOR AND MAIDENHEADBC) V SECRETARY OF STATEFOR THE ENVIRONMENT,TRANSPORT AND THEREGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 84Change of use – developmentplan policies.
SHEATH V SECRETARY OFSTATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 79Lawful developmentcertificates – conditions.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OFBARKER) V WAVERLEY BC[2001] ACD 64Conditions – variation.Legality of variation.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OFBARKER) V WAVERLEY BC[2001] EWCA Civ 566Conditions – removal.
WOOD V SECRETARY OFSTATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 35Conditions – noise. Adequacyof reasons.
RAMSAY V SECRETARY OFSTATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] NPC 78Intermittent use – permanentphysical changes to landscape.
TAYLOR & SONS (FARMS) VSECRETARY OF STATE FORTHE ENVIRONMENT,TRANSPORT AND THEREGIONS[2001] EWCA Civ 1254Agricultural land –accommodation of livestock.The Institute regrets that it isnot possible to supply copies of the above cases to membersdue to copyright issues. Wherea case has been reported, thatsource should be consulted inthe first instance for details of the transcripts. Wherepossible a neutral source hasbeen quoted but cases may be reported in otherpublications.
For glossary of references, seepart 1 in the January/February2002 Insight ■
Compiled by Peter Brown,
Professor of Property Taxation
at Liverpool John Moores
University
Legal Update
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 16
Insight March 2002 17
International
In November 2001, the IRRV secured funding
from the Lincoln Land Institute, based in the
United States, for the third and final year of
our research project into property taxation
in Europe.
Full details of the first year’s research were
published by the Institute in May 2001,
entitled A Study of European Land Tax
Systems. A new updated edition, covering
the second year’s research, will be
published shortly.
So what has our research found to date?
No-one should underestimate the number of
different forms of property taxation that exist
in Europe, whether on a capital or annual
basis. In the research we identified some 187
different taxes, charges or levies, of which
60 are what could be termed annual local
property taxes (equivalent to non-domestic
rating) in the 44 countries studied. In some
countries different taxes apply to land and
buildings, which accounts for the apparent
discrepancy in the figures. In most countries,
the revenue from this annual form of property
tax is remitted to the local authorities
(or equivalent), though it may be administered
and collected by the state.
Of the remaining 127 taxes, 74 were
levied by the central government and 53 by
local government. It is worth noting that in
many countries, taxes such as taxes on capital
gains, gifts and inheritances are regarded as
local taxes.
In many European transitional countries, the
current trend is to develop and refine the
existing local property taxes. In some
countries the intended adoption of a value
based tax system, as opposed to an existing
flat rate approach, has had to be delayed by
one or two years due to implementation
problems. There is little doubt that either a
capital or a rental value system of annual
property taxation will become more the norm,
as transitional countries obtain the necessary
resources to implement this form of tax.
In the UK the trend has been rather to
question whether our approach is still the
most appropriate. In Scotland, the Local
Government Committee in the Scottish
Parliament has been undertaking a wide
ranging review of the rating system and
hearing evidence on the strengths and
weaknesses of other systems. In Northern
Ireland a similar, though not as wide-ranging,
review will be undertaken this year and at
the same time there will be a general
property revaluation. In England, the recent
white paper Strong Local Leadership – Quality
Public Services makes a range of proposals
affecting local government finance, council
tax and non-domestic rating.
In the Republic of Ireland, legislation has
recently been passed reforming local
government finance and organisation and
implementing a revised rating system.
In mainland Europe the trend for tax
harmonisation continues, as the main national
tax rates continue to converge. This trend will
probably continue for the next two or three
years. The introduction of the Euro in January
will highlight variations in price for the same
goods and services in different countries.
While many factors will account for such
differences, the tax element will be subject to
greater scrutiny. Only last year, in the UK, the
tax or duty element of petrol prices across
Europe became a sensitive political issue.
One major change that has taken place in
the last year has been a change in the policy
of the European Union with regard to taxation.
Originally the EU stated that: “It is not one
of the declared aims of the EU to bring about
tax harmonisation though it does recognise
that this may be a natural consequence of
many of its polices”.
The EU acknowledged that both people and
companies will locate in countries where they
will pay the least amount of tax and that this
will lead to tax competition between member
states. It now recognises that there may be a
case for the overall management (and control)
of the different tax systems that operate in
member states. The rationale for such control
(or interference) is given as the need to
protect other member states from unfair tax
competition practices.
A more recent document, Tax policy in the
European Union – Priorities for the year ahead
(Com (2001) 260 of 23 May 2001) attempts
to formalise an EU tax policy and proposes
a course of action to be adopted for its
implementation. There is no doubt that as
the EU takes more of an interest in taxation
there will be, sooner or later, an impact on
property taxes, whether for central or local
government ■
For copies of “A Study of European Land Tax
Systems” at £25 (ISBN 1 901 956 466) and
further details regarding the publication of the
second year’s report, please contact the
Institute’s Publications Officer, Sam Brierley on
020 7691 8975.
“As the EU takes more of aninterest in taxation there willbe, sooner or later, an impact
on property taxes”
Peter Brown is Professor of Property Taxation
at Liverpool John Moores University.
