INSIGHT

INSIDE: Valuation matters • Legal view • Professor Cleverley • Credit notes • Case law update • Viewpoint

September 2014 £6.50 www.irrv.net

ISSN

136

1-13

05

The calmbefore the

stormInsight previews the forthcoming

Scottish Conference, through the eyes of Jim McCafferty and David McLaughlin

The monthly journal of the Institute of Revenues, Rating & Valuation

IRRV national Council

election Your vote counts!

Go towww.irrv.net

IRRV INSIGHT

Managing Editor

John Roberts

Editorial Director

Lester Dinnie

Art Director

Don Tregartha

Designers

Clare Barker

Roddy Clenaghan

Copy Editor

Vicki Chastney

Publisher

Tregartha Dinnie

Ltd

IRRV

Chief Executive David Magor OBE IRRV (Hons) Northumberland House 5th Floor 303-306 High Holborn London WC1V 7JZ T 020 7831 3505 E enquiries@irrv.org.uk W www.irrv.net

Enquiries Membership 020 7691 8996 Conferences 020 7691 8987 Subscriptions 020 7691 8996

©IRRV 2014. Reproduction in whole or in part of any article is prohibited without prior written consent. The views expressed in this magazine do not necessarily represent the views of the Institute. Whilst all due care is taken regarding the accuracy of information, no responsibility can be accepted for errors. Any advice given does not constitute a legal opinion.

Features

Robert Brown BSc FRICS FIRRV

Carol Cutler IRRV (Hons)

Louise Freeth FIRRV

Gordon Heath BSc IRRV (Hons)

Roger Messenger BSc (Est Man) FRICS FIRRV MCIArb REV

Angela Storey Tech IRRV MCMI

Your IRRV Council:

IRRV PRESIDENT Richard Harbord MPhil CPFA FCCA IRRV (Hons) FIDP FBIM FRSA

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT Kevin Stewart FIRRV MAAT MCMI

Alan Bronte FRICS IRRV (Hons)

David Chapman IRRV (Hons)

Phil Adlard Tech IRRV MlnstLM MCMI

John Clark FIRRV

Tom Dixon RD BSc (Est Man) FRICS IRRV (Hons)

Ian Ferguson IRRV (Hons)

Richard Guy FRICS (Dip Rating) FIRRV MCIArb

Mary Hardman IRRV (Hons) FRICS MCMI

Paul McDermott IRRV (Hons)

Kerry Macdermott IRRV (Hons)

JUNIOR VICE PRESIDENTJim McCafferty IRRV (Hons)

Maureen Neave Tech IRRV

Nick Rowe IRRV (Hons)

Alistair Townsend IRRV (Hons) MCMI

Bob Trahern IRRV (Hons)

HONORARY TREASURER Allan Traynor FCCA IRRV (Hons)

2

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

Advertising T 020 7691 8979 E sales@irrv.org.uk

Editorial John Roberts IRRV (Hons) T 07952 659 258 E jcroberts54@hotmail.com

Tregartha Dinnie Ltd Ibex House 5 Keller Close Kiln Farm Milton Keynes MK11 3LL T 01908 306500 W www.tregartha-dinnie.co.uk

IRRV INSIGHT is produced by Tregartha Dinnie Ltd on behalf of the IRRV.

Unless otherwise indicated, copyright in this publication belongs to the IRRV.

September 2014 ISSN 1361-1305

A message from the Deputy Chief Executive.

Log in to ‘magazines’ in themember area of www.irrv.net to hear the message online.

Cover story 18

The calm before the stormChange will take place one way or another

Insight previews the forthcoming Scottish Conference,

through the eyes of Jim McCafferty, and

The social contract and pinching the pennies

David McLaughlin has a challenge for councils and

contractors on how we best collect and enforce.

Editor’s welcome

3

Regular items

INSI

GH

T SE

PTEM

BER

201

4

John Roberts IRRV (Hons) is Managing Editor of the Institute’s magazines

“Welcome to the September edition of Insight.”

What’s in the next issue... • Lester Dinnie tracks down incoming President Kevin

Stewart, and it makes for an interesting read

• Simon Bailey and Capita share a technology ‘double header’

• the world of benefits according to Phil Adlard and Geoff Fimister.

Chief Executive’s notes 05

News and events 06

Education and membership 09

Running the Institute 10

From the archives 11

Faculty Board report 12

Benefits bulletin 13

Valuation matters 14

Case law update 17

Credit notes 21Geoff Fimister launches a new regular column,tracking the latest welfare reform developments

Collection & enforcement 22

Welfare reform 25

Legal view 26

Professor Cleverley 29The learned Professor returns, and this timehe offers timely advice on council tax bands andmonthly instalments

Technology 30

Doherty’s despatch 32

Viewpoint 34

Our ‘welcome’ often comments on the season we’re about to enter, almost inevitably linking it to yet another change of season in respect of revenues, rating, valuation and benefit issues. This month, though, we are entering another favourite time of the year – conference season! To celebrate, we feature the upcoming Scottish Conference, which is to be held once again in the sumptuous surroundings of Crieff Hydro. Institute Junior Vice President Jim McCafferty previews the event, whilst David McLaughlin from sponsors Scott & Co is on hand to document the very latest views from the enforcement industry. The welfare reform process is prominent this month, as we introduce a new column from a not so new contributor! Geoff Fimister charts the progress of Universal Credit in the first of a regular monthly feature, complementing the Department for Work and Pensions contributions, which have been a regular feature of our magazine for some time. The benefit agenda is also covered by Louise Freeth, as she turns her hand to this issue’s ‘Benefits bulletin’, and local authority Chief Executive Allen Graham’s ‘Viewpoint’ piece tackles the subject matter from a strategic perspective. Amongst another bumper crop of regular authors covering every aspect of the Institute’s broad professional brief, information technology guru Mel Poluck homes in on the growing use of social media, and focuses on the IRRV’s own foray into this vital area of every day life. Add into the mix our up to date ‘news and events’ feature, which chronicles the life and times of the Institute past and present, and once again we are confident that we are fulfilling the requirements of the professions which the Institute stands for – read on and enjoy!

IRRV Level 3 QCF Qualification

E: courses@irrv.org.uk

T: 020 7691 8974

W: www.irrv.net/courses

The IRRV now offers a work-based qualification. It is the Level 3 Diploma in Local Taxation, Benefits and Advice (QCF). This qualification is up to date with the changes that have taken place this year in the Local Taxation and Benefits areas. Candidates choose of one of four pathways to achieve the qualification, which are:

• Local Taxation

• Benefits

• Generic

• Advice

The Advice pathway will be particularly useful for officers who work in an advice role within a Revenues and Benefits Service or elsewhere. The Level 3 Diploma in Local Taxation, Benefits and Advice (QCF) replaces the Level 3 Diploma in Local Taxation and Benefits (QCF) and centres can start to register candidates immediately.

Completing this NEW qualification will allow the member of staff to obtain IRRV Technician membership and use the designation Tech IRRV.

Special Offer:

3 for 2 on multiple bookings* * This offer is valid on multiple bookings, with a minimum of 3 students from the same organisation.

INSI

GH

T SE

PTEM

BER

201

4

5David Magor OBE IRRV (Hons) is Chief Executive of the Institute

Of course 2013 was just the beginning. As we move forward

the funding of the schemes continues to be challenging.

Further cuts are inevitable, and the parameters of the schemes

will become less generous. It is therefore critical that local

authorities in England, Wales and Scotland exercise their

discretionary powers in accordance with the wider envelopes

of equality and European law. The need for this wider wisdom

is highlighted in the recent decision in The Queen on the

application of (1) Sheila Winder (2) Lisa Marie Dowen (3)

Sarah Hampton (the claimants) and Sandwell Metropolitan

Borough Council (the defendant) and The Equality and Human

Rights Commission (the intervener).

This decision carries a long title for a very significant

decision, which highlights the nature of the wider duties of

local authorities in their decision making, and the impact of

European law. The case centres on the residency condition

placed in the council tax reduction scheme of Sandwell

MBC. Over the last two years, the Institute has delivered

numerous webinars and seminars on the impact of council

tax reduction schemes on local authorities. The speakers and

presenters, including myself, have emphasised the importance

of consultation and legal scrutiny in the decision making

process. We have repeatedly reminded local authorities of the

importance of a rigorous equality impact assessment and the

need for consultation on the results of detailed consequences.

We are now approaching the time when local authorities will

be considering their schemes for the financial year beginning

on 1st April 2015. Changes will be necessary to meet the

demands of the continuing pressure of cuts in the overall

funding, together with the wider decisions of the forthcoming

Autumn Statement. It is now clear from the Sandwell decision

that the approach to any adjustments in schemes must be

accompanied by a proper evaluation of the equality impacts,

together with a wider consideration of the human rights

implications and the consequential consultation. It simply is not

enough to pay lip service to these important matters.

The decision making process in local government is well

established, but care must be taken to ensure this process is

properly subjected to rigorous legal scrutiny.

Chief Executive’s notes

“ We have repeatedly reminded local authorities of the importance of a rigorous equality impact assessment and the need for consultation on the results of detailed consequences.”

It’s a questionof discretion and judgement...and it’s critical for local authorities, advises David Magor.

On 1st April 2013 the council tax reduction schemes replaced the council tax benefit scheme in England, and brought with them significant cuts in entitlement. In Wales and Scotland common sense prevailed and the decision was made to fund the shortfall, thus sparing those in poverty the fear and anguish created by arbitrary reductions in income.

IRRV national Council

election Your vote counts!

Go towww.irrv.net

6

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

What do you call a gatheringof Past Presidents and Honorary members?Not a competition for you, I’m afraid, but the answer is a fine opportunity to share stories and meet up with old friends who have all made their mark on IRRV history. This year’s event, held in central London in July,

saw some twenty dignitaries do just that, as the

collection of photographs illustrate.

Business rate appeals process changes delayedIn an open letter from the Department for Communities and Local Government, and following 70 responses to the consultation paper ‘Checking and Challenging your Rateable Value’, the government has decided to fold the consideration of reform of the business rates appeals process into the broader review of business rates administration, which is considering longer term reform taking effect after the next revaluation in April 2017.Respondents welcomed the government’s intention to reform the

appeals process, but argued that the government should consider

reform in the broader context of the review of business rates

administration, which the Chancellor announced in the Autumn

Statement 2013.

You can read more on this issue

in David Magor’s ‘CE’s notes’

on page 4, and in the

Faculty Board report

on page 12.

News and events

The President’s blog As Institute President Richard Harbord continues on the endless tour of Presidential duties towards the normality of life after the role, he invites members to share in his activities.You can find out exactly what

Richard has been up to over the

past few weeks by logging in to

http://richardharbord.blogs-pot.co.uk/.

IRRV Council election – make your vote count!Fellow, Honours and Diploma members of the Institute can now vote in the election of members to the IRRV’s national Council.This can be done via the website, or by requesting a postal ballot from

Deputy Chief Executive Gary Watson on gary.watson@irrv.org.uk or

020 7691 8988.

This year, six seats are being contested by eleven candidates, and further

details of the process can be found on page 11 of June 2014’s edition of

Insight. The closing date for votes is 5pm on 26th September 2014.

7

INSI

GH

T SE

PTEM

BER

201

4It’s caption time again...Last month we focused on our ‘Reflections’ star of July’s edition of Insight, Past President Peter Fairhurst, and asked what could Peter be describing as he addresses the Metropolitan and Home Counties weekend school in 1981?

Our winner on this occasion is from Past President Dave Chapman, who has Peter saying, “I was minding my own business in Knotty Ash when I was mugged for my copy of Rating Law and Practice. One of them was so high and the other about this tall.” Lancashire is also represented by Ann Penn, with “The President was always good for leading the session on his favourite topic ‘Jive Hands’”, and “I’ll kick off the karaoke with “Everybody was Kung Fu fighting” ! And the mysterious Sucrologist has made an appearance again, with “Peter saying, ‘It was a sign that he was looking forward to meeting delegates in the bar later for a few drinks’.”

This month, we’re taking a break on the caption front, as we collect another batch of incriminating photographs at the forthcoming IRRV conferences. However, the feature will be back before the end of the year, so keep your thinking caps handy!

News of members

A big welcome...Institute organisational members Ross and Roberts are pleased to announce the appointment of Amanda Reynolds as their new Business Development Manager for the revenues market sector.Amanda is an experienced business

development professional with over

15 years experience in the delivery of

new business and account management for clients within both

the public and private sectors.

...and a fond farewell ...or simply see you again soon?After almost ten years with Ross and Roberts, Ray Hatchard is bowing out from the company to take a well-earned break, although he intends to keep his eye in with occasional consultancy work.Ray started out in 1973 in the rates department

of Bournemouth Borough Council, and joined the

Borough of Poole in 1988, where his ‘claim to

fame’ was being the first local government officer in England and Wales to

obtain a liability order for non-payment of the poll tax! Ray is also a Past

Chairman of the Institute’s Wessex Association.

“A genuinely nice guy who would make time for anyone.” Friends and colleagues from the IRRV were saddened to hear of the passing of Malcolm Campbell earlier this year, following a brave battle with cancer.

Malcolm began his career at Hull City Council, moving

to Holderness Rural District Council, where he stayed

through two local government reorganisations before

becoming a consultant for Rossendales in 1996. He also

became an active member of the Valuation Tribunal before

finally retiring in 2006, when he was awarded an IRRV

Certificate of Service.

Malcolm was always a proud member of the IRRV, joining the

Rating and Valuation Association back in 1966. He served as

the President of the Yorkshire and District Association in

1996/1997, and served on the Association Executive for over

15 years. He was the ‘MC’ at the Yorkshire Association dinner

for many a year, setting

a relaxed tone with his

affectionate belly

laugh – something

fondly remembered

by his friends and

former colleagues!

Outside of work,

Malcolm was a keen

and active member of

his local church, and

a passionate charity worker. He arranged annual trips to Lourdes for

others not as fortunate, something that he continued to do even after

his diagnosis. Our thoughts are with his family, especially his wife Jean

(photographed with Malcolm) and their two children. God Bless you

Malcolm – rest in peace.

John Clark FIRRV

A celebration of life: Malcolm Campbell

8

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

Islwyn Lewis-Jones bringstales from WalesAfter 15 years as the Wales Conference Secretary and 17 years as Honorary Secretary of the North and Mid Wales Association, I have decided to put away

my quill and return to the ‘back benches’ on the Executive Committee.

I am currently very much in reflective mode, mulling over how the

Association has evolved in the intervening years from a situation where

we were dependent on an annual grant from the Institute to fund our

administration, to the present where we have capital reserves.

The Association’s enduring legacy is two fold – education and training and the Wales Conference.

Education and training, mentored from the outset by Eryl Rowlands

of Conwy, has been at the forefront of our agenda – delivering training

locally at the point of demand. Match-funding, the ‘brain child’ of

David Barnes of Flintshire, utilising accumulated Association funds,

has prompted a significant increase and take up in the number of

events held.

Dafydd Edwards of Gwynedd’s vision of an ‘All Wales Forum’

became a reality on the 12th September 2000 at The Metropole,

Llandrindod Wells – the First Wales Conference. In his Presidential

address, he acknowledged that the “conference had been called for in

the context of the National Assembly’s increasing influence, and the

requirement for local government to co-operate to achieve best value”.

He concluded by stating, “that the conference would succeed and grow

Association news

as an annual event” – his confidence has clearly been vindicated.

Today the Wales Conference is firmly established on the Institute’s

conference circuit, and is widely acknowledged as the pre-eminent

convention in the Wales local government calendar.

Promoted by Ian Marshalsay of Ceredigion, 2012 heralded a

long overdue re-drawing of the Association’s geographical boundary

to recognise and bring into the fold Y Canolbarth – Mid-Wales,

creating a new designation, Cymdeithas Gogledd A Chanolbarth

Cymru, the North and Mid Wales Association.

The Association’s Annual Golf Tournament is without doubt the

most eagerly anticipated event in our calendar. Rivalry on the course

is keen, yet the competition engenders tremendous camaraderie.

The tournament, now in its 17th year, has cemented many

relationships, and it is gratifying to note that such is the spirit that is

promoted, retired members remain on the annual invitation list. The

success of this very convivial competition is without question due to

the organisational skills and inimitable humour of that indomitable

pair Dafydd Edwards and Phil Round.

We are where we are today as a consequence of the vision

and enthusiasm of the Executive Committee, driven forward by

a succession of proactive Presidents, and to them I owe huge

personal debts of gratitude.

I wish Bethan Lewis every success in her new role as the

Association’s first lady Secretary, and entertain no doubt that she will

bring to the post her own enthusiastic style of administration.

Islwyn Lewis-Jones IRRV

E: onlinetraining@irrv.org.uk

T: 020 7691 8972

W: www.irrvlearning.org.uk

For a free 24 hour trial of the programmes please contact:

onlinetraining@irrv.org.uk

Taking Control of Goods The IRRV Level 2 Award in Taking Control of Goods is awarded by the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuationt (IRRV) and has been developed in association with the Ministry of Justice and the enforcement industry to meet the certification requirements of all enforcement agents.

Who is the qualification for?The qualification is for enforcement agents and any other individual involved in Taking Control of Goods.

What does the IRRV qualification consist of and cover?The IRRV qualification consists of one Level 2 unit. The unit contains six learning outcomes which are easy to study for and test in a robust way: Role of enforcement agents; Practice of removal and sale of goods; Law relevant to enforcement agents; Relevant aspects of customer care; Practice of taking control of goods and How to manage conflict situations.

9

Education and membership

Congratulations to everyone!!

Kevin Stewart FIRRV MAAT MCMI is Senior Vice

President of the IRRV, and Chair of the Education

and Membership Committee

New members Latest vocational qualification successes

INSI

GH

T SE

PTEM

BER

201

4

NAME QUALIFICATION EMPLOYER

Chris Jones Level 3 QCF Revenues pathway Flintshire County Council

Liz Mallon Level 3 QCF Revenues pathway Flintshire County Council

STUDENT MEMBERSNAME EMPLOYER

Lisa Clarke Boston Borough Council

Gemma Creasey Boston Borough Council

Melanie Gage Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

Jay Hicks-Keeley Sedgemoor District Council

Lee Houghton Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

Harbinder Kaur Kang BNP Paribas Real Estate

James Nicholas Massey Valuation Tribunal Service

Greg Ritchie Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

HONOURS MEMBERS NAME EMPLOYER

Dharsh Chander Liberata UK Ltd

Claire Cracknell Harrogate Borough Council

Lorraine King Breckland District Council

Robert Leppard Plymouth Valuation Office Agency

Jason Marrett Self-employed

ORGANISATIONAL MEMBERS NAME

Task Enforcement Ltd

It’s my turn again as Chair of the Education

and Membership Committee, to write the

column normally penned by Michael Hopkins,

and to vary the articles and provide a different

perspective. This time, even though it is an

article on Institute education and membership

matters, I wanted to add a more personal

perspective. By the time you read this, I will

have added a further volunteering experience

– the Glasgow Commonwealth Games of

2014 – to the others, such as the Tour De

France, and students will have received

the examination results that will have been

released on 20th August 2014. I do hope that

you have done well, but do remember never

to give up – if you work hard enough it is also

possible to succeed!

I distinctly remember failing my professional

examinations in 1985, and being told by the

Borough Treasurer at the time that I would

never ever pass exams. To be fair, he was right!

I was low in confidence, and did not have a very

good exam record at that time. I was lucky – in

the right place at the right time – that a new

Treasurer started at my council in 1986, and

gave me a last chance I did not really deserve.

The rest is history – along with a lot of hard

work, I now have three sets of letters after my

name, having not failed to pass any exam since

then, including getting a subject prize in the law

of housing benefit. I have also enjoyed a varied

career, and in October this year I will (all being

well!) become IRRV President, which for me is

both a huge honour and very humbling.

I wanted to tell you this personal story to

give you the motivation to do well (or even

give you the encouragement to study) at a time

when a number of our students undertake a

new level of exam, or start a course for the first

time. Work hard, and I am sure like me, you will

eventually do well. For the successful students

amongst you from the June 2014 exams, many

congratulations – I hope that you continue as a

member of the Institute (we need you, as you

are the Institute’s future!) – and I hope you get

as much satisfaction as I have had out of your

involvement with the IRRV. For some of those

successful students, such as prize winners and

fully qualified members, I hope to welcome you

in person at the Annual Conference in Telford,

as I hope as Chair of the Committee to be

presenting you with your certificates.

It’s Kevin Stewart’s turn to take the reigns, and this month he adds a personal touch to the education and membership agenda

Also, do please remember that we have

now launched our new Level 2 Enforcement

Qualification. Its formal title is IRRV Level 2

Certificate in Enforcement – Taking Control

of Goods (QCF). This is a new qualification,

that will ensure staff are trained in the new

enforcement rules that came into force on

6th April 2014. You can see further details

at http://www.irrv.net/qualifications/takingcontrolofgoods/.

Moving on to membership matters, I’ll add a

reminder for you to please try and encourage

colleagues or people you know to take up

membership of the IRRV. Further information

on becoming a member is available at http://www.irrv.net/membership/index.asp. I

know fewer and fewer organisations are paying

staff membership fees, but do remember that

you can get tax relief on any subscriptions paid.

Further details are available at http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/relief-subs.htm.

Running the Institute

Commercial Services CommitteeThe meeting was chaired by Ian Ferguson. Key

reports considered by the Committee included:

• Sales and sponsorship

• Conferences (including Performance Awards)

• Professional meetings and training courses

• Forum (and Benefit Advisory) Services

• Communications Working Group

(magazines, website and publications)

• Update on activities in Scotland and

Northern Ireland.

An update on sales and sponsorship was

provided to the Committee. Whilst exhibition

sales for the Welfare Reform and Benefits

Conference at Keele had been disappointing, the

Local Taxation and Revenues Conference held

in the same week attracted increased numbers.

In terms of Annual Conference, exhibition sales

were very strong, with numbers up on this time

last year.

The options next year for the above

conferences held at Keele were considered.

With the General Election scheduled for the

beginning of May, holding conferences in April

would bring problems. Likewise, conferences in

February or March would present difficulties for

practitioners, as this was their busiest time of the

year. The decision taken was to run with the two

conferences in the week commencing 15th June

2015 – the venue again being Keele University.

In terms of Annual Conference this year,

Committee reviewed the proposed structure

for the event, which included the programme.

Further work was needed to ensure the right

balance was struck between all areas of the

profession. It was left to the Chief Executive and

Deputy Chief Executive to take this forward, with

the Valuers’ Association looking at the valuation

stream on the Wednesday.

A real success this year had been the

professional meetings run by the Institute, a

number of which were run more than once to

cater for demand. In particular, the meeting run

in partnership with the Valuation Office Agency

(VOA) on completion notices was proving

popular, with further meetings on this topic

scheduled for the autumn. The Committee

recorded its appreciation to the VOA for their

support for these meetings.

The Committee was updated on the Forum

Service, and it was noted that over 200

organisations were now members. Members

have continued to join during the year (both from

the public and private sector); a trend that it was

hoped would continue.

Education and Membership CommitteeThe meeting was chaired by Kevin Stewart. Key

reports considered by the Committee included:

IRRV HQ was again the venue for the third quarterly cycle of council meetings in 2014. A summary of what was discussed is detailed below:

CouncilThe meeting was chaired by the President,

Richard Harbord. Key reports considered by

the Council included:

• Reports of the Standing Committees

• Fast-track procedure for removal

of membership

• Approval of OFQUAL Statement

of Compliance

• Chief Executive’s report

• President’s report.

At the end of the meeting, the President

presented gif ts to Carol Cutler and Richard Guy (both Past Presidents), who were

standing down from the Council this year.

Reference was then made to Tom Dixon

(again, a Past President) who was not

present at the meeting, but is also standing

down this year.

Policy and Resources Committee The meeting was chaired by Richard Harbord. Key reports considered by

Committee included:

• Management accounts as at 31st May 2014

• Governance and administration

• Media/marketing consultants.

The management accounts as at 31st May

2014 were reviewed. It was reported that

the financial position had stabilised since the

last meeting, and this was likely to be the

case at 30th June 2014. Income generated

from membership continued to be an area of

concern, although the outturns for professional

meetings in England, Wales and Scotland were

showing positive variances in the budget.

On governance and administration, the

President reported on the recommendations

from the Governance Working Group that had

met since the last meeting to consider the

following three issues:

• Size of Council

• Structure of Committees

(and their composition)

• Arrangements for Council meetings.

The recommendations were accepted, and

changes to the constitution would go before

the AGM in October. In the meantime,

elections to Council this year would proceed

as normal, and it was hoped that sufficient

nominations would be received to enable a

vote to take place.

• Membership

• IRRV courses

• Qualifications

• Certificate of Service

• Valuation matters

• Organisational membership packages.

As is the case at all meetings of this Committee,

members reflected on the membership drives

of recent years and why these had not proved

successful. The small working group set up

to review membership reported on various

initiatives to attract (and then retain) members.

Incentives for recruiting members were an option

being considered – this idea was to be worked

up before the next meeting.

The report on IRRV courses covered the

day release course in London, the distance

learning course, and the pre-examination course.

Bookings were now being taken for the day

release course scheduled to start in October

2014 at IRRV HQ. Recruitment for the distance

learning course remained ongoing, whilst it

was reported numbers attending the spring

pre-examination course at Keele this year had

increased from the previous year.

Law and Research CommitteeThe meeting was chaired by Gordon Heath. The

approach adopted at the last meeting to focus

on just a few key reports was continued at this

meeting - the reports being:

• Non-domestic rates: formulating

Institute policy

• Research update (oral)

• Future of council tax

reduction schemes (oral).

Committee was asked to consider the Institute’s

submission to the recent discussion paper on

business rates administration (England), with

a view of identifying which elements should

be included in a separate Institute policy

document on non-domestic rates. In addition,

Committee considered what amendments and

additions should be made to these points when

transposing the points in the response to the

proposed new policy reference document.

National Council is keen the membership is aware of what is discussed at its meetings. Should a member require further information on any of the reports considered by National Council, they should contact me on gary.watson@irrv.org.uk .

Gary Watson chronicles all the action from the Institute’s July Council round of meetings

10

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

Gary L Watson IRRV (Hons) is

Deputy Chief Executive of the IRRV

The Executive Committee next met on 2nd

November, with Mr Schiller (Vice Chairman)

in the chair. The minutes from the meeting

held on 5th October were agreed, and letters

of apology were read from Messrs Morton,

Cadman and Goddard – a telegram had also

been received from the Chairman, Mr Ager,

advising he was unable to attend the meeting.

A very short report on the finances was given

to the meeting by the Honorary Secretary; so

short it simply said the balance at the bankers

was currently £39. 8/7. He then referred back

to the resolution at the last meeting, when he

was asked to write to the vestry clerk at St.

Giles Bloomsbury with regard to a matter in the

public press of 15th August last on police court

summonses. To date, no response had been

received to this letter.

The annual dinner sub-committee then

reported on the various places they had visited

for the purpose of finding a venue for the

annual dinner next year. One can now see why

there was a clamour each year to be part of

this sub-committee! The only suitable venue

for the event was the Victoria Saloon Suite,

The Criterion, Piccadilly. Messrs Spiers and

Pond, the proprietors, had agreed to provide

a dinner, similar to a menu they produced, at

the sum of 5/-.

Mr Christopher Spiers and Mr Felix Pond

had purchased the property back in 1870, with

the official opening in 1873 after they had

spent £80,000 on building works. Now wine

merchants, they had previously organised the

first tour of Australia by an English cricket team

in 1861/62, as well as the first ever balloon

ride in Australia.

History tells us that the first floor of the

building (which contained the restaurant)

was seriously damaged by fire in 1895, with

restoration work costing a further £1,395.

Quite how this all impacted on the decision of

the sub-committee to recommend the annual

dinner be held at this venue, we do not know.

In any event, it was resolved to proceed.

For the record, The Telford International

Centre (where we are holding the gala dinner

this October) also has an association with

English sport, having previously been the

venue for the National Tennis Championships.

However, unlike The Criterion, Piccadilly, it can

also boast ample free car parking!

Moving on from the annual dinner, a letter

was then read from Mr Sutton of St. Albans,

the representative for Marylebone. In the

letter, he gave notice of his resignation from

the Executive, as he lived “so far away from

town”, and nominated Mr E Foot as the new

representative. No doubt he would be able to

get to meetings ‘on foot’.

It was agreed that the Honorary Secretary

should acknowledge receipt of the letter, and

express regret at the loss of his services after

his long connection with the Executive. It was

hoped he would use every opportunity to be

present at any future occasion, should any

serious matters arise.

The Chairman, Vice Chairman, Treasurer

and Mr White were then asked to work on

producing the annual report for 1895, and

the sought after places on the annual dinner

sub-committee were approved. At this point,

discussion returned to the annual dinner and

the guests to be invited. Association members

would be able to invite MPs and vestry clerks,

but this would be at their cost. The same

would apply to members of the press, although

invitations would only be extended to the Daily

Telegraph and Daily News, with the Association

bearing the cost. However, this decision

was only carried on the casting vote of the

Chairman, after an equal number of members

were for and against the proposal. At this point,

the meeting closed.

The sub-committee appointed to work on

the annual report met on 5th December to

agree the draft. This was then taken to the

final executive meeting of the year on 7th

December, with Mr Schiller again in the chair.