Moira Hepworth is IRRV Policy
and Research Projects Officer
European taxationupdateWith more than 180 property taxes inEurope, the IRRV’s research hasuncovered a wide variety of approachesto local taxation, say Peter Brown andMoira Hepworth
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 17
18 Insight March 2002
Benefits Conference
This year’s conference got off to a positive
start when Work and Pensions Minister
Malcolm Wicks used his address to make a
number of key announcements.
While delegates would like the government
to go further on many issues, there was clear
evidence at the conference of genuine
dialogue between the Department for Work
and Pensions (DWP) and local authority
benefits practitioners.
Housing benefit should be seen against
the wider agenda, Mr Wicks said: “How do
we build a modern social policy for a
modern age?” Progress had been made
towards eradicating child poverty, joining
up public services and reaching the goal of
full employment.
“Much has been done but there is much
still to do”, the minister said. “I want housing
benefit universally to aim higher.
“We all know we need to do better.
We need to raise our game, and that
includes the DWP as well”.
He focused on three objectives for housing
benefit: improving customer service,
improving performance and simplifying
procedures while protecting security.
Improving customer service
Mr Wicks explained how the DWP is setting
up two new operational organisations:
the Pensions Service and Jobcentre Plus.
For Jobcentre Plus, “closer working with
local authorities, particularly on the
administration of housing benefit, is a top
priority”, he said. He urged delegates to
visit a JobCentre Plus office if possible,
to see for
themselves.
The launch of
the Pensions
Service and the
new pension credit
has big
implications for
housing benefit,
Mr Wicks said. He
announced
confirmation that
the government
would be
removing the need
for pensioners
aged 65 and over
to re-claim
housing benefit
every year.
Moving to five-
year awards would
make life easier
for 1.7 million
pensioners and
would free up
resources to allow
local authorities to
concentrate on
fighting fraud.
In future, “there
will be a markedly different scheme for
pensioners than for working age people”, Mr
Wicks said. “I give this commitment today that
we will work with you, your associations and,
importantly, your software suppliers, to
make this transition
as smooth as possible”.
Improving performance
Mr Wicks commended the work of the help
team, in which local authority practitioners
and the DWP have been working jointly to
help individual benefits services. The minister
announced that the help team would be
funded for another year. He also announced
that 32 bids had been accepted for the
benefits help fund and that a further £5
million would be made available for the help
fund in the coming financial year.
Stressing the importance of the new
performance standards, Mr Wicks said:
“They are the standards we aspire to, not
the standards we think you can all
achieve tomorrow... We will be taking a
phased approach to self-assessment by
local authorities”.
Simplifying processes
The minister wanted to ensure that the
benefits system could be simplified, while
not making it more vulnerable to fraud.
The government will be pressing ahead as
soon as possible with a contracting-out order,
allowing agency and external contractor staff
working for local authorities to determine
benefit claims, he announced.
He also signalled an announcement on the
controversial issue of the DWP seeking to
recover subsidy it considers has been overpaid
to authorities. The minister announced that
the review of the policy on subsidy
overpayment recovery had been completed
and the DWP is issuing a circular
explaining the criteria it will follow when
considering recovery.
“While the most important factor will be
whether there has been any loss to public
funds, we will take into account all the
relevant circumstances which led to the
overpayment”, he said.
Mr Wicks concluded by emphasising
the importance of combating fraud and
prosecuting offenders, and he particularly
invited comments from delegates on
that issue.
Aiming higher Kate Miller reports from the IRRV BenefitsConference at Harrogate
• Are you concerned about your Best Valuereview or BFI visit?
• Would you like guaranteed improvementsin revenues and benefits performance?
• Are you concerned about outsourcing orwant to take the service back in-house?
• Would you like to partner with the privatesector without being taken over by them?
Talk to us now about our fresh approach to public/private partnership. Call David Umney or Jeff Collingwood on (020) 7863 7517 or
e-mail [email protected].
LG Solutions Ltd, 6 Beaufort Court,Admirals Way, London E14 9XL.
Tel (020) 7863 7517 Fax (020) 7863 7510www.lgsolutions.co.uk
Malcolm Wicks MP
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 18
IRRV Council member Julie Miller, Benefits
Manager at Mid Sussex DC, said that while
her authority did prosecute fraud offenders,
the sentences from magistrates’ courts were
very lenient. Other delegates agreed this
was a deterrent to their taking prosecutions.
Mr Wicks said he noted their concerns and
he had written an article for the magistrates’
journal about the problem of leniency
for fraudsters.
The subsidy problem exposedMr Wicks’ comments on overpaid subsidy did
not satisfy many delegates and the paper from
Carol Cutler, IRRV Council member and Head
of Financial and Exchequer Services at Harrow
LBC, revealed the true extent of the problems
local authorities have with subsidy.
The first point about housing benefit
administration subsidy is that it is insufficient,
Ms Cutler said.
In the survey conducted by the IRRV as part
of its recent Committee of Inquiry into benefits
administration, the 105 local authorities
which responded to the questions on subsidy
had a total shortfall of subsidy, compared to
their costs, of £93.5 million. Individually, their
shortfalls ranged from £12,000 to £6m.
“In Harrow’s case, we spend £2.1m a year
on housing benefit administration and get
just under £500,000 in admin subsidy”, she
said. “This shortfall of £1.6m costs Harrow
council taxpayers £19.50 a year on a band
D property”.
Looked at in percentage terms, the picture
was worrying, she said. According to the
survey, the bulk of councils which responded
had a shortfall of around 70%, but others had
a shortfall of around
50% and in some
others, subsidy
met 20% or less of
their costs.