Apologies were received from twelve members

(one of which was the Chairman) and letters of

resignation were read from four members. The

minutes from the meeting on 2nd November

were then agreed. The annual report (with

some alterations and amendments) was

approved, and it was resolved 250 copies be

printed and sent to each member. At the same

time, it was agreed that 200 ‘books of words’,

with music, be printed for the annual dinner.

A letter from the Municipal Officers

Association was then read on a proposed

conference for Poor Law Officers to consider

the question of superannuation, and the

desirability of taking direct action to promote

a Bill in Parliament. The Association was

invited to send three representatives to their

next meeting, and after some discussion, this

was agreed.

The Honorary Secretary then reported that

the annual audit would take place at his offices

on 2nd January 1896, and invited members to

be present. The indication from the minutes is

that the level of interest expressed by members

to be part of the annual dinner sub-committee

was not the same when responding to the

invitation to attend the annual audit. It was then

agreed the AGM in January would commence

at 5.00pm at The Criterion, Piccadilly, with the

annual dinner commencing at 6.30pm.

A Notice of Motion was then put by

the Chairman, Mr Schiller, that at the next

meeting, he would bring forward an item

as to the desirability of presenting a list to

the annual dinner with a view of collecting

donations on behalf of the benevolent fund.

The meeting then concluded, and it was

agreed the next meeting would take place on

11th January 1896.

Members are invited to contribute towards the feature and come forward with their own personal

memories of the Institute. The Deputy Chief Executive is also happy to try and answer any questions

on the Institute’s history. In addition, copies of previous articles can be provided on request.

Please contact him on gary.watson@irrv.org.ukGary L Watson IRRV (Hons) is

Deputy Chief Executive of the IRRV

From the

“ However, this decision was only carried on the casting vote of the Chairman, after an equal number of members were for and against the proposal.”

Gary Watson discovers the busiest year yet, as he introduces the fourth part of his analysis of 1895

INSI

GH

T SE

PTEM

BER

201

4

11

12

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

Faculty Board report

as a whole, and it is likely that those views will

be diverse.

The session will examine views on the

extent to which the Bill will empower

communities. The benefits and disadvantages

for public sector organisations as a

consequence of the provisions in the Bill

will also be explored. The capabilities

of communities across Scotland to take

advantage of the provisions in the Bill will also

be assessed.

The Institute will have comment to make

particularly regarding the specific provisions in

the Bill relating to non-domestic rates. Part 8

provides for reduction or remission of rates

for non-domestic properties (or ‘land and heritages’) in Scotland, to better reflect local

needs and support communities. It creates a

power to allow rating authorities to reduce or

remit non-domestic rates within their areas,

in any financial year from 2015/16 onwards.

This power will allow any rating authority to

create, if it wishes, local relief schemes for

any lands and heritages from which it collects

rates. It does this by inserting a new section

into the Local Government (Financial Provisions etc.) (Scotland) Act 1962.

The rating authority would need to have

regard to the interests of people who pay

council tax set by the authority before

creating or amending a relief scheme. This

is because any loss of income from non-

domestic rates incurred by the scheme must

be offset from other income raised by the

local authority. There will be amendments

made to the arrangements for pooling of

income from non-domestic rates and funding

Land and heritages inScotland

The Local Government and Regeneration Committee of the Scottish Parliament

will shortly commence its scrutiny of the

Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill. The policy objectives of this bill are

to empower community bodies through

the ownership of land and buildings,

strengthening their voices in the decisions that

matter to them, to support an increase in the

pace and scale of public service reform by

cementing the focus on achieving outcomes,

and improving the process of community planning. In doing so, this Bill aims to support

approaches that can contribute to improving

outcomes in all aspects of people‘s lives.

To help the Committee gain a greater

understanding of Par t B, relating to the

non-domestic rates aspect of the Bill, the

Institute, through its Scottish Association,

has been invited to give oral evidence at

the Committee’s Oral Evidence session on

1st October.

Also being invited to this round table session

are third sector community and voluntary

groups, and other interested stakeholders.

The Bil l was introduced to the

Parliament by John Swinney MSP in

June, and has been referred to the Local

Government and Regenerat ion Commit tee

for Stage 1 considerat ion.

A series of questions has been provided

within the public call for evidence issued by

the Committee, and the Institute has begun

discussion with its members to ascertain views

and comments. The Institute representative at

the evidence session will no doubt seek to be

appraised of the views of Scottish practitioners

of rating authorities will accommodate, and

remain unaffected by, the power to create

relief schemes.

I reported in the May issue of Insight that the

Institute had responded to the government’s

consultation on ‘Checking and Challenging

your Rateable Value’. The purpose of that

consultation was to make improvements to the

operation of the appeals process by providing

greater transparency in how rateable values

are established. The proposals would require

ratepayers to provide an explanation with

a formal challenge, and would introduce a

formal separation between the proposal stage

and appeal stage.

The Department for Communities and Local Government has recently reported

that there were over 70 responses to the

consultation from a range of local authorities,

rating agents, representative bodies and

individual businesses. Many of the responses

raised issues on the broader nature of the

current system, and argued that the reform

should be considered in the wider context of

the review of business rates administration,

which the Chancellor announced in the

Autumn Statement 2013. The government

has now decided to bring the consideration

of reform of the business rates appeals

process into the broader review of business

rates administration, which is considering

longer term reform taking effect after the next

revaluation in April 2017.

Moira Hepworth is the Institute’s

Policy and Research Manager

“ The Institute representative at the evidence session will no doubt seek to be appraised of the views of Scottish practitioners as a whole, and it is likely that those views

will be diverse.”

On the dawn of the Scottish Conference, Moira Hepworth’s Valuers’ Association report looks tothe north

INSI

GH

T SE

PTEM

BER

201

4

13

Let’s startwith ESA!As I write, we seem to be on the eve of what

may be a pretty good summer, weather

wise, but the same cannot be said of the

world of welfare reform. Not a day seems to

go past without the issue of welfare reform

being raised at a Select Committee or in the

Commons. It ’s a little difficult to judge who

may be ‘winning ’ at the moment, in terms

of the ruling party or the opposition, but from

what is being debated, it certainly doesn’t

seem to be those who should be at the heart

of the debate – the claimants themselves!

I’ve decided to stay away from the Universal Credit (UC) debate, tempting as it would

be to write about the expansion of the

pathfinders, changes to gateway legislation,

government response to the Select Committee

recommendations, response to the opposition

statement on the reform, the Commons

Urgent Question, or the further trialling sites

for LSSF.

Instead, I’d like to look at the issues

currently surrounding Employment Support Allowance (ESA) and Personal Independence Payment (PIP), two benefits

which provide assistance to some of the most

vulnerable customers.

Let’s start with ESA. As you may be aware,

there have been several evidence sessions

surrounding ESA before the Work and Pensions

Select Committee lately. This is particularly

important, given the fact that we have now

had the fourth independent review of the

Work Capability Assessment (WCA) and

the call for evidence launched for the fifth and

final statutory review.

This will be the second review of WCA

carried out by Dr Paul Litchfield, Chief

Medical Officer for BT Group – the previous

three reviews having been undertaken by

Professor Malcolm Harrington. I suppose

the question is whether or not the reviews

to date have altered the WCA significantly?

The conclusion of the reviews to date has

been that the WCA is conceptually right,

but that more needs to be done to improve

the system. The length and complexity of

the process contributes to dissatisfaction

and negative perceptions surrounding the

assessment. Dr Litchfield focused in particular

on improving conditions associated with

those suffering from mental health issues.

This builds upon the foundation of Mental Health Function Champions and improving

knowledge of mental health more broadly for

decision makers and healthcare professionals.

In a recent Parliamentary debate, one of

the opposition MPs cited a case where a

constituent was sanctioned because during

their WCA they suffered a heart attack,

and therefore could not complete the test.

The heart attack was actually diagnosed

by the medical professional undertaking

the assessment, but unfortunately the

Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) decision maker still decided to apply

a sanction. Of course there will always be

extremes, and I’m not suggesting that this is

representative of all assessment decisions, but

it does illustrate the fact that perhaps the DWP

have moved too far towards viewing it purely

as a points based ‘tick box’ exercise, and

have lost track of the aim, which is to view the

claimant holistically.

You may recall that when the re-assessment

exercise was first introduced to determine

whether claimants in receipt of old style

disability benefits such as Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance should

convert to ESA or, having been found fit

for work, advised to apply for Jobseeker’s Allowance, there was a commitment to

complete this exercise by April 2014. That

date has now come and gone, so where are

we with that? Well, the Minister of State for

Disabled People confirmed “I missed that

deadline” recently, confirming that there

are 700,000 claimants currently in the ESA

backlog, of which approximately 100,000 are

re-assessment claims, and that re-assessment

has been slowed down substantially, although

there was no new deadline announced. To try

and speed the process up for new claimants,

they are now being encouraged to claim ESA

over the phone.

Appeals have been another area examined

closely, and it is hoped that, with the

introduction of mandatory reconsideration

prior to appeal, the number of appeals will

reduce and the quality of decisions being

made will improve significantly. The latest

Ministry of Justice (MOJ) tribunal statistics,

which are for January to March 2014, show

that there were a total of 655,900 cases

outstanding across all tribunal types. In

2013/14 ESA appeals accounted for 58% of

the share of appeals received (down by 29%

from 2012/13) but, despite this, the quality of

decisions appears to have been fairly stable,

with only 55% of DWP decisions upheld

on appeal. By comparison, housing benefit

accounted for only 3% of appeals, although

there was an increase from the 2012/13 figure

of 10,803 received, to 12,113. However, 77%

of the decisions local authorities made were

upheld on appeal. I’ll not comment further but

leave you to draw your own conclusions!

When I started this article, I’d intended to

also discuss PIP, but I seem to have run out

of space so I’ll just leave you with one last

thought. 7th July saw yet another debate in

the Commons regarding the implementation

of UC, at which an interesting statistic came

to light. There were then approximately 7,000

claimants receiving UC and 83,900 receiving

PIP, yet both were introduced at the same time

on a staggered basis!

Louise Freeth FIRRV MCMI is Revenues and

Benefits Change and Service Development

Manager with Liberata, and a member of

the IRRV’s national Council. Contact her

on louisefreeth@liberata.com

Benefits bulletin

There are other benefits out there that are struggling, discovers Louise Freeth, as she casts her net a little wider than Universal Credit

“ Appeals have been another area examined closely, and it is hoped that, with the introduction of mandatory reconsideration prior to appeal, the numbers of appeals will reduce and the quality of decisions being made will improve significantly.”

14

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

Rating Recent Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decision: appeal by M Pearce (VO) –re-entitlement of VO to alter RV determined by VT. An appeal to the Upper

Tribunal (Lands Chamber) was allowed

with the UT Deputy President Martin

Rodger QC recording that, after hearing

the various arguments, he did not consider

that, following a VTE valuation decision

based on a mistaken understanding of

the facts, a VO is obliged to necessarily

follow the VTE’s valuation where an

alteration of the List is required due to

Material Change of Circumstances (MCC).

“A mistake of fact made by the VTE need

not be perpetuated and the VO is entitled”

...in considering an MCC... “to start from

scratch, giving appropriate weight to the

VTE’s decision.” This appeal was against

the Valuation Tribunal decision in West London Aero Club v Hazell VO where

the VTE President determined that the VO

was confined to follow the VTE’s valuation,

in any reassessment on a subsequent MCC,

even though it appeared to be based on a

significant incorrect (low) floor area of

some hangers.

The July 2014 decision is complex and

includes a further point in respect of

alterations of the RV subsequent to the

original VT decision in this case. The study of

the whole appeal decision is recommended

at http://www.landstribunal.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=1054.

Valuation Tribunal revised and extended Practice Statement PS A2 changes – issued on 1st August 2014,

this details key changes in respect of

necessary contacts/steps prior to a VT

hearing, and is effective from 1st October.

See http://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk/Attending_A_Hearing/PracticeStatements.aspx (includes

explanatory note).

The Valuation In Practice newsletter 33 (VIP33) is now on the Valuation

Tribunal website. It includes summaries

of revisions/changes in the VTE Practice

Statements effective from 1st May 2014.

The President’s guidance includes advice

on how to prepare a document bundle, and

that Statements of Case cannot be released

to others under section 32 of the Freedom

of Information Act 2000. It also includes

advice from the Registrar noting the High

Court decision in Adam v LO 2014, and

that Listing Officers may ‘correct’ a council

tax banding even where it was previously

agreed between the parties. See http://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk/vip_newsletter.aspx.

VIP 33 also summarises recent Valuation Tribunal decisions, including the following:

2005 Rating List: Royal Society of Medicine v Dunlevy VO – a West End

town house where a premium of £5.5m

had been paid for a 2004 125 year lease at

£37,000 pa, and a 2009 rent review agreed

representing 10% of office use value. The

mode and category of occupation was

considered, and viewed as a hybrid use of

conference and meeting rooms with bed

and breakfast accommodation, rather than

hotel or office use and values. Having regard

to Lotus and Delta Ltd v Culverwell VO & Leicester City Council 1976, the

panel took the rent of the appeal property,

analysed to £370,000 pa, as the starting

point and best evidence (although the rent/

premium did not accord to the basis of RV),

and determined that the 2005 List RV at

£307,500 was not excessive. The appeal was

dismissed. Go to: http://info.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/decision_document.asp?appeal=%2Fdecision_documents%2Fdocuments%2FNDR%2F599016869085%2F088N05.

Appeals on Wales/England pipelines –

in the Central Rating List, where

stage 3 of the contractor ’s test was

considered. Whilst stage 3 should

reflect the market (capital) value of the

hereditament, it was not the market

value of the business as a going concern

or based on productivity. Never theless

an allowance was made for functional

(not economic) obsolescence, and

the RV was reduced. See appeal no: 0002M89595/001N10 on the VT website.

Important reminder – new Code on Marketing Practice for Rating Services A new Code on Marketing Practice for Rating Services has been

added to the IRRV members’ Code of Conduct, effective from 1st July 2014. It concerns issues of seeking instructions, the conduct of marketing and telesales staff, marketing material and communications, professional

fees, contracts of engagement, plus complaints procedures. You can read the full Code in May Insight, or go to:http://www.irrv.net/documents/3/MARKETING%20CODE%202014.pdf.

Valuation matters

Valuers’ Association Monthly Page

V@MP

July Insight ‘Valuation matters’ Jon Bestow, Registrar & Chief Clerk with the

Valuation Tribunal for England, has pointed out:

‘In the July edition of Insight, on page 14, you make

two mistakes in your report under the heading

‘Rating’, in attributing the statement about tax

exemption being a privilege to the European Court

of Human Right and in implying that this statement

derives from the VTS’s Valuation in Practice, which

in fact states the position correctly, as explained by

the President of the Valuation Tribunal for England

in a recent decision.

‘The VO’s representative also made the point

that the exemption was a privilege, not a right,

citing the decision of the European Court of

Human Rights in the Mormon case. The remark

about a privilege and not a right – which does

not strike me as being an accurate or appropriate

statement – does not appear in the judgment

of the Court, but is found in a short concurring

judgment of two of the seven judges. It is not

helpful and is not a view that should be attributed

to the Court.’ (A. & N. Frozen Foods v. Alexander

(VO), 9 July 2014, para.17).

INSI

GH

T SE

PTEM

BER

201

4

15

Geoff Fisher is back with another collection of snippets from the world of valuation

September Valuer magazine – available for viewing now!Don’t forget that you can view the

latest edition of the IRRV’s Valuer

magazine by logging on to the

member area and clicking on

‘magazines’. In this month’sissue we feature the following:• Fromthetrenches – Tom Dixon’s often controversial

column pulls no punches• Caselaw – an update on everything legal from expert

Peter Brown, and analysis of all the latest cases from Gordon Heath

• ValuationinEurope – Chris Grzesik is on hand to keep readers up to date with real estate practice and TEGoVA developments• Urbanregeneration – researcher Gill Telford is on

the trail of local authority community asset transfers• GuySams on compulsory purchase and compensation• Valuationinpractice – Guy Harbord of Wilks Head

and Eve provides a case study on asset valuation• Lessonsinvaluation – Chris Barker goes beside the

seaside for his latest critique of valuation methodology• VTSupdate – Tony Masella presents the view from

the Tribunal corner.

General practiceThe Land Registry corporate website

(including practice guides and blog) has

moved to gov.uk , so it is now available

at http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/ (Land registry portal for business

e-services customers and ‘Find a

property’ is unchanged). In January, the

coalition government issued proposals

for privatisation of the Land Registry, but

announced in July the abandonment of the

proposals af ter consultation and protests.

The 2014 Conference of Commonwealth Heads of Valuation Agencies (CHOVA) took place in Toronto

Canada on 29/31 August, hosted by

MPAC (Municipal Property Assessment

Corporation) Ontario. Larry Hummel, Chief

Assessor of MPAC introduced the conference

focus of Evolution and Transformation,

with speakers from public sector

organisations around the globe. Keynote

speaker was Antoni Wisniowski, President &

CAO of the Municipal Property Assessment

Corporation, addressing the delegates on

Creating a Culture of Engagement in a Sea of Change. The International Property Tax Institute (IPTI) sponsored

a pre-conference workshop on 29 August

2014, and the UK Valuation Office Agency

(VOA) speaker on non-domestic rating

reforms in England was Niall Walsh, Chief

Operating Officer and Chief Valuer with the

VOA. Go to http://www.chova2014.com/andchova2014@mpac.ca.

Do you… or a colleague…want to study fora valuation diplomaor degree by flexible tailored learning? The RAU is inviting candidates

for this coming academic year,

2014/15, to do just that. Check out the

advertisements in this month’s edition of

Insight and Valuer, or find out more at:

http://dk5y2dlrctiai.cloudfront.net/2013/07/18/08/54/

53/728/DiplomaBScRealEstateValuationBrochuretext.pdf.

The July journal of the Recognised European Valuer (REV Issue No.8),

introduced by new TEGoVA Chairman Krzystof

Grzesik, notes that there are now 2,300 REVs

in 14 countries across Europe, including the

first Dutch REVs, awarded at the Amsterdam

real estate exhibition together with the launch

of the European Valuation Standards (EVS)

in the Netherlands. Check out http://www.tegova.org/en/p4912bb9b3a7d9.

European Valuation Standards EVS (REV

Journal No. 8) also includes an important

review by John Hockey (EVS Board Chairman)

of valuation certainty and market risk (See

EVS information paper IP3).

The RICS Code of Measuring Practice

is in the process of being replaced by a

new Professional Statement (PS) for Measuring , which is to be in accordance

with the RICS International Property

Measurement Standards (IPMS) (exposure

draft for offices published in June

2014). See http://www.rics.org/uk/knowledge/news-insight/news/ipms-for-offices--exposure-draft-out-for-consultation/andwww.ipmc.org.

Geoff Fisher FRICS Dip.Rating IRRV (Hons) REV is a Past President of the IRRV, and a member of the Institute’s Professional Conduct Committee

16

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

Dave Cornes joins Phoenix

Institute member Dave, has a long and proven track record managing client contracts in the EnforcementIndustry and his primary focus will be to work with clients to enhance joint working practices andstrengthen our industry leading collection rates. Prior to joining Phoenix, Dave was heavily involvedin the development of the current Enforcement Agent professional examination and he is fully committedand passionate about maintaining high standards in Revenue Enforcement.

Enforcement and debt recovery specialist, Phoenix Commercial Collections arepleased to announce the appointment of Dave Cornes as Client Support Manager.Dave joins Phoenix at an exciting time during its growth and shortly after theintroduction of the provisions of The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

Dave is a Fellow of theIRRV and CIVEA andhe is the only person tohold both distinctions.

Raising Expectationswww.phoenixcommercial.co.uk

Andy CumminsGroup Marketing and Client Director comments,

“I am delighted to announce Dave’s appointmentas Client Support Manager, Dave has returnedto the industry following a period of illness andwe are fortunate that he chose to join the Phoenixmanagement team. I believe that this strategicappointment of a respected industry professionaldemonstrates our commitment towards providinga first class service with first class collection ratesto our clients.”

Phoenix-IRRVadvert-Dave-09-14.qx8_Phoenix_A4magadvert 15/08/2014 16:56 Page 1

INSI

GH

T SE

PTEM

BER

201

4

17

The fairness ofcouncil tax support scheme consultations Cast your mind back almost two years, to

the autumn of 2012, and no doubt you

will instantly recall that I wrote about three

cases... “which highlight[ed] the importance

of a transparent consultation process and the

need to carry out thorough Equality Impact

Assessments. In each case, a local authority

was challenged by members of the public

who were aggrieved at how decisions to cut

funding in particular service areas would

affect them”.

At the time, councils were in the throes of

consulting on their soon-to–be-implemented

local council tax support schemes. On

19th June 2014, the Supreme Court heard a

case considering local authorities’ obligations

when carrying out public consultations. It

is believed that it is the first time that the

Supreme Court has heard such a case. At

the time of writing we have not had the

judgement handed down, but, given we’re

approaching the time of year when we might

be looking to consult on amendments to our

local schemes, it ’s worth outlining the facts of

the case in anticipation of the decision later

this year.

The Supreme Court summary of the case

states that “the issues in R (on the application

of Moseley) (in substitution of Stirling (Deceased)) v London Borough of Haringey are billed as:

• the proper approach to consultations

generally and consultations conducted

pursuant to paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule

1A to the Local Government Finance Act

1992 in respect of proposed ‘council tax

reduction schemes’ (CTRS)

• whether a fair consultation requires that

consultees be informed “not just of the

proposals of the local authority but also

of the reasons for the proposals and be

given sufficient information to enable them

to critically examine the thinking that led to

the proposals”.

The law firm Irwin Mitchell represented a

resident, a single mother, who was challenging

Haringey Council’s consultation on their new

council tax support scheme. In common with

many councils, Haringey’s scheme resulted

in some people who had previously been

entitled to 100% council tax benefit having

to pay a proportion of their council tax.

In Haringey’s case this was around 20%.

The contention is that the consultation

was unlawful, and didn’t provide enough

information for people to make an informed

decision about the changes.

As prescribed by legislation, Haringey

consulted upon its scheme during the early

autumn of 2012. As many of you will recall,

the government then announced a transitional

grant scheme, which would allow councils

which agreed to limit reductions in support to

receive additional funding. This scheme was

announced in late October 2012, and as Steve

Freer, then CIPFA Chief Executive, noted in a

Guardian Professional article on 26th October

2012, “the timing of the announcement – with

no prior warning – comes after many councils

have already designed and consulted on

their own schemes. Qualification for the new

transitional grant is likely to be more a matter

of luck than skilful design. If schemes happen

to coincide with the government’s view of a

‘good’ benefit system, the councils concerned

will qualify for a windfall grant. If they do not,

authorities may find it very difficult to switch

to a qualifying scheme at such a late stage.”

Haringey Council decided that the

transitional grant scheme did not affect its

proposed scheme, and went on to adopt a

local council tax support scheme without

further consultation. The appellant argued

that the consultation process was unfair and

unlawful because:

• consultees had not been provided with

sufficient information to understand that

there were alternatives to the draft scheme;

and

• the council should have re-consulted when

the transitional grant scheme

was announced.

At the original legal challenge to the changes

in Haringey, lawyers described the council tax

changes across the country as “a postcode

lottery”. A Court of Appeal hearing in February

2013 ruled in the council’s favour, so Irwin

Mitchell applied to the Supreme Court on

behalf of Haringey residents.

It is important to note that the decision

can no longer be quashed, because the new

scheme has already been implemented;

however local residents hope that they

may still be able to influence the future of

the council tax support scheme, and have

asked the Court to order Haringey to repeat

the consultation if it finds that the first

consultation was unlawful.

“Haringey Council decided that the transitional grant scheme did not affect its proposed scheme, and went on to adopt a local council tax support scheme without further consultation.”

Deborah Davies IRRV (Hons) is

Customer and Benefit Services Manager

with Craven District Council – contact her

on ddavies@cravendc.gov.uk

Case law update

...falls within Deborah Davies’s investigative remit

IRRV Annual Conference and Exhibition 2013Telford International Centre, 2nd-4th October 2013

BOOK NOW – www.irrv.net

IRRV Annual Conference and Exhibition 2014

Telford International Centre,

7th – 9th October 2014

BOOK NOW AT

www.irrv.net

IRRV Scotland Training andConferences Calendar Autumn 2014

E: scotland@irrv.org.uk

T: 01382 456029

W: www.irrvscotland.org.uk

10 September Valuer Day

15 October Housing Benefit – Complex Cases

22 October Rent Collection during Welfare Reform

23 October Insolvency training day

24 October Managing Discretionary Housing Payments against competing demands

28 October Council Tax Masterclass

29 October Effective Telephone Debt Collection

4 November Non Domestic Rates training day

7 November Debt Collection in Revenues: The impact of welfare reform and Scottish Government policies

14 November Budget management in Revenues & Benefits including constructing the case for shared services

19 November Miscellaneous Income Conference

27 November Joint Conference with Money Advice Scotland

4 December Update on Corporate Debt – implementation issues

10 & 11 December Scottish Benefits Conference and Exhibition

IRRV Annual Conference

E: conference@irrv.org.uk

T: 020 7691 8987

W: www.irrv.org.uk

Telford International Centre, Telford 7 – 9 October 2014This year’s Annual Conference (and Exhibition) will take place in Telford from the 7 October 2014 (Tuesday) to 9 October 2014 (Thursday). The first day will consist entirely of plenary sessions whilst three separate streams (Local Taxation & Revenues, Benefits and Valuation) will be run on the second day. The final morning will provide delegates with a general update on everything that is happening within the Profession. The Performance Awards Gala Dinner will take place on the Wednesday evening when this year’s winners will be announced.

There are a range of packages to suit individual needs. We offer outstanding value for money. Our full conference package includes buffet lunches and refreshments, wine receptions and admission to our Performance Awards Gala Dinner.

Full conference passes available from only £445.50 (+VAT)Full day passes start at £175 (+VAT)

Special Offer:

3 for 2 on multiple bookings* * This offer is valid on multiple bookings, with a minimum of 3 delegates from the same organisation.

INSI

GH

T SE

PTEM

BER

201

4

19

Cover story

in some ways is illustrated by the often heard

joke that Scotland has more pandas than

Conservative MPs!

It seems however that the prevailing political

thinking in Scotland has caught on throughout

the UK, with parties now pledging to get rid of

the ‘bedroom tax ‘ (I use the term in common

usage, whilst appreciating it is not a tax or

even a subsidy for that matter) if the electorate

gives them the opportunity. The question that

occurs to me is why did it take so long? Is it a

late awakening to the inequities of this benefit

restriction, or is it because of the failure to

deliver the savings anticipated?

Structurally, Scotland has its own legal, education, rating valuation and court systems. We also have our own devolved

Parliament, and arguably the most progressive

homelessness legislation in Europe. All of

these differences are taken into account during

the conference. I have managed revenue and

benefit services both in Scotland and England,

and I currently earn my living as a consultant

both north and south of the border. I am

aware of both the differences and the areas

of common ground that exist. We experience

many of the same issues that impact on other

parts of the UK. For that reason we have always

welcomed speakers from outwith Scotland who

are willing and able to share their own good

practice and effective solutions.

The IRRV Scottish Association Executive

and Fraser Macpherson have worked hard

to try and provide a broad range of topics for

presentation to the delegates at the conference,

who reflect the full and diverse range of

membership within the Institute. In recent years,

largely thanks to our Association Vice President,

Joan Hewton, we have strengthened the

valuation content of our conference.

There are too many interesting topics

for presentation for me to mention them

individually. I am however looking forward to

those that look at the wider economic setting

and its impact on the funding of public services.

Writing about the forthcoming Annual Scottish Conference (3rd to 4th September 2014)

always feels a bit like the reverse of hearing the

first cuckoo of spring! Heralding a time when

the fun of summer is to be put to one side, and

the harsh realities of the autumn gloom, with

future funding cuts coming to steal any joy that

remains in our hearts.

But the Scottish Conference offers a real

opportunity for optimism, innovation and

inspiration. It presents the opportunity for us

to listen to speakers and talk to our colleagues.

At the very least it may just provide some of us

with the chance to reflect on the fact that there

are others in a much worse position than we

find ourselves. At best it will truly drive us on to

find ever more innovative solutions to both new

and perennial problems.

This year we do all this against the

background of the imminent independence

referendum, the presence of which has, for

some time now, added a range of caveats to

any prediction for the future in Scotland. One

thing I believe is that following the referendum,

change will take place one way or another. If

nothing else, the whole referendum preamble

has highlighted the differences in the socio-

political outlook in Scotland, when compared

to other parts of the UK with regard to social

housing and welfare matters in general. This

Whither the ‘Barnett Formula’?

Some may not appreciate it now, but this is

a good year. For me this is the calm before the storm. It is a time to prepare innovative

solutions before necessity forces invention

upon us. There will be structural changes and,

presumably, general funding reductions to local

government, the durability of Universal Credit is unproven at present, the expected

outcomes of the ‘bedroom tax’ have not been

delivered, council tax is looking both outdated

and inadequate for a modern future, and

the discussions over business rates retention

continue to rage on.

As well as the more technically informative

papers, there will also be some that will provoke

thoughts and innovations. As I said, this is the

year for it – we are unlikely to have a better

opportunity for a while. At the heart of this is the

question of whether we do things to the people

we serve or for the people we serve. And how

do we address this when looking at service delivery? In a cost cutting environment, do cost

efficiencies always trump public service?