“Why is there
such a range if
the formula for
distributing subsidy
is fair and why are
taxpayers in some
areas picking up
a higher cost
than others?”
Ms Cutler asked.
A closer
examination
revealed it was not
that some councils
chose to spend more
to offer a higher
level of service.
The higher the
shortfall, the more
likely councils were
to have a backlog.
More research is
needed, she said.
“If inequalities in
grant distribution are
causing administration problems, then this
must be addressed urgently”.
Ms Cutler proposed a new system, based
on an ‘expected cost per claim’ for each local
authority. This could be a fairer and more
transparent system, she suggested.
The DWP’s policy review on the recovery of
overpaid subsidy has taken far too long, she
told the conference. “I understand that over
200 local authorities are currently under
threat of subsidy withdrawal for 1999-2000,
so this needs to be sorted quickly”. The
government does not seem to understand that
if authorities lose subsidy, there is an impact
on council tax, she said ■
Insight March 2002 19
www.csaTraining.co.uk
Call us on 01728 602986
T R A I N I N G
...the brightertraining solution
Benefits Conference
The Benefits Top TenAfter a year of work, the IRRV’s Committee of Inquiry produced its firstreport in October 2001, setting out 133 recommendations for improvinghousing benefit administration.
“This is only the start”, said Barbara Culverhouse and John Roberts,members of the Committee of Inquiry.They explained how the work of theCommittee is continuing and how it wants to build on therecommendations and ensure they are put into practice.
They presented the Top Ten – those recommendations that practitionersconsidered the most urgent. On several of these, there had already been aresponse from the DWP, which showed how seriously the Committee’swork has been taken.
1. Number one demand was the removal of NHB1. Delegates in fact hadalready heard Paul Howarth, Head of Housing Support at the DWP, givehis own condemnation of this form. “I’m amazed NHB1 exists”, hesaid. “It’s of no use to anyone. Let’s get rid of it”.
2. Replacement or revision of existing cumbersome notificationprocesses.
3. Extensive consultation and involvement of software suppliers inbenefit reforms, plus a Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) study ofsoftware requirements.
4. No penalising of poor performers through the subsidy incentivesscheme linked to performance standards.
5. Local authorities allowed ‘special measures’ to tackle backlogs.6. Contract staff to carry out determinations – now given the go ahead
by the minister.7. The IRRV’s proposed ‘yellow card’ system for subsidy errors.8. Verification framework to be fully funded.9. Removal of the ‘multiple schemes’, with protection for claimants who
would lose out.10. No requirement for Rent Service referrals on renewal ■
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 19
20 Insight March 2002
Revenues Collection
Towards Effective Enforcement was
the title of the government’s
green paper issued last year. But
this is a goal revenues sections
should be working towards all the
time, particularly under the best
value regime.
So how can revenues departments
take steps towards effective
enforcement? When the Audit
Commission was trying to help
authorities with competitive
tendering in the mid 1990s, one of
its reports argued that a significant
part of the time spent trying to
collect miscellaneous income was
taken up in dealing with disputes
and in liaison with service providers
and the legal section.
It suggested that time devoted to
developing effective communication
between the various parties was
time well spent. Because there are
so many different parts of the
organisation involved in providing
services, producing and accounting
for invoices, starting reminder action
for non-payment and initiating court
action, it is important for each part
to recognise the role of all the
others and ensure that nothing they
do hinders work elsewhere.
For the service providers, it is
essential that they provide the
service expected at the price
expected and that they then
promptly produce an account. That
account should be sent to the
correct person with a full name,
correct address, correct amount and
with full details of the service
provided which can be clearly
understood by the recipient.
It is possible to produce an
account with some of the above
incorrect, which will still be paid. But
problems arise if it isn’t paid and in
any event, an unclear account will
probably result in a time consuming
enquiry.
But does the service provider
understand the effect on the
revenues section or the legal
department if accounts are not
complete and if the proper action
has not been taken in providing the
service in the first place? Has the
proper legislative process been
followed and have the requisite
contracts been properly signed? Was
it an individual or a company that
required the service and has the
correct address been obtained for
the account? Has the service
department retained all the
necessary documentation to satisfy
a court? And can they find it if
needed? Can they also ensure that
enquiries are responded to quickly
and accurate information supplied?
The revenues department role
must also come under scrutiny.
Does it have a good, modern system
which will enable prompt despatch
of the account, followed by prompt
reminder action if needed? Does it
have the ability to follow up
selective cases which are likely to
be paid and can it quickly identify
those which cannot cost effectively
be pursued? Do the staff know
enough about the legislation
relating to the particular service to
be able to deal with any enquiries?
Do they know enough about the
enforcement options to be able to
select the right one?
Getting to know youGood internalcommunicationscould make thecollection ofmiscellaneousincome a lotmore efficient,says BrianThornton
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 20
Are there links in place with the
service departments to ensure that,
if there is an option, services do not
continue to be supplied where they
are not being paid for? Is the
revenues section proactive in
suggesting which services merit
payment in advance? Does it have
adequate management information
to feed back to service departments
and to enable their own managers
to monitor collection successes?
Finally – and very significantly –
has the finance department
addressed the question of giving
credit for accounts raised to the
service departments only when the
account has been paid and not
when the account is raised? This
accounting method can and should
be done, to ensure service
departments take the right amount
of care that accounts which are
raised can be collected.
What should the legal
department’s role be? It certainly
should be to ensure that there is
an effective, prompt enforcement
process in place, which will
minimise delays in proceeding from
one stage to the next. It should
encourage the revenues section
and the service departments to
think about how payment can be
obtained before cases are passed
for court action.
It is relatively easy to obtain a
judgement by default, but that
judgement may have to be
enforced. Does the debtor have
goods, is the debtor in work, does
anyone owe the debtor money or
does he or she have a bank account
which could be accessible or
property which could be charged?
Does the legal department have the
resources to monitor the actions
being taken and to move from one
to the other quickly?
Alternatively, responsibility for
initiating and following up court
matters could rest with the revenues
section, after proper training and
with an understanding of the special
role of the authority’s solicitor to the
courts. This would enable the legal
department to concentrate limited
resources on defended matters and
enable staff to provide the specialist
legal support needed rather than
acting as well paid clerks. The
courts look upon debt collection as
more of an administrative matter
than a judicial function and local
authorities should perhaps
acknowledge this when dividing
responsibilities. But revenues staff
need to have the necessary
understanding of their relationship
on behalf of their authority with
the courts.
All authorities are busy producing
best value action plans, targets,
reports and much else but few seem
so far to have chosen to review the
collection of miscellaneous income.
Staff therefore tend to look upon
best value as an exercise being
carried out at member or
management level, with little
current impact on them. But it
would be useful now to look at
whether there is an understanding
of the roles to be fulfilled by each
part of the authority in collecting
miscellaneous income. If there are
frustrations between departments,
these need to be resolved so that
limited resources can be
concentrated on collection rather
than solving internal queries. It may
be worth setting time aside to get
the various elements together, to
develop an understanding of the
different responsibilities and to
resolve any communication
problems which obstruct effective
collection.
Everybody is stretched to the limit
just doing the job, but time spent
getting to know those involved
throughout the authority would be a
worthwhile investment. If there are
improvements which could be made
they should be made now and not
kept for the first best value review!
Debtors can make collection difficult
enough without the authority’s
processes getting in the way.
Insight March 2002 21
Revenues Collection
Is the revenues
section proactive
in suggesting
which services
merit payment
in advance?
Does it have
adequate
management
information
to feed back
to service
departments?
Brian Thornton is a Consultant
to the IRRV on collection
and enforcement issues
CORP
ORA
TE E
NFO
RCEM
ENT
AND R
ECOV
ERY If you have any doubts
about your REVENUECOLLECTION LEVELSinstruct CER (UK) LIMITED – PROVIDERS OF A QUALITY BAILIFFSERVICE. To discuss your requirements please contact Rod Whalley or ReneSaunders on 020 8686 3990
Amy Johnson House, 15 Cherry Orchard Road,Croydon, Surrey CR0 6BU
T 020 8686 3990 F 020 8686 4635DX 48659 Shirley, CroydonE [email protected] W www.bailiffs.net
Bailiffs to Guildford ‘3★ best value’ Council
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 21
22 Insight March 2002
Legal Corner
In R (Cuadrado) v Hendon Magistrates’ Court
(QBD), heard on 14 November 2001, Mr
Justice Munby quashed the decision of the
magistrates to commit the council tax debtor
to prison for 28 days forthwith.
Such a quashing order is not surprising:
many cases have held that the power to
commit is only present in the regulations to
coerce payment (where appropriate) and not
to punish (R v Wolverhampton jj ex parte
Mould (QBD) 1992; R v Newcastle Under Lyme jj
ex parte Massey (QBD) 1993, etc.). In R v
Preston jj ex parte McCosh (QBD) 1994, Mr
Justice Turner held that a forthwith period of
imprisonment was punitive in its nature and a
postponed committal order he described as
being coercive. So it seems most surprising
that the magistrates should still be making
forthwith orders of commitment and that local
authority officers are not properly advising the
courts of the error!
However, the judge in this case did go
further. He stated, “When appearing before the
justices, the claimant... represented by
counsel, Mr Nigel Ley... correctly, in my
judgement, pointed out to the justices that his
client being employed, an attachment of
earnings order could and, as he submitted,
should be made. That plea apparently fell on
deaf ears”.
The judge also said: “committal is a remedy
of last resort”, and specifically that “a defaulter
should not be committed if it is possible to
make an attachment of earnings order”.
That latter statement is, in my view, wrong
in law for a number of reasons.
This case is typical of so many where the
debtor is represented by counsel seeking to
have a committal order quashed, where
neither the court nor the local authority is
represented and where no, or else very poor,
affidavits are filed with the administrative
court in defence of the application. In such
cases, there is always going to be the
likelihood of perverse decisions. No balanced
arguments are put to the court and only
selected authorities (case law) quoted for
the debtor.
The obligations on magistrates concerning
the potential alternatives to making a
committal order, which should always be
postponed, can best be shown through other
(well argued) cases.
In R v Birmingham jj ex parte Mansell (QBD)
1988 it was held that it was incumbent upon
the justices to consider the alternatives
to committal.
In R v Felixstowe jj and Ipswich BC ex parte
Herridge (QBD) 1993 it was held that where, in
the view of the justices, £10 per week could
be afforded by the debtor out of his income
support, £2 per week obtainable by
deductions from income support was not
an alternative.