I am also looking forward to a paper

on shared service, and must admit a

personal interest here. I joined with the

management team of a successful shared

service for a five month period, and on

another contract dismantled a shared

service for revenues and benefits. Currently

I am project managing the dismantling of a

shared service for IT. So I have seen both

an ef fective working model and have first

hand experience of the consequences of a

broken model. Both are possible – so what

determines success and failure?

Even the European Union has felt it necessary

to comment upon property taxation in the UK – change is on its way. The timing will,

no doubt, be affected by elections, so, in the

controversial area of local taxation, perhaps I

should say review is on its way. I know it does

not sound as dramatic, but it could keep the

tabloids in story lines for some time.

There are fundamental issues for the Institute

when considering the reform of local taxation.

To outline all of them would fill this edition of

the magazine, so I will just pick a few headline

points. There are some members who believe

that as administrators we should confine

ourselves to the mechanics of local taxation.

In doing so, we would look at the tax base in a

functional way. Does it deliver predictability and

stability of yield? Is it easy to collect and cheap

to administer?

Others, me included, argue that whilst the

administrative issues are very important, we

do not feel that is the end of the matter. We

Insight previews the forthcoming Scottish Conference, through the eyes of Jim McCafferty

Change willtake place oneway or another

should also consider the purpose, equity,

balance of funding with grants, affordability

and the economic impacts within the wider

taxation scene. I am sure there will be several

articles over the next few months in Insight

that address this and other aspects of local

taxation reform.

Delegates at the conference will have a

head start on the debate, as I am sure that

change in local taxation is definitely one

matter on which they will seek the views of

speakers Professor Tony Travers and Dr Walter Boettcher.

Oh, it will be just like the old arguments

prior to the poll tax days – let’s see if we

can all do better this time. That includes

governments too, so please let’s not try a

poll tax version two on Scotland first! We like

to innovate here, but the UK government of

the day took it too far with letting us go first

in 1989.

I am confident all of these matters will be

discussed during the Conference. After that,

we can all retire to the bar and discuss the

weighty issues of the day. And football. At

last year’s Scottish Benefits Conference we

were entertained by the considerable musical

talents of Messrs Smith and Cunningham,

ably assisted on some numbers by Damian Bray and Paula Doherty. Here’s hoping

that high standard will be maintained at this

conference. The conference is once again

held in the beautiful setting of Crieff Hydro -

the perfect environment for us to feel relaxed

and inspired to discuss and debate these

important topics.

Finally, I would like to wish the Scottish

President, Les Robertson, and my fellow

members of the Scottish Association, good

luck for what I am sure will be an excellent,

challenging, stimulating and successful

Scottish Conference.

Jim McCafferty IRRV (Hons) is Junior Vice

President of the IRRV

“ We should also consider the purpose, equity, balance of funding with grants, affordability and the economic impacts within the wider taxation scene.”

The social contractand pinchingthe pennies

In Part 2 of this month’s cover story, David McLaughlin has a challenge for councils and contractors on how we best collect and enforce

Jean-Jaques Rousseau might have had his

less than progressive ideas – he wasn’t big

on equality for women, for example – but the

concept of the social contract has held up

pretty well over the years. Payment of council

tax is one of the most direct expressions of the

modern social contract in action. It is not the

major source of funding for services – there

would need to be a radical revaluation to

collect the £34 billion that is required to run

Scotland. But the £2 billion raised annually

from council tax does make a big contribution

to the £10 billion spent every year by local

authorities. Money raised locally and spent

locally for services that everyone can see

every day... or not see, but then they know

where to go to complain!

We are, collectively, very good at ensuring

this social contract is fulfilled. In the spirit of

a pushy parent asking what happened to the

lost one percent, we might of course complain

that it should be 100%, but an average of

95.2% across all thirty two local authorities is

a pretty impressive figure, especially given the

deep pockets of poverty in Scotland, and our

turbulent history of local tax gathering.

The positive relationship that exists between

council and taxpayer is, however, coming

under pressure. The reason is austerity – not

as it impacts on individuals, although there

is an inverse relationship between hard

times and cheerful taxpayers – but because

of the demands on councils to squeeze

savings out of every corner of their work.

The Summary Warrant process may

only impact on a very small minority

of eligible council tax payers, but social

contract apart, there is no doubting its

enforcement role. The 10% levy on

the collection of taxes from the less

enthusiastic citizens was originally designed

to cover the council’s cost of recovery.

It has now become more of a source of

income in itself, as some contractors’

commission rates have fallen steadily

to what are now unsustainable and

uneconomic rates for them.

Let there be no doubt that the job of a

local authority is to get as much as possible

for as little as possible. As a taxpayer

myself, I’d want no other philosophy. But

there is a point where quality and price

come into conflict in a way that undermines

the entire process, resulting in the failure

to appoint the most suitable, experienced

contractor to deliver the services and

performance required, and placing an

additional burden on the most vulnerable.

Most councils weight quality above price.

But companies who score very poorly in

terms of their quality service capability

can still win contracts by bidding un-

economically low on the pricing side of the

tender. It ’s simple maths! There is a danger

that squeezing of commission becomes

counter–productive, that the emphasis on

the perceived simple cost overwhelms the

quality aspect of the equation, and results

in a negative service and recovery impact.

Ensuring reluctant council taxpayers

remain part of the social contract is a tricky

business. It is a potential point of friction

between citizen and local government. The

acceptance of uneconomic commission 20

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

Cover story (cont/d)

rates encourages the passing on of costs

and charges by the contractor to taxpayers,

as it becomes the main source of income to

the contractor, which many would consider

irresponsible, unfair and punitive. The potential

for bad PR at best and conflict at worst is a real

possibility. Consider, for example, vulnerable

individuals and their need for a sensitive and

responsible service.

Quality in service delivery is vital for all

public services, whether it ’s neat and tidy bin

collection or filling up holes in the road so

they last more than a few months. But quality

becomes even more critical when we are

dealing with the legal process and revenue

recovery, where errors can be extraordinarily

expensive. To push commission rates into a

zone where firms can only deliver by slashing

quality, passing on costs to the customer,

and not investing in their businesses is not

a good long term prospect. Some councils

have already questioned the sustainability

of bargain rail pricing. The temptation to

take what appears to be the cheap option is

understandably strong, but of course that may

turn out to offer poor value for money.

The other unintended consequence of

uneconomic commission rates will be the

reduction in competition in the market place.

There is an irony here. A competitive tendering

structure is created to obtain value through

healthy competition between a wide range

of companies. Creating an environment

where only the biggest can afford to bid

down to non-profitable rates can only narrow

competition and create hidden costs.

Against a background of excellent

performance and service delivery, our

challenge currently is to find ways of

maintaining levels of investment in the sort of

infrastructure that will continually create long

term economies and revenue gains to councils,

while retaining a fair, secure service in a

healthy competitive marketplace.

One suggestion I would make is to place

“ The acceptance of uneconomic commission rates encourages the passing on of costs and charges by the contractor to taxpayers, as it becomes the main source of income to the contractor, which many would

consider irresponsible, unfair and punitive.”

David McLaughlin is Managing

Partner with IRRV Scottish Conference

event sponsors, Scott + Co

a higher premium on innovation. There

are, for example, dif ferent ways of pricing

that will financially benefit councils directly

throughout the life of the contract and

beyond, and are fairer on the taxpayer

struggling to pay. However the current

arrangements in many instances simply focus

on the raw, low commission rates, as the only

way to evaluate cost.

Ultimately, a procurement regime which

does not recognise pricing innovation,

financial gains to the council, and leaves no

surplus for investment in new systems and

staff skills, can only lead to a downward spiral.

My challenge is for contractors and council

professionals to devise a way of bringing real

quality based competition and best value

principles back to the market place, while

ensuring that the business of collecting local

taxes continues to evolve and aspire towards a

100% collection rate.

J-J Rousseau’s views on tender briefs have

not been recorded, but he was pretty keen

on fairness and innovation. And he did know

that collecting local taxes isn’t just about a

simplistic cost model - it ’s also about value,

fairness and something that bonds individuals

and society together. It ’s too important to risk.

INSI

GH

T SE

PTEM

BER

201

4

21

IRRV national Council

election Your vote counts!

Go towww.irrv.net

22

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

respond to different types of advertising? ” Just

as in the world of advertising, the principle of

collection is about finding that trigger point with the customer, calling that person at the right time, and using the right approach

or words. Using the full benefit of the new

regulations, contacting on previous ‘no go

days’ provides a different approach. Keeping

up the level of contact in a varied and flexible

way can make a real difference. Seven day working now provides proactive agencies

with an even greater chance of making that

crucial contact.

With most accepting that the country is now

slowly pulling out of recession, individuals’

circumstances are changing, wages are

increasing, confidence has started to increase,

people can see the light at the end of that

tunnel, and may be able to deal with debt with increased optimism. It is this mix of

differing contact strategies that can make a real

change, and provide real differences between

the various agencies and their effectiveness.

Just as in sales, keeping in contact and being

proactive can deliver real results, as individuals

respond to a more proactive approach that

focuses on supported compliance rather than

simple enforcement sanctions.

Another area of real change is that of

the effectiveness and approach to tracing

Why could returns be the ultimate test? Prior to and following the implementation of

the Taking Control of Goods Regulations

in April, there has been much debate as to

how the new world will impact on the second placement or ‘returns’ market.

Increasingly over the last several years, the

recycling of cases from one agency to another

by councils has been seen as a way they can

test the effectiveness of their first placement

providers and try an alternative to the costly

and often ineffective committal process.

With the new rules applying a 12 month

time line for the Taking Control of Goods,

some challenged whether the re-cycling of

warrants was any longer an option. However it

is now generally accepted that the 12 months

restriction on the Taking Control of Goods may

still apply to second placement cases following

the issue of a new notice of enforcement.It is fair to say that in the past, return cases

have sometimes been seen as a poisoned

chalice, with potentially considerable effort

expended for small return. Some local

authorities have seen the issue of cases as a

waste of limited council resource. However, I

believe that those who adopt the attitude that

it is not worth the effort are missing the point.

Both through mine and Equita’s

experience, the issue of cases to a second

placement or alternative agency can deliver

some real benefits to both parties. Following

the implementation of the new enforcement

structure, the requirement to issue a fresh

Notice of Enforcement provides an easy and

speedy contact approach. For the cost of a first

class stamp and minimal administration, the

reward of a debt collected and the revenue

generated for the enforcement agency via

the compliance fee means both parties can

really benefit.

When approached to consider the issue

of returns, I often face the question, “why

would a different firm do any better than my

incumbent company? ”

My answer would be, “why do people

absconders. Whilst most enforcement firms

will have search and trace facilities, either

through internal or external means, the range

of options is crucial now that we are living in

an age where the rental market is expanding

and people are not living in the same street for

generation upon generation.

When the cases are handed over to a new

firm as part of the second placement service,

extensive up to date data checks can be

carried out using a wide range of specialist

trace agencies and products. Once again this

pro-active approach can often find individuals

overlooked by the first placement firm, and

can deliver effective results.

In addition, from the local authority’s

perspective, the issue of second placement

cases provides the perfect opportunity to

audit the performance of your incumbent agencies, in particular where councils

continue to employ only one agency. This

process can provide three positive outcomes

to the council enforcement manager:

• if the second Enforcement Agent collects a

significant amount, this may mean that your

current firms are under performing

• if they collect zero, you may be satisfied that

your incumbent firms are working well

• if the secondary firm collect 2-5%, this

acts as a positive audit check, and most

importantly additional revenue recovered at

no cost to the authority.

Far from a barrier to the issue of second

placement debt, I believe that the post-April

world provides an even bigger incentive to

councils to seek that second collection option.

The recycling of returns should be

embraced, and seen as an opportunity for

both parties, not feared or as an unnecessary

administrative burden.

Collection & enforcement

Gary Carr providesthe answer

“ For the cost of a first class stamp and minimal administration, the reward of a debt collected and the revenue generated for the enforcement agency via the compliance fee means both parties can really benefit.”

Gary Carr is Equita’s Client Services and

Business Development Director

INSI

GH

T SE

PTEM

BER

201

4

23Alan Wood is Director of Development

with Whyte & Co

Collection & enforcement

Over recent years the enforcement sector has

faced an increasing number of situations where a

potential vulnerability is presented in an attempt to

either halt or possibly reverse the enforcement process and avoid additional costs.

Many of these claims are made after taking

what is often unhelpful or wholly inaccurate

advice from the plethora of ‘beat the bailiff’ websites found on the internet. Of course a lot

of these allegations of potential vulnerability

are made knowing that the risk to both council

reputation and ours is in jeopardy if complaints

are fed to the local or national media.

The amount of false or greatly exaggerated

claims in relation to potential vulnerability is

something our front line and contact centre staff

face on a daily basis.

Something that has become very evident over

recent years, and something I feel we have all

been a little guilty of, purely due to the volume, is

treating everyone as a liar – mostly because

we see so many false claims we can fall in to

the trap of thinking that everyone is a liar!

But what if the debtor claiming vulnerability is telling the truth?So how do we filter out the ones who are using

vulnerability as a tactic to avoid paying their bills,

and how do we ensure those that need our help,

support and guidance are not treated unfairly?

My company has recognised that local

authorities are losing an increasing number of

resources through enforced cutbacks, and as

a result we are starting to see an increase in the

genuinely vulnerable slipping through the net.

Fully assessing the extent of an individual’s

potential vulnerability, and how that situation

affects their ability to pay the debt based on

evidence being presented by telephone or via

email, can be difficult. In some cases it can

only be achieved by attending the debtor’s place of residence, or by engaging in what can

sometimes be a lengthy process of evidence gathering from a range of sources, followed by

adequate scrutiny and investigation.

One of the challenges we all face when

attempting to ask for sufficient evidence

is how that person feels about being

questioned on such personal matters, and

to do so without making it feel like we are

saying “you’re a liar – prove otherwise”, we

must be mindful that sometimes the very

act of asking for evidence on a potential

vulnerability can easily escalate into a

complaint if handled inappropriately.

With this in mind, we have created a

team of specially trained individuals called

the Remedy Support Team (RST), made

up of selected experienced certificated enforcement agents and senior contact centre staff. Between them they have many

years experience of dealing with the public

during the recovery of local authority debts.

This team has received direct training from

StepChange and Citizens Advice in potential

vulnerability of all kinds, and tailor made training in how we would deal with a wide

range of situations, using a mixture of case studies and current cases where a potential

vulnerability may be an issue.

In recent months it has become clear that

many cases of potential vulnerability, once

fully accessed, turn out to be totally or partly fabricated, and result in the case

being placed back in the work flow with

the relevant notes to the case file, and the

enforcement action continues.

Help from the RST can be accessed from

all areas of the business by our clients, via

client web access, our enforcement agents within each case file, and the

customer contact centre. This facility and

support is available seven days a week from

6am to 9pm.