In R v Birmingham jj and Birmingham CC ex
parte Kiernan (QBD) 1993, it was held that nine
years is too long reasonably to expect a local
authority to wait for its debt when collected
by deductions from benefits and that a
committal order was an appropriate outcome.
In R v Sandwell MBC ex parte Lyn (QBD)
1994, it was held to be reasonable to seek
committal for a person on income support, as
the process was being used for the purpose of
extracting payment, not punishment, and a
means enquiry could establish a higher
payment rate than deductions from benefit.
In ex parte Mould, Kennedy LJ said: “In the
circumstances it might have been appropriate
for the magistrate before making his order to
ask the charging authority’s representatives if
any thought had been given to the possibility
of an application [for deductions from benefit].
I appreciate that deductions would be limited
to a maximum of £2.15 per week and that a
charging authority is not bound to take that
course before seeking an order under
regulation 41, but it would be relevant to the
exercise of the magistrate’s discretion to know
if the possibility of an application under the
1990 regulations had at least been
considered”.
In R v Wirrell jj ex parte Allen (QBD) 2000 –
which was the case cited in Cuadrado – what
Mr Justice Henriques actually said was: “On
the face of matters this would appear to be a
case in which the magistrates, before making
any order of imprisonment, postponed or
otherwise, ought to have asked the charging
authority’s representative if any thought had
been given to the possibility of an application
for an attachment of earnings order”.
Reasons which would, in my view, justify
going ahead with asking the court to fix a
period of imprisonment and postpone on
payment terms would be:
1. that the purpose of the means enquiry was
to decide on ability to pay, not simply to
resort to a scale deduction from income;
2. that the extensive costs involved with
reaching a committal means enquiry (distress
charges, costs of summons, warrant of arrest
etc.) can only be recovered through the
committal process, and
3. that the length of time which a deduction
from pay or benefits (if feasible) may take to
clear the debt would be unreasonable.
I would ask all involved in the committal
process to bring these issues to the attention
of the courts and take a robust stance in
achieving better committal decisions ■
The views given in this column are personal
views and should not be construed as a
legal opinion.
Good adviceneededCouncils need to be more proactiveto achieve better committaldecisions, says Paul Russell
“It seems most surprising that the magistrates should still be making forthwith orders of commitment”
Paul Russell is a Consultant and Trainer
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 22
Insight March 2002 23
Comino solutions for Local Government
www.comino.com
Focusing on the perfect structure for joined-up services.
For more information visit our Web site or call 0113 244 1404.
I T
IT Roundup
IT Roundup
Anite wins Blyth Valley partnership
Anite Public Sector has won an eight year,
£34.6 million, contract to provide IT
applications and services to Blyth Valley BC.
The contract includes provision of systems
for the council’s revenues, benefits, housing,
payroll and personnel, direct workforce
management and financial systems.
E-government solutions will be provided
via web portals and back office staff will
have the support of the Anite@Work
document imaging and workflow application
across the authority. Full services will start
in April 2003.
Blyth Valley Chief Executive Geoff Paul
said: “By providing the complete suite of
applications as a managed service, Anite will
help us to make cost savings in the use of IT
for public services while replacing legacy
systems with new solutions better able to
support e-government”.
Applications provided will include the
Pericles revenues and benefits system
acquired from ICL and now being enhanced,
delivered and supported by Anite, as well as
other software from the Anite portfolio.
As part of the partnership approach Anite
will also provide Blyth Valley with an
‘e-champion’ who will work alongside the
authority in order to help develop the
implementation strategies for their
IEG statement ■
Government launches new cyber-court for debt recovery
May elections totrial online voting
Parts of England will for the first time beable to vote by mobile phone or via the
internet in this May’s local elections. Approvalhas been given for 30 councils to pilot newways of voting or counting in local andmayoral elections on 2 May. The pilots will testnew and easier arrangements, such as earlyvoting, all postal ballots and mobile ballotkiosks. Over half of the pilots will explore inwhich people can vote electronically usingmobile phone text message services, touchtelephone, local digital television and onlinevoting methods using home computers, locallibraries and council-run information kiosks ■
http://www.press.dtlr.gov.uk/0202/0033.htm
Consumers, small businesses and solicitorscan now make claims over the internet to
recover money owed to them by logging on to a new website. Over 1.6 million claims weremade in 2000 for money owed by one person toanother. The Court Service is piloting the newonline service, at www.courtservice.gov.uk/mcol, to allow consumers and businesses to make claims, for a fixed amount less than£100,000, from the convenience of their home or office.
If the claim is undefended, as most are –only 36,000 debt cases went to trial in the year 2000 – the money can be recoveredwithout ever stepping inside a county court.
After registering with the new securewebsite, developed for the Court Service by EDS and EzGov, claimants create a user ID andpassword which they will need to use eachtime they log on. They then type in the nameand address of the person who owes themmoney, the amount owed and details of theirclaim such as the goods and services providedand invoice numbers. The court fee will then becalculated automatically – £27 minimum – andwhich must be paid by credit or debit card. A statement of truth must then be “signed”by typing their name before the claim can be submitted.
The claim is then sent electronically to the
County Court Bulk Centre in Northampton forissue in the name of Northampton County Court.Claimants will be provided with a claim numberto allow them to check the progress of theirclaim online. They can also enter judgementand apply for a warrant of execution over theinternet. If the claim is defended it will betransferred to the defendant’s (or the claimant’sif the defendant is a business) local countycourt for trial ■
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 23
24 Insight March 2002
Benefits Bulletin
Over the past few years it has not been
possible to look with pride at the
administration of housing and council tax
benefits. On the whole, councils have failed to
provide excellent service to those people in
the community who need and deserve better.
There have certainly been a few shining
examples of good administration and I take
my hat off to these authorities – they have
succeeded in getting benefits the profile and
attention that it has needed. In contrast, some
other councils have adopted the government
incentive schemes, but without being fully
ready, or without having thought through the
additional resourcing needed. Benefit
managers have despaired, suffered extreme
stress and often worked with the spectre of
competition, inspection or some other threat
hanging over them.
I would like to think that the past five years
of troubles in benefit administration are now
behind us and that, on the whole, we are
now becoming a better performing service.
This is partly because many councils had
reached crisis stage, following an
Ombudsman, best value or Benefit Fraud
Inspectorate (BFI) report. For those of us not
involved there was a sense of relief in reading
these horror stories – at least it wasn’t us
being berated. Many of the services which
suffered the worst disasters were also
contracted-out, and this proved useful PR for
in-house teams among council members
when a best value review was looming.
However, such crises are no joke and they
did show the depth of trouble that many
service providers were in. I despaired at the
over-used comment – “ a few badly
performing authorities”. The exceptional few,
well resourced/organised providers were
performing, while many other providers –
particularly in the wake of the introduction of
the verification framework (did anyone get it
right from the word go?) were struggling in
varying degrees. Not a single benefit manager
nor member of staff throughout the country
wants to do a bad job in providing the
service. But they do need training and the
ability to do the job well. Developing these
skills is a task that should not be left to the
benefit manager alone, as this person is
invariably trying hard to do the job day to
day, as well as manage change and find ways
of cracking backlogs and improving accuracy.
What brought matters to a head in benefits
was a combination of best value and the
BFI clearly setting out its standards. These
standards give service providers no room
to hide – the issues have had to be
addressed. But as well as this, there has been
a recognition of the difficulties facing benefit
administration and real steps have been
identified to help individual providers improve.
The performance standards framework, now
being launched by the Department for Work
and Pensions (DWP) and BFI, is a genuine
acknowledgement that local authority benefit
administration needs help, not criticism.
Ultimately, we need new legislation to deal
with some of the complexities of the law,
which has become fragmented or even
apparently contradictory in the guidance.
Certainly some parts of the law are
unworkable and not conducive to reaching
those in need. However, while the ministers
struggle with this, we are being given a
relatively clear set of standards telling us what
controls and methods we should be adopting.
The framework is still in draft – it is not yet
perfect but the positive opportunities, and
what this could mean for the profile of
benefits, are enormous. The downside is that
the framework is intended, eventually, to be
Julie Miller believesbenefits services haveturned the corner
“The performance standards framework... is a genuineacknowledgement that local authority benefit administration
needs help, not criticism”
Phoenix fromthe ashes
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 24
Insight March 2002 25
Benefits Bulletin
linked to subsidy, with penalties for non
compliant providers.
The primary advantage of the framework is
that it will help to standardise administration
and to allow the sharing of sensible best
practice. New or inexperienced managers will
be given guidance telling them how to achieve
results and how to ensure they are not
neglecting a specific area or issue due to
lack of knowledge
The performance framework is, without
doubt, the verification framework by the
backdoor. The verification framework, like all
frameworks, should have a ‘common sense’
clause, allowing us the flexibility to work
differently where a specific case requires this.
We do have this flexibility, but only in respect
of the framework and guidance. It does not
address the anomalies in the law where
common sense should prevail. For example,
we cannot choose not to review a case where
we know nothing will have changed, such as
a pensioner on income support. This is one
example of where new legislation is needed,
to make the system sensible and flexible but
within the boundaries of good practice. Benefit
officers are adept at judging where the system
is overly bureaucratic. They can make sensible
decisions which would not corrupt the scheme
but would enhance its workability.
However, it will not be an easy task to
address this in the legislation and I am pleased
not to be the person in Whitehall trying to
make sense of it all!
My authority and many others have begun
to turn the tide in service delivery. We are
performing better and need to continue to do
so, in order to chase the upper quartile figures
in each category. Quality training and
resources are being addressed. As a result,
backlogs are disappearing and turnround times
are much improved. To quote my own
authority; we started the financial year on 90+
average days to assess a claim and are now
down to 28 days. This year’s average will be
affected greatly by the start of the year, when
our reviews were also slow and change of
circumstances abysmal. However we have
recruited staff, spent a lot of time on training
and are now confident that we can move into
next year as an improving service in the
league tables. The morale and will of the staff
to improve is second to none.
Yet a good service is not necessarily
measured by upper quartile results alone.
It can also be measured by the reaction of the
public. Are customers happy to come to your
offices? Are they content to be visited in their
home? Will they supply the information you
need and be
confident that it will
be returned to them
safely and promptly?
Good
administration
is not simply about
receiving plaudits
from your peers or
even from the Best
Value Inspectorate. If
you have had a bad
year or two where
the complaints from
customers have far
outnumbered the
thanks, then things
need to change. You
know you are on the
right track when the
thanks outnumber
the complaints and
come from those
who have previously
been complainants.
Yes these thanks do
exist and they really
do mean a lot when
they are received.