In February this year, we became the first

enforcement agency, and one of the first

organisations in the UK, to be accredited with

BS 18477: Identifying and responding to consumer vulnerability.

Alan Wood describes a step forward in how to deal withthis tricky area

Vulnerability – what does it look like?

Croydon case studyA highly vulnerable debtor has received support from Croydon’s social services after his plight was uncovered by the council’s parking department and its bailiff partner, Whyte & Co.

The parking team became aware of the debtor’s problems after seeing an email he had sent to the revenues and benefits department. A spokesman at the London borough said, “It was clear from the tone of the email that the debtor was in a profoundly distressed state. He was contacting the department about his council tax arrears, but briefly mentioned that he also had parking fines.”

As a result, the parking team checked its system and discovered that the man had both an unpaid parking fine and a warrant.

The council asked Whyte’s remedy support team to intervene and a member of their team visited the debtor the following day to make an assessment, discovering that the debtor, who was in his late twenties, and lives alone, had been struggling to cope since suffering a series of strokes. The parking team then cancelled the parking fine and the warrant, and notified the social services department. The bailiffs also researched additional support available to him through the Stroke Association website, and provided the debtor details of the Association’s Croydon support group.

The council spokesman said, “If this man’s desperate situation had not been identified, and he had received further bailiff visits about council tax arrears and unpaid parking fines, this could have had serious consequences. It could have pushed him into a suicidal state of mind.”

Yes, would you credit it? Ministers and

spokespersons in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) say that

Universal Credit (UC) is fine and on course

for a successful delivery, albeit a bit more

slowly than originally planned. Meanwhile,

Labour says that things are so worrying

that, if elected, they will pause it for three

months, to reconsider how to take it forward.

Unison thinks that central government will

struggle to implement UC and that it should

be reconfigured to be delivered by local

authorities, like housing benefit.

Who is right? UC has definite strengths, but

also real problems, risks and uncertainties.

Every advantage seems to have its downside:

• the mismatch between the different

structures and administration of means-

tested benefits and tax credits has always

caused problems, so bringing them together

makes sense. But the information and

communications technology will need to work

well if delays, backlogs and error are to be

avoided – and confidence does not seem to

be high much beyond DWP Ministers’ desks

• the interaction of tapers, income tax and

National Insurance contributions to eliminate

most of a low paid worker’s pay increase

has been much criticised in the past, and

a single taper will help to address this. But

at 65 per cent, the UC taper is still too high

(Iain Duncan Smith couldn’t get 55 per cent

past the Treasury). ‘Tax credit only’ cases will

have a higher overall deduction rate than

now. And there is a new complication, as the

single taper means lower ‘work allowances’ if

the UC calculation includes housing costs (a

complex tale for another time)

• speaking of work allowances (formerly

‘earnings disregards’) – they have a long

history of being allowed to decline in real

value, due to a failure to uprate them in line

with any inflation index. UC was supposed

to put that right, with much improved work

allowances moved to centre stage. However,

hardly has UC left the starting blocks, than

they have been frozen. Here we go again!

• given the uncertainties, most commentators

would prefer a slow roll-out to a big bang

that goes wrong – better late than chaos! But

it does mean that we are likely to have two

different systems running side-by-side for

some considerable time, unless unexpectedly

brisk progress is made sometime soon

• the Unison proposal also has its snakes and

ladders. Local authority administration would

bring assessments nearer to home for the

claimant and closer to local knowledge of

housing and labour markets. But they could

open a future door to fully local cash-limited

systems (like localised council tax support)

with potentially serious implications for

poverty and homelessness.

So what is Labour proposing?

The Labour ‘pause’In September last year, Labour set up an

independent Universal Credit Rescue Committee, ‘to look at how to rescue the

delivery, and improve the design, of the new

Universal Credit system’. The Committee was

chaired by Kieran Quinn, Leader of Tameside

Council, while other members included

representatives of trade unions, academia

and the information technology industry. It

reported recently and Labour has endorsed

the leading recommendations:

“...that an incoming Labour government

undertakes a full review of the Universal Credit

project, including assessing frankly which parts

of the project can be rescued, and an analysis

of the Business Case for the project.

They should publish the Business Plan

that results, and should report quarterly to

Parliament on progress against this plan.

They should invite the National Audit Office to

examine the Business Plan and each quarterly

report, and report to Parliament publicly

on these.”

The report criticises ‘a culture of secrecy’ and

‘good news reporting’ within the DWP that has

‘hampered effective scrutiny’.

While cautiously declaring that ‘we are

clear that any changes must be funded from

within the existing Universal Credit budget’,

the Committee recommends also that

such a review should look at issues around

second earners, payment of the children’s

element to the main carer, timing of pay

day, income reporting for self-employed

claimants, short-hours working, ‘passported’

benefits such as free school meals and health

charge exemptions, the local authority role

in supporting claimants, and the omission of

council tax support from UC.

There is particular concern over the

information and communications technology aspects of delivery.

What do you think?Your authority may be one of the early roll-out

councils or you may not yet have any cases, but

I’m betting you will have views. What do you

think? Is Labour right to propose a pause? Or is

the government right to predict that all will be

well if the programme is taken steadily forward?

Either way, has the Rescue Committee

flagged up the right issues for further

consideration? And do you agree with Unison

that it would be better for the national UC

scheme to be delivered by local authorities?

What are the advantages? What are the risks?

Do feel free to drop me a line on

gfimister@blueyonder.co.uk – whether

you want your name withheld or shouted from

the rooftops (that’s up to you!) we would very

much like to know how it looks from where

you are.

Geoff Fimister is a writer and consultant on

anti-poverty, housing and benefit issues

Geoff Fimister launches a new regular column, tracking the latest welfare reform developments. This month, he looks at the opposition’s approach, and wonders whether Universal Credit is going into Labour!

Credit notes

Would you credit it?

24

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

INSI

GH

T SE

PTEM

BER

201

4

25

As readers will be aware, the introduction

of the Public Services Network (PSN)

changes the way your authority connects

to Department for Work and Pensions

(DWP) services.

Migration – work on the t ransi t ion

to PSN is almost complete. There are

only four author i t ies lef t to migrate over

to the new network . These si tes were

delayed due to the Individual Electoral Registration (IER) programme which

resul ted in necessar y ‘freeze ’ per iods

af fec t ing migrat ion scheduling. They are

expec ted to be completed in the nex t

few weeks.

Compliance – at tention is now on

the handling of the current 2014/15

compliance round.

What is DWP doing?Engagement and support – we are engaging

with Government Digital Services (GDS),

in the Cabinet Office, who now lead on PSN

in Business as Usual. We are working closely

to establish what DWP needs, to have ongoing

assurance on local authority (LA) compliance,

how this is best achieved, and where this LA

assurance function will sit within DWP. We also

continue to be involved in the work to establish

the service management support for PSN.

We are also liaising with Local Government Association colleagues to

feed into their work supporting the overall

compliance process, including the governance

and communications arrangements to enable

more collaborative working. The aim here

is a more co-ordinated way of dealing with

“We are working closely to establish what DWP needs, to have ongoing assurance on local authority (LA) compliance, how this is best achieved, and where this LA assurance function will sit within DWP.”

Welfare reform

Insight is pleased to welcome back the DWP team, who this issue provide an update on the Public Services Network (PSN)

common issues raised by councils.

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)DWP recently sought approval of the

Practitioners’ Operations Group members

to extend the duration of the current MoU

between the DWP and LAs for handling and

protection of DWP customer data. Revision

activity is currently underway, but to ensure

that the MoU does not duplicate or conflict

with compliance activity being undertaken by

GDS colleagues, we are working closely with

the GDS IA Specialist Team.

Where to go for more informationGeneral advice and support is available by

visiting the PSN webpage at https://www.gov.uk/public-services-network.

Northern Counties North Wales and North West Yorkshire and Humberside West Midlands East MidlandsEast AngliaNorth Thames Southern CountiesSouth Wales and South West Western Counties

1

1

2

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

9

10

10

IRRV Forum Service 2014

E: loraine.jones@irrv.org.uk

T: 01902 750889

W: www.irrv.org.uk/forums

The IRRV Forum Service has been providing a platform for discussion on revenues and benefits issues at both a national and local level since 1952. It is aimed at those involved in (or with an interest in) Business Rates, Council Tax, Sundry Debts and Welfare Benefits. Forum membership is on a corporate rather than individual basis and is open to all public bodies, local authorities and private companies, irrespective of membership / involvement in other Institute activities. The IRRV Forum Service enables members to network with hundreds of practitioners working within the above areas of the profession. At a time when budgets are being cut, one cannot afford not to be an IRRV Forum Service member.

Fees:

Local Authorities and not for Profit Organisations. . . . . . . . . £1050 pa

Other Organisations – includes membership of more than one region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Price on application

Additional places at meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £115*

*Special Offer:

3 for 2 on all additional places at meetings

Connecting professionals since 1952

26

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

Legal view

ticking away under the liability order system

arising from human rights principles, such as

proportionality and certainty in enforcement,

and the prospects for any long term survival of

council tax in its current form in England are

no longer secure.

Turning to other parts of the United

Kingdom, whatever Scotland decides in

respect of its own independence, there is

one notable human rights issue to be faced

arising from the Scottish system of council tax

enforcement. This arises not from council tax

law, but from a feature of its own separate

legal system – for in retaining its own legal

system since 1707, Scotland has practised a

recovery system which in comparison with

English law looks thoroughly medieval!

It is not the delightful quaintness which

strikes one about some of the titles of officers

in the Scottish system, such as deploying

‘Messengers-at-Arms’, which looks set to

offend human rights principles. Rather it

is the Scottish procedures for obtaining a

summary warrant, the equivalent of the

liability order. In England and Wales, for

generations local authorities have applied

to magistrates’ courts for orders – warrants

of distress under the rates until 1990 – and

thereafter for all-purpose liability orders for

poll tax and council tax. Under Regulation 34

of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 applying in

England and Wales, the debtor is summonsed

to court ‘to show why he has not paid’, and is

afforded the opportunity of a hearing. Such an

opportunity has been inherent in English law

for generations, as part of natural justice.

However, as described in the latest council

tax guidebooks, under Scottish procedures for

summary warrant, there is no requirement for

the debtor to be heard or even be informed.

Scottish councils are within their rights to

simply go the Sheriff Court – the equivalent

of the magistrates’ court – and apply for

summary warrants, obtained by providing a

Human rights issuesare cropping up all over the United Kingdom

In 2015, the 800th anniversary of the signing

of Magna Carta will be commemorated as

a historic and significant legal anniversary,

celebrated as the occasion when major English

freedoms were enshrined, and significant

reforms introduced against the imposition of

summary and burdensome taxation.

2015 also looks set to be an election

year, though reform of local taxation does

not yet appear to be a likely issue. Indeed

currently, those concerned with the protection

of legal rights and property look less to Magna

Carta or to politicians, and more often to

human rights law. And when it comes to

the reform of local taxation in England, the

process seems to operate on a historic cycle

all of its own, with significant change occurring

about every 20 years – 1925, 1948, 1967 and

1988-92 – regardless of the electoral cycle.

The last big shake-up occurred in 1992,

with the introduction of council tax. The

prospect of major reform is slowly but

surely dawning again, regardless of a lack of

political interest or awareness. Council tax

bandings based upon increasingly antiquated

1991 values are becoming harder to justify,

whilst local authority finances struggle with

the inevitable increases of default arising

from the abolition of council tax benefit. Add various theoretical legal time bombs

certificate with certain prescribed matters

to the Sheriff. There is no summons and no

corresponding opportunity to be heard. The

result is the issue of a summary warrant or

decree without a hearing with the debtor

present. The summary warrant or decree

enables the authority to pursue the debtor for

up to 20 years with various recovery methods.

Thus, in a summary warrant application, the

debtor is without an opportunity to present

evidence that may show the rules on billing

have not been followed, that the sum has

been paid, or make any application to

postpone proceedings where an appeal may

lie to a valuation committee (the equivalent

to the Valuation Tribunal).

In recent years, Consumer Focus for Scotland and other bodies have obtained

legal opinions that consider such a summary

warrant procedure may be in breach of human

rights law and open to challenges under

the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 6 of

the European Convention on Human Rights

guarantees a fair and impartial tribunal and

the right to be represented in courts and

tribunals in the determination of civil rights

and obligations. Those who remember the

disappearance of the old local authority

housing benefit review boards and their

replacement with lower tier social security

tribunals (since further reformed under

the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act

2007) may know this was as a consequence

of human rights considerations. In denying

the debtor a right to be heard, the Scottish

procedure appears to be an infringement not

of natural justice – or at least the English law

concept which does not apply north of the

Border – but of human rights.

Now the Scottish Government is aware

of this problem. The issue was raised in the

Enforcement of Local Taxes (Scotland) Bill 2010 presented by John Wilson MP,

but this legislation failed to be passed by

the Scottish Parliament. Thus, the process

‘ However, as described in the latest council tax guidebooks, under Scottish procedures for summary warrant, there is no requirement for the debtor to be heard or even be informed.’

... says Alan Murdie

INSI

GH

T SE

PTEM

BER

201

4

27

in Scotland remains flawed and open to

challenge – and authorities could be faced

with claims for the recovery of unjustly

obtained sums relating to past applications.

Much will depend upon if and when the

European Court ever considers the matter,

should our own domestic courts be prevented

from doing so in the event of a pro-

independence vote.

More generally, throughout England, Wales

and Scotland, possible challenges under

European law may also arise from the ever

increasing complexity of the regulations.

Rights have to be clear to be capable of being

enforced, and the labyrinthine system that

operates in council tax may now be beginning

to fail in respect of this requirement.

Other legal changes have seen the

disappearance of the terms ‘husband ’

and ‘wife’ from local taxation law, with

the exception of those in polygamous

marriages, which is also a cause of

contention. The removal of the terms

‘husband’ and ‘wife’ arises with the

passing of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, and the issue of

the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2014 SI 107. Ef fectively, following the

enshrining of gay marriage in the law, the

concepts of ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ become

largely redundant for statutory purposes.

For instance, the Council Tax Reduction

Schemes and Prescribed Requirements

(Wales) Regulations 2013 for Wales

remove distinctions of gender between

men and women, whether married or

living together as husband and wife, and

substitute a new definition of a couple

( ‘cwpl’) in Wales to cover:

(a) two people who are either married to,

or civil partners of, each other and who are

members of the same household; and

(b) two people who are living together as if

they are a married couple.

Whereas in the past it was clear what

‘husband’ and ‘wife’ meant, and who those

parties would be based on gender, now,

whenever a welfare authority or billing

authority has to determine in (b) what

‘living together as married’ means, it does

so without any reference to gender. How

this works is anyone’s guess! For example,

simply sharing a bed together may not be

the equivalent of living together as a married

couple – and of course there are married

couples who have single beds. This vagueness

in the law has the capacity to generate

infinite argument as regards domestic

arrangements, whenever people of the same

sex living together are involved.

The only situation in which the terms

‘husband’ and ‘wife’ survive as functioning

concepts are in situations involving persons

in polygamous marriages. Regulation with

5(1) provide:

(a) a person is a husband or wife by virtue

of a marriage entered into under a law

which permits polygamy; and

(b) either party to the marriage has for the

time being any spouse additional to the

other party.

These provisions as yet do not extend

and encompass any persons in same

sex relationships.

On the subject of polygamy, Welsh Ministers

have created, for the second year running,

provisions for reductions for polygamously

married pensioners aged over 60, despite the

fact that not a single application for such a

reduction was made anywhere in the whole

of Wales during 2013. This was revealed in a

series of Freedom of Information Act requests

made to all 22 Welsh authorities granting

council tax reductions up to January 20th

2014, all confirming no polygamously married

pensioners had applied for a special reduction.

No-one had hitherto identified Wales as

a centre of geriatric polygamy, and the nil Alan Murdie is a Barrister

results from all local authorities indicates that

on this latter issue the Welsh Assembly has

been busy employing civil servants and lawyers

to create legislation actually affecting no-one.

This merited a brief mention in a throwaway

line by John Humphreys on Radio 4’s Today

programme in March 2014, but has otherwise

gone unnoticed (save for being confirmed by

the Secretary of State).

Certainly, these issues are livening up

discussions of council tax amongst legal

advisers in Wales. When speaking at a meeting

of advisers in Cardiff recently, attended by

a member of the Welsh Law Commission, I

learned that local perceptions were that the

changes were being driven principally by

political and ideological agendas, rather than

seeking to establish coherent and workable

local taxation systems. Advisers were also

considering potential use of the Human Rights

Act 1998 and the doctrine of proportionality

to challenge such enforcement methods as

bankrupting debtors over council tax.

Of course, all had heard various claims

by Conservative politicians that scrapping

the Human Rights Act 1998 might be a

manifesto commitment for the 2015 general

election. If so, significant reaction may be

anticipated not in Wales, but in a dif ferent

part of the UK, one where local taxation has

gone relatively unchanged for the past 25

years. This is in Northern Ireland, where the

old rating system remains.

Any removal of the Human Rights Act will

certainly be a live issue in Northern Ireland,

since its enactment in UK law is a term of the

Good Friday Agreement, which provided the

basis for peace in Ulster. Thus, to set about

unilaterally reneging on a key part of that

treaty seems an extremely risky step for any

UK Government to be contemplating!

IRRV Annual Conference and Exhibition 2013Telford International Centre, 2nd-4th October 2013

BOOK NOW – www.irrv.net

IRRV Annual Conference and Exhibition 2014

Telford International Centre,

7th – 9th October 2014

BOOK NOW AT

www.irrv.net

28

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

IRRV Training Days 2014

E: conference@irrv.org.uk

T: 020 7691 8987

W: www.irrv.net/trainingdays

• Introduction to Business Rates Trainer:JanetAlexander 16September,IRRVOfficesLondon

• Introduction to Council Tax Trainer:JanetAlexander 17September,IRRVOfficesLondon

• Improving Your Website and Customer Access Channels Trainer:SimonBailey 18September,IRRVOfficesLondon

• Business Rates Master Class Trainer:JanetAlexander 13–14October,IRRVOfficesLondon

• Council Tax Master Class Trainer:JanetAlexander 20–21October,IRRVOfficesLondon

Wealsodeliverabespokeinhousetrainingservice.Thetrainingistailoredspecificallytotheclient’srequirementsandheldonsiteatyourofficesforconvenience.

Fees:

Prices start at £115 (+ VAT) per person

IRRV London Level 3 Certificate and Diploma Qualifications

E: courses@irrv.org.uk

T: 020 7691 8974

W: www.irrv.net/courses

The Institute is again offering a Level 3 Certificate and Diploma course for 2014/15IRRV Level 3 Certificate

The subjects on offer for Level 3 Certificate will be as follows:

• Council Tax Law• Non-Domestic Rate Law• Revenues & Local Taxation

Administration with Fraud• Welfare Benefits

Tutors: Gary Watson, Louise Freeth, Richard Pain

Fee: £1195.00 + VAT

IRRV Diploma

The subjects on offer for Diploma will be as follows:

Compulsory:

• Centrally Set Assignment• Elective Assignment• Management 1 & 2• Management Case Study• Revenues Administration &

Public Sector Finance

Optional (One of the following two subjects):

• Law of Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rate

• Welfare Benefits

Tutors: Sean Langley, Allan Traynor, Janet Alexander

Fee: £1410.00 + VAT

Special Offer:

3 for 2 on multiple enrolments* * This offer is valid on multiple bookings with a minimum of 3 candidates.

INSI

GH

T SE

PTEM

BER

201

4

29

Professor Cleverley

the discrepancy in the bandings of the two

properties. You could see if that information

is available in your own records, or you could

check with the valuation office. It could be

that the smaller property is correctly banded

and that there may be an issue over the other

property - for example, perhaps it is larger due

to the property having been extended, and no

banding increase has been applied because

there has been no change of owner since the

extension took place. If so, a report may have

been made, and the valuation office may be

holding a note to re-band the property when

there is a relevant transaction.

An increasing number of properties are

under-banded for this reason, leaving council

tax open to the criticism that the system

works to the advantage of the person who

makes their existing home larger, and to the

disadvantage of the person who cannot do that,

but who has to move to a larger house if they

need more space. Turning again to your case, it

is just possible that there has been an error in

the banding of the neighbouring house, and an

enquiry to the valuation office would be helpful

in ruling this out. If you are able to gather more

information, you may be able to placate your

taxpayer with a more complete explanation and

possibly avoid an unnecessary appeal.

Regards, Professor C

Dear Professor Cleverley,I work in the council tax office of a local

authority. We received an enquiry from a

resident who had recently moved into the

area, and on getting his council tax bill was

checking the valuation band. His property

is in Band D, and when he compared that

with his neighbour’s house he found that

the house next door was also in Band D,

despite being a much larger property. His

is a three bedroomed detached house with

one living/dining room. The other house has

five bedrooms, a separate dining room, and

a study. We replied explaining that valuation

for council tax is dealt with by the Valuation

Office Agency, telling him that as he has just

moved in he does have a right of appeal

against the banding. One of my staff says that

this property was subject to an appeal several

years ago, and the banding was confirmed as

correct. Should we have told the resident that

his appeal was unlikely to succeed?

Sincerely,

Ms Sally Forth

Dear Ms Forth, It isn’t always the best approach to a valuation

banding enquiry just to refer the taxpayer to

the Valuation Office Agency. The rights of

appeal should be explained, and it was proper

for your reply to do that, but best practice

would also mean considering why there is

Professor Cleverley is a pseudonym. He is a qualified member of the IRRV with over 40 years’ experience of revenues in administration and teaching. The problems published have all been submitted by members of the profession, albeit the names have been ‘anonymised’. The Professor’s replies are simply his opinion and should be treated as such. Questions are invited, but it is only possible to answer those that are selected for publication. Insight regrets that it is unable to enter into private correspondence.

The learned Professor returns, and this time he offers timely advice on council tax bands and monthly instalments

people will prefer this to the slightly smaller

payment each month which is provided by 12

instalments, but there will be others who will

take the opposite view. What Parliament did

with the amendment to the instalment scheme

from 2013/14 by way of the Council Tax

(Administration and Enforcement (Amendment)

(No.2) (England) Regulations 2012 was to give

taxpayers a choice. It did not seek to impose

either 10 instalments or 12 instalments, but

allows people to choose, as long as they do so

by giving notice to the council.

There is no provision in the regulations that

allows billing authorities to force 12 instalments

on taxpayers so that 10 instalments must apply

where notice opting for 12 instalments has not

been given. Your Council Leader could be told

that more publicity could by given to ensure

that residents are aware of the choice, but the

law does not allow her personal preference to

be imposed.

On the matter of discount for direct debiting,

this essentially requires a cash flow calculation

Dear Professor Cleverley,Our Council Leader has been impressed by

views expressed by the Secretary of State for

Communities and Local Government, Eric

Pickles, about 12 monthly instalments making

it easier to pay council tax. She would like our

council to give 12 monthly instalments to all

taxpayers as a matter of course. She has also

said that ministers have urged local councils to

act like the utility companies and give residents

a discount for paying by direct debit. I am

aware that discount is an option, but would it

be legal to give 12 instalments to all taxpayers?

Sincerely,

Barry Cade

Dear Mr Cade, Whilst 12 monthly instalments might

superficially seem to be advantageous to

taxpayers, there is an alternative view that

10 instalments give a ‘breathing space’ of

two months with no council tax to pay. Some

and an estimate of any potential administration

savings, to see whether it would be beneficial.

The discount cannot be given only to people

who change to direct debiting, but must be

given to all those who are already paying by

that method. For many authorities, giving a

discount to people who are already using the

payment method will represent a cost that can

only be met by further reductions in services,

or by increasing the council tax payable. The

cost of the discount cannot be shared with

the precepting authorities, and must be borne

entirely by the billing authority. Whether a

discount scheme would benefit any particular

council depends largely on what level of direct

debit payment has already been achieved by

other ways of promoting the payment method.

Regards, The Prof

30

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

Technology

whilst making statements on issues that affect

our profession such as the implementation of

Universal Credit, business rate retention and

council tax collection levels.”

Twitter allows individuals and organisations

to select who to ‘follow’ and share messages

of up to 140 characters with all of them

at once. Rather than serve as a one-way,

reaction-based ‘broadcast’, it enables quick

interaction with limitless, wide-ranging people.

It also provides a way to easily monitor what

others say.

“We have, in the past, been seen as very

reactive rather than proactive. Tweeting is a

way of making our views heard whilst sharing

these views with whoever may want to

listen”, continues Gary Watson. “By following

others, we are picking up on issues we may

have otherwise missed or would have not

been brought to our attention straight away.

Members and practitioners can also have their

say on the Institute”, he says.

‘Live tweeting’ is an efficient way to share

ideas and information during events, with

attendee tweeters using a single phrase

or keyword preceded by the symbol ‘#’ to

demarcate messages relating to the event.

These hashtags also allow those who are not

in attendance to get involved in conversations.

At the most recent IRRV Annual Conference,

for example, tweets about the event were

projected on to a large screen in the main

auditorium. “It was used by delegates

throughout the conference to interact with

the IRRV. It was evident that social media

was working successfully for the IRRV and its

members”, Gary Watson tells Insight. “It was

very effective, and provided visual evidence

of members, delegates and speakers from

the conference engaging with the IRRV”.

Ahead of the conference, social media was

also used to promote the event, and during

conference week the number of followers

rose significantly.

In publicity around the release of its guide

Around the time of its inauguration in

1882, staying in touch with members of the

Metropolitan Rate Collectors Association was

simple. If you had to convey a message to

members, you would call a meeting.

Fast forward to 2014, and the Institute of

Revenues Rating and Valuation (IRRV), as it is

now called, has an almost overwhelming array

of communication media at its disposal such

as Linkedin, Flickr, YouTube, Pinterest and

Storify. And that is in addition to the mix of

email, phone and face-to-face contact. But the

point is, so does everyone.

Is it necessary to have so many forms

of communication? What works? And

importantly, is social media effective for you,

the employees of local authorities and, by

extension, for membership organisations such

as the IRRV?

The Institute recently began using social

media more seriously as part of a drive to

modernise the way it communicates, and

launched Twitter accounts for both the Chief Executive (@DavidLMagor) and Deputy Chief Executive (@GaryLWatson27)

alongside the existing general IRRV account

@the_irrv.

“Twitter gives us instant access to the

Institute membership as well as practitioners

working within our field,” says Deputy

Chief Executive Gary Watson. “This helps

getting a message out. We are focussing on

professional matters; trying to get a balance

between publicising our products and services

to social media for councils, The Society

of IT Management (Socitm) wrote, “failure

to engage with the [social media] trend is

tantamount to decrying the telephone at

the end of the 19th century”. “It’s a good

engagement tool”, says the Society’s Head

of Marketing Guy Barnett, speaking about the

organisation’s LinkedIn Group, which allows

anyone to freely access, write and respond to

updates and content. “I’m constantly approving

new members to the group but you do need

time to engage people in a discussion”.

Linda Cavender of the private sector

Trade Association Forum concurs – “The

biggest challenge with social media is the

time and resource needed to do it well. Very

few organisations have the staffing to have

someone on social media activities full time.”

Socitm also uses Storify for its events, a

tool which gathers all hashtagged tweets

and compiles them chronologically to create

a storyline, ideally suited to meetings and

conferences. Guy Barnett says this is “good

for assessing engagement”, and serves as a

kind of analytical device, providing data on

which links were clicked on the most, who

were the most vocal members and what the

key issues are.

Social media has other advantages too. “It is

very good at increasing traffic to the website –

80% of traffic from social media comes from

Twitter (@Socitm)”, concludes Guy Barnett.

The next steps, he says, are to develop the

organisation’s presence on social network

Google+ and to evaluate how many social

media followers and members are members

of Socitm in the offline world.

Among local government organisations,

social media use varies. The #litter2twitter report from professional services company

BDO last year found that 97% of UK councils

used it for external communications, based

on responses from 67 local authorities. Some

64% were using social media for customer

service, up from 45% in 2012.

“ Rather than serve as a one-way, reaction-based ‘broadcast’, it enables quick interaction with limitless, wide-ranging people. It also provides a way to easily monitor what others say.”

...declares Mel Poluck!

Social mediais here to stay

INSI

GH

T SE

PTEM

BER

201

4

31

There is an obvious place for social

media to help to drive down face-to-

face and phone contact from the public

in line with the self service agenda.

Some 35% of respondents to the

research said social media was leading

to a decline in calls. Take the Driver

and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA).

It uses its Twitter account, with more

than 10,000 followers, to respond to

customer enquiries and reduce calls.

Their aim is to resolve queries in a

single contact. DVLA contact centre

staff received training and during a

two week pilot practiced using Twitter’s direct

message function to tackle complex issues.

To develop the service, the agency followed

Government Digital Service’s freely available

social media Playbook. The guide is

intended for UK government as a whole, and

includes tips such as dealing with detractors

and building an editorial calendar to ensure

messages tie in with events in the wider world.

During emergencies such as severe

weather, flooding or school closures, the

ability of social media to reach large, targeted

groups in one hit makes it a powerful local

government weapon. The Local Government

Association last year predicted that 91% of

councils will be using Twitter to keep residents

updated on winter weather warnings like

gritting activity and road disruptions.

In its ‘Using social media in emergencies’

document, The Defence Science and

Technology Laboratory, an executive agency of

the Ministry of Defence, wrote that benefits

of social media for government include

increased access to audiences, increased

speed of public feedback, and the ability to

reach specific audiences on specific issues.