Managers must
ensure that staff
remember they are
dealing with people who need help and many
are not happy to ask for this help. To be a
benefits claimant is a difficult position at worst
and awkward at best. If we deal with people
well and professionally we will not receive
complaints – nor, perhaps, will we receive
thanks, but we will have the satisfaction of
knowing customers are receiving the service
that they are entitled to.
Since about 1994 I fear there has been a
creeping culture change, bringing in the
attitude that most claimants are fraudulent or
just not bothered. That is a scandalous position
to take. Most claimants are genuine and need
the help of benefits. Most are happy to comply
with our strict verification requirements each
year – even if they do not understand why the
Benefits Agency does not have to undergo
such rigorously frequent checks (join the club!).
I have noticed that this culture is starting to
swing back and customer focus is once again
seen as important. All my staff are familiar with
the principle “treat others as you would wish to
be treated yourself”. We may have suspicions
about some claimants and we may prove
fraud. But at no time should we lose the ability
to be pleasant and helpful to anyone seeking
our assistance. It is not always easy to strike
the right balance, but if we get this one right,
we are well on the way to good service.
So I feel we are emerging from benefit
administration’s dark days. The benefits
phoenix is rising from the ashes. I want my
staff to feel proud about the job they do – this
can only be achieved if we are prepared to
invest in the staff, believe in the service and
the good it can do for the image of the whole
council (or the damage it can do if it goes
wrong) and remember that we are customer-
led and we must aim to provide as professional
service as possible.
This is not a small task but it is an
achievable one, when the will is there centrally
to tackle what is a national, not a local,
problem. The phoenix will be able to soar... ■
Julie Miller is Benefits Manager at Mid Sussex DC
and a member of IRRV Council
Sponsors Thank You
The IRRV would like to thank the following sponsors for their
support of the Benefits Conference which took place on
5th-6th February at the Majestic Hotel, Harrogate
Trinity Public SectorWine & Dinner Sponsor
Anite Public SectorMain set & auditorium signage
IBS (public Services) LtdBreak out set sponsor
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 25
26 Insight March 2002
PLEASE CONTACT THE IRRV CONFERENCE DEPARTMENT FOR ALL PROGRAMMES AND BOOKING DETAILS
T: 020 7691 8992 F: 020 7404 2183 E: [email protected]
CorporateTimothy Beattie, Jones Lang LaSalle, Senior Surveyor
Robert Birtles, Valuation Office, Senior Valuer
Panayiotis Danos, Danos and Associates SA, Principal
Philip Glenwright, Shell International, Principal Surveyor
Francis Hinks, self employed
David McCausland, Fuller Horsey Wills, Partner
Pamela Stubbs, W S Atkins plc, Revenue Manager
Simon Tilsiter, Strettons, Director
TechnicianTracy Crosser, Debt Manager, Norwich City Council
David Morris, Rossendale CB Limited, Client Services Director
Jayne Owen, Revenues Technician, Barnsley MBC
Richard Taylor, Vale of Glamorgan Council, Income Assistant
Alistair Townsend, Gedling BC, Recovery Officer
StudentNoreen Ahmed, Derby City Council, Revenues Officer
Elaine Archer, North East Derbyshire DC, Revenues Officer
David Barnes, Flintshire CC, Local Taxation Officer
Suzanne Bessex, Staffordshire Moorlands DC, Visiting Officer
Margaret Brolly, Midlothian Council, Revenues Officer
Carolyne Carpenter, Bristol City Council, Local Taxation Officer
Joanne Charters, Scottish Borders Council, Clerical Assistant
Stuart Christie, Aberdeenshire Council, Support Officer
Ronald Coleman, Midlothian Council, Revenues Officer
Keli Cooke, Crewe and Nantwich BC, Recovery Officer
Ian Cooper, Manchester City Council, Systems Development Officer
Fiona Craig, Aberdeenshire Council, Senior Revenues Officer
Andrew Cunliffe, North Lanarkshire Council, Verification Officer
Jonathan Darlington, North Shropshire DC, Revenues Assistant
Neil Dawson, Manchester City Council, Visiting Officer
Jason Duffy, Sefton MBC, Senior Benefits Officer
Michelle Edwards, Midlothian Council, Revenues Officer
Val Gibson, Manchester City Council, Systems Development Officer
Martin Hampton, Newcastle Under Lyme BB, Clerical Assistant
Ken Harker, Hambleton DC, Local Taxation Officer
Catherine Holder, South Hams DC, Client Officer
Emma Hunter, Midlothian Council, Overpayments Officer
Joseph Knowles, Worthing BC, Customer Services Officer
Andrew Lawman, Knowsley MBC, Principal Manager
Gwen Lewis, Midlothian Council, Revenues Officer
Diane Logue, Southend on Sea BC, Quality Control Officer
Catherine Martin, Aberdeenshire Council, Principal Revenues Officer
Carol Massey, North Shropshire DC, Benefits Assistant
Janet McClintock, West Berkshire DC, Recovery Officer
Christine Norman, Hambleton DC, Local Taxation Officer
Sharee North, Aberdeenshire Council, Customer Services Officer
Ian Paul, Denbighshire CC, Collection and Recovery Manager
Janice Place, Ribble Valley BC, Clerical Assistant
Lynn Ramsay, Midlothian Council, Revenues Officer
Faisal Riaz, Wychavon DC, Revenues Assistant
Kelly Roberts, Gedling BC, Senior Assessor
Andrew Rutherford, Denbighshire CC, Revenues Assistant
Richard Smith, Cambridge City Council, Training Officer
Philip Sudlow, Gedling BC, Clerical Assistant
Martyn Tait, Midlothian Council, Revenues Officer
Diane Tomkinson, Newcastle upon Tyne City Council, Clerical Assistant
Emma Tully, Pembrokeshire CC, Revenues Assistant
Elizabeth Tye, Mid Suffolk DC, Customer Services Officer
Joanne Wheeldon, Staffordshire Moorlands DC, Local Taxation Supervisor
New IRRV members
➔➔➔➔
Members’ movesMaureen Neave (Tech), South Wales Association Secretary, has joinedthe Vale of Glamorgan as Benefit Manager. She formerly worked forCardiff County Council.
Members
CONFERENCE DIARY 2002COLLECTION & ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCEHilton Hotel Blackpool 25-26 April
WELSH CONFERENCEMetropole Hotel, Llandrindod Wells 19 June
BENEFIT FRAUD SYMPOSIUMHilton Hotel Blackpool 16-17 July
SCOTTISH CONFERENCE & EXHIBITIONCrieff Hydro Hotel, Crieff 4-5 September
ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITIONBrighton Centre Brighton 8-11 October
SOCIAL INCLUSION CONFERENCEHilton Hotel, Blackpool (Date to be confirmed)
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 26
Insight March 2002 27For Insight advertising sales telephone Caroline Jones on 01442 890000
Recruitment
For more information please contact the advising consultant, Karen Rodkin on 01457 861216 or 07775 725415.
Alternatively email your cv to: [email protected]
CAN YOU ADD BENEFIT TO OUR REVENUES TEAM?
Revenues and Benefits Consultant (based Glasgow)
Our client, Anite Public Sector, is a major FTSE Company, rapidly expanding and highly profitable, and market leaderswithin Government, where they sell leading-edge software and services.
We are currently looking for a Revenues Consultant, based out of Glasgow, to be part of a specialist team responsiblefor specification, development, documentation, and testingof the Anite Revenues and Benefits product set (ORBiS).The team also supports and releases all software related toAnite Revenues & Benefits customers throughout Scotland and England.
Your responsibilities would include:• practitioner liaison• evaluation & specification of changes• testing of changes• communication of these changes to customers• customer liaison
Candidates should be IT literate with a good knowledge ofMicrosoft packages (Word, Excel etc).
Salary and benefits will be tailored for the successful candidate,and this opportunity has excellent career development potentialworking for a highly successful organisation within thePublic Sector.
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM Page 27
Insight March 2002 28
IRRV Solutions, 29th Floor, 1 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London E14 5DY
Tel: +44 (0)207 712 1711 Fax: +44 (0)207 712 1501 Website: www.irrvsolutions.com Email: [email protected]
• Best Value Reviews
• Benchmarking
• Competitive Analysis
• Change Management
• Excellence Model and Balanced Scorecard
• Organisational Development
• ICT Strategy and Procurement
• Project Management
• Procurement and Partnerships
• Training and Development
New ideas from thename you can trust
IRRV PERFORMANCE AWARDS 2002As a professional Institute we are committed to promoting the highest
standards in the delivery of services within our fields of interest, and ourPerformance Awards Scheme plays a vital role in recognising excellence inthose service standards. Our awards scheme is the only one specificallydevoted to recognising excellence in local authority revenues and benefits, andrating and valuation. Winning an award is a mark of real distinction unequalledby any other scheme in the field.
With the introduction of a new application form last year, we received moreapplications than ever before for the IRRV Performance Awards. This year we have slightly modified the application form, to have oneapplication form for Team Awards covering high standards of service deliveryand one application form for New Initiative Awards. Each short-listed entry willreceive a framed certificate and the winners of each category will receivenational publicity, as well as a trophy and certificate and £500 to spend on IRRVservices. The winners will be announced at a special gala dinner on Thursday10 October 2002 in Brighton, during the Annual Conference, to an audience ofover 600 people.
If your team has what it takes why not put them forward for an award? All you need to do is download an application from the IRRV’s website:www.irrv.org.uk/awards. Alternatively you can contact David Magor, for an application form. You can contact him in writing at 41 Doughty Street,London, WC1N 2LF or by telephone 020 7691 8973 or [email protected].
The three Team Categories for 2002 are:
Revenues Team of the YearThe panel will be looking for authorities that are raising the standards of service to achieve high levels of customer satisfaction.
Benefits Team of the YearThe panel will be looking for evidence of excellence in delivery and a customer focused service.
Best Anti-Fraud Team of the YearThe panel will be looking for authorities that are raising the standards ofservice to have a measurable impact on fraud prevention or detection.
The three Initiative Categories for 2002 are:
Best Use of Technology The panel will be looking for use of information or communications technology that has generated significant organisational or serviceimprovement. Evidence of ease of use, improved access, higher productivity or better linkages.
Best New Initiative The panel will be looking for a new policy, process, or delivery method that has delivered improved service or reduced costs.
Best Valuation InitiativeThe panel will be looking for an innovative approach, policy, valuationmethodology/original research into valuation issues, or delivery method that has demonstrably improved service or efficiency.
Forms must be completed and returned to the panel secretary no later than 31 May 2002.
Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:28 AM Page 28