For local authorities, maintaining social

media accounts is usually the responsibility

of one or two members of staff, according

to an agreed organisational social media

policy. Guidelines often refer to responding to

residents’ complaints and use of appropriate

language and in the case of Monmouthshire

County Council, the caveat, ‘do not use social

media for council business unless you have

received appropriate training’.

Monmouthshire took the unusual step of

opening up social media access to all staff. To

reflect this inclusive stance, one page on the

council’s website provides a long list of the

council’s Twitter feeds, including those of the

Chief Executive, local museums and the local

youth apprenticeship scheme.

According to its website, Monmouthshire

took the step ‘to improve the way [staff] work

– social media can empower residents who

need to find out information about services

but it can open a new world of contacts and

knowledge to council staff and councillors too’.

The non-customer-facing entities that have

replaced Jobcentre Plus offices – benefits

centres – are also using Twitter to provide

information and guidance for claimants.

Watford benefits centre for example, tweets,

‘We will never contact you by email to

ask for bank details, passwords, or other

personal information. #phishing #scamaware

#keepsecure’. Other messages alert claimants

to alternative transaction channels – ‘Save

time do it online, making a new or repeat

claim to #JSA online is quicker’.

Mel Poluck is a freelance journalist

and copywriter. Contact her on

mel@melaniepoluck.co.uk. You can

also follow Mel on Twitter: @melpoluck or

connect with her on LinkedIn

“ For local authorities, maintaining social media accounts is usually the responsibility of one or two members of staff, according to an agreed organisational social media policy.”

Increasingly members, service users, revenues

and benefits professionals – all of us – are

becoming used to being able to interact rapidly

and personally with individuals, institutions

and public sector bodies alike. Once, only one

way communication was possible – and in

the case of public sector organisations, it was

usually on their terms.

Now, on our laptops, on our smartphones,

we have at our disposal, this most ‘social’

of media... and it is free! All you need is an

internet connection. We can communicate,

engage and collaborate with the most

influential of people at any time of day. The

model has changed.

Tell us what you think – you know how!

32

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

Doherty’s despatch

property types by an estimated average

of £6.84 per week. This was comprised

of average contractual rent reductions of

£0.79 per week, and reduced LHA relative

to contractual rent of £6.06 per week.

This implies that, in aggregate, 89% of the

incidence of reduced LHA entitlements was

on tenants, and 11% on landlords. However,

this masks substantial variation across some

claimant groups (see below)

• the reforms reduced the probability that

claimants move house by an estimated 0.3%

per month, on average, when transitional

protection began (protection which would be

forfeited with a house move); but increased

the probability that claimants move house by

an estimated 0.5% per month, on average,

11 months after being rolled onto the

reformed system

• there is some evidence that the reforms

have reduced the number of bedrooms that

claimants choose to rent, on average. The IFS

did not find significant effects of the reforms

on the types of locality in which claimants

choose to live, as measured by an indicator

of local deprivation levels

• the reforms’ impacts in reducing LHA

entitlements in given types of property

were unsurprisingly higher for demographic

and geographic groups who had higher

entitlements to start with. These include

claimants in London (average reduction

of £13.39 per week) and lone parent

claimants (£8.43 per week). The reduction

in entitlements in London was also relatively

large in proportionate terms, at 6.6% of

January 2011 entitlements, as opposed to

5.4% for all claimants

• there is evidence that the reforms led

to relatively substantial, and statistically

significant, reductions in rental values in the

suburbs of London and in the East Midlands.

In both of those areas – and in contrast

to other parts of GB – the majority of the

estimated incidence of LHA reductions fell on

Complaints, council tax and the effect of yet more cuts

Econometric analysis of the impacts ofLocal Housing Allowance reforms onexisting claimantsIn a recent report, ‘The Econometric analysis

of the impacts of Local Housing Allowance

reforms on existing claimants’, the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) stated that housing

benefit cuts have had little impact on the level

of rents, and tenants have borne the brunt

of the reductions in benefit. Through their

analysis, the IFS identified the following:

• the Local Housing Allowance (LHA)

measures examined in the report were rolled

out to existing claimants between April 2011

and December 2012. The dates at which

particular claimants were affected by the

reforms were linked to their annual claim

reassessment dates. Otherwise, identical

individuals observed at the same time in the

same area could, therefore, face different

LHA systems. The analysis in the report

exploits this feature of the roll out, in order

to estimate the causal impacts of the reforms

on existing claimants for up to eleven

months after being rolled onto the reformed

system, using administrative data on housing

benefit claimants in Great Britain.

• eleven months after being rolled out,

the LHA reforms had reduced existing

claimants’ maximum entitlements in given

landlords rather than tenants. IFS estimates

also suggest that a small minority (six per

cent) of claimants living as a couple without

dependent children saw a fall in their average

contractual rent level due to the reform,

which was sufficient to offset their reduction

in LHA entitlement almost entirely (i.e.

almost all of the incidence seems to be on

their landlords). There is no clear pattern as

to how the estimated incidence of the LHA

reductions varies with the density of LHA

claimants in local private rental markets

• other claimant groups who saw relatively

large reductions in LHA include those

particularly likely to be affected by

the increased scope of the Shared

Accommodation Rate (SAR), the national

LHA caps (binding in parts of inner London),

and the abolition of the five room rate. There

is evidence that the property choices of each

of these groups were affected. Claimants

likely to be affected by the SAR change –

most single childless individuals aged 25

to 34 who were not previously in shared

accommodation – were, due to the reform

package, an estimated 12.9% more likely

to be in shared accommodation 11 months

after the point of impact – those likely to

be affected by the national caps were more

likely to move out of the capped areas of

Inner London. There is some evidence that

those likely to be affected by the abolition of

the five room rate were more likely to move

to cheaper properties with fewer bedrooms,

reducing the average fall in their income

after housing costs from £17.52 to £12.56

per week

• for groups particularly likely to be affected by

the SAR change and the abolition of the five

room rate, the reforms reduced rental values

by a statistically significant amount (£4.80

and £11.69 per week respectively). As a

result, more than one third of the incidence

of the LHA reductions in given properties for

these groups fell on their landlords.

“From this report it would appear that tenants do not necessarily take the full impact of a cut to housing benefit - their landlords might end up sharing some of the pain via reduced rents.”

...are the latest concernsfor Pat Doherty

INSI

GH

T SE

PTEM

BER

201

4

33

From this report it would appear that tenants

do not necessarily take the full impact of a

cut to housing benefit – their landlords might

end up sharing some of the pain via reduced

rents. Nearly a year after entitlements were

reduced, though, it seems that about 90% of

that reduction, on average, was felt by tenants.

Also, the report does not capture the long

term impact of the changes, as LHA continues

to change and new schemes evolve.

Complaints about councils’ tax and benefits services up 26%According to the Local Government Ombudsman’s (LGO) annual report for

2013/14, there were 18,436 new complaints

and enquiries specifically about local

authorities, down from 18,940 in 2012/13.

However, the proportion of complaints

about benefits and council tax increased by

26%, as local authorities introduced council

tax support schemes following localisation and

a 10% funding cut.

These were also areas where the LGO

was more likely to uphold complaints after

detailed investigations, the ‘Review of Local

Government Complaints 2013/14’ stated.

Around half of the complaints about both

benefits (49%) and adult social care (48%)

were upheld.

It is not surprising that issues around council

tax and benefits were areas of concern for

complainants, as this is where there has been

increasing pressure on local authority budgets.

When the government passed responsibility

for administering council tax support, it cut the

funding for it, and this left councils facing an

impossible dilemma of having to seek more

income from council tax, or making bigger cuts

to local services.

Further call for a revaluation of council tax valuesThe British Property Federation (BPF)

has called on all political parties to undertake

a revaluation of council tax properties.

Interestingly this follows on from the European

Commission also urging the government to

reform council tax to remove ‘distortions’

caused by basing the system on property

values that are more than two decades old.

The BPF believes that government

failures to revalue properties for 23 years

have brought the council tax system ‘into

disrepute’, with valuations from 1991 – when

the tax was established – still being used to

allocate homes to charging bands. They range

from Band A for properties worth less than

£40,000 to Band H, for those valued at more

than £320,000.

The BPF, which represent the commercial

property industry, said a revaluation should be

in all parties’ manifestos, and that politicians

need not fear the wrath of voters who saw

their council tax bills increase following a

revaluation, it stated, as research from the

Joseph Rowntree Foundation showed 70% of

taxpayers would see only a negligible change.

According to the Foundation’s research,

there would be, for example, 17.3% net

gainers in the north, compared to 22.9% net

losers in the south. The steepest property

price rises were in London, but even there

about half of bills would be largely unaffected.

The BPF made the following observations:

• earmarking any increased tax revenue from

Pat Doherty FIRRV CPFA is an independent

consultant and a Past President of the

Institute. If you wish to comment on anything

in this article, please email him at pkd@

pkdconsultancy.co.uk

“It is not surprising that issues around council tax and benefits were areas of concern for complainants, as this is where there has been increasing pressure on local authority budgets.”

a revaluation and making it available for

affordable housing in or near the area where

it was raised would help make revaluation

more publicly acceptable

• the BPF also backed the creation of ‘one

or two’ bands higher than Band H, as an

alternative to the ‘mansion’ tax on homes

valued in excess of £2m, proposed by Labour

and the Liberal Democrats

• politicians, through their continual

postponement of a council tax revaluation,

are bringing the credibility of council tax

into disrepute

• if a tax is to be based on property values,

then there has to be a revaluation more

than every 23 years

• technical advances since 1991 meant a

revaluation need not be expensive or viewed

as an ‘insurmountable administrative obstacle’.

IRRV national Council

election Your vote counts!

Go towww.irrv.net

Allen Graham is Chief Executive

with Rushcliffe Borough Council34

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

Viewpoint

of implementing a good design. I found this

an extremely interesting exercise, and was

struck by the fact that one of the key elements

of good design is the ability to admit mistakes, learn from prototypes, pilots and

feedback . This was emphasised by the fact

that James Dyson produced in excess of 900

prototypes before getting it right with his now

famous vacuum cleaner. Maybe therefore,

whilst it is extremely understandable to

criticise and voice our frustrations, we as

a profession should remain prepared to

acknowledge and encourage the DWP to

continually review the design process, make changes, and even sometimes admit a new version will be required.

I was really pleased and encouraged to read

the contribution from Pete Challis in the July

edition of Insight, which positively promoted

how local government could be the central

delivery partner for UC in the future. I believe

such positivity is essential in ensuring we as

a sector remain in the best placed position to

ensure our citizens and the most vulnerable

gain consistent access to much needed

support within a range of circumstances. The

approach and argument highlighted within the

article was in my view exactly what the Local Support Services Framework document (DWP February 2013) was designed to

reinforce and promote.

“ It’s one small step...”

The phrase “it’s a marathon not a sprint” is

sometimes overused. Some might believe

it is entirely appropriate in respect of

the development and implementation of

Universal Credit (UC), which is currently

plodding along at a slow pace, making many

water stops to take stock, then continuing to

plod on again hoping to make it, but not being

quite sure whether it will survive the distance.

To me, however, I would liken the programme

more to the race to land on the moon,

which I witnessed as a child (scary to think

that was more than 45 years ago!).

Whilst most may be clear on the mission,

sometimes it still feels like a dream and an

impossible aspiration. However, slowly but

surely we are beginning to witness small incremental progressions, which suggests

it just might eventually become a reality.

Such immense visions or projects often rely

upon a large cast of experts, designers and

believers to make them become a reality.

Certainly, I would suggest these professionals

are in plentiful supply in respect of the UC

programme, and just being close to the

governance structures does give you an insight

into the complexity of bringing this aspiration

to fruition. I have been fascinated that through

clear determination and a well-argued case by local government, the original

assertions presented by the Department

for Work and Pensions (DWP) have been

changed from believing they could implement

it without the involvement of local government

and also within an impossible timescale, to

embracing the talents and organisational

structures of local government in becoming a

key delivery partner, whilst accepting that the

programme must be developed slowly and in

a controlled manner.

In my work with the Local Government Association, and in particular as a member

of the Local Government Delivery Council, I recently attended a design workshop

which worked through the essential principles

It is clear that there remain considerable

challenges that will need to be overcome if

UC implementation is to become successful.

I believe that local government has a key

role to play in working across our own

service area boundaries to reduce the risk

of duplication or confusion for citizens,

and lack of data sharing opportunities. The

progression and development of a number

of key programmes by separate government

departments are often attempting to achieve

specific outcomes, but involve the same

citizen groups. In particular, the Troubled Families Programme (Department for

Communities and Local Government), Better Health Care Fund (Department of Health)

and Prevent agenda (Home Office) appear

to be focussed upon changing behaviours,

promoting intervention and providing

support services which all too often cut

across the citizens’ ability to either secure or

remain in employment.

As a local authority Chief Executive, I

sometimes wonder if these programmes are

actually competing in the race to be the

first on the moon (much like the USA and

Russia were all those years ago) rather than

collaborating to ensure we design the best

modernised system which will ensure the

citizen can access the support they need in

the most efficient, transparent and cost-effective way.

I remain convinced that local government

remains the best placed public service

organisation to deliver all these agendas, and

if encouraged and allowed to contribute to

refining and redesigning the key components,

will be able to take pride in contributing to

the aspiration of simplifying access to support

services close to our communities, whilst

assisting more people into paid employment.

“I found this an extremely interesting exercise, and was struck by the fact that one of the key elements

of good design is the ability to admit mistakes, learn from prototypes, pilots and feedback.”

...recalls Allen Graham, but could it at last be a step in the right direction for local government and Universal Credit?

E: onlinetraining@irrv.org.uk

T: 020 7691 8972

W: www.irrvlearning.org.uk

The IRRV’s range of IRRV Online Training programmes provide ideal learning material for practitioners in all aspects of Housing Benefit & Council Tax Benefit, Business Rates and Council Tax.

The IRRV Basics programmes are designed for new entrants or those without prior experience of the subject matter.

The IRRV Pro programmes are designed for the experienced practitioner and take a learner from a basic awareness level up to a high standard of in-depth knowledge.

They also act as an invaluable up-to-date reference and refresher tool for the experienced practitioner.

The virtual library of IRRV online training programmes includes:

• Council Tax Basics• Council Tax Pro• Business Rates Basics• Business Rates Pro• Employment and Support

Allowance• Benefits Basics• Benefits Pro

IRRV Online Training programmes help you to meet efficiency targets because:

• The programmes are up-to-date and maintained on a daily basis;

• The unlimited user licence ensures that all your staff can benefit from the programmes;

• The courses give you and your managers peace of mind knowing staff have access to extensive information at their finger tips 24 hours a day.

For a free 24 hour trial of the programmes please contact:

onlinetraining@irrv.org.uk

IRRV Distance Learning

E: distancelearning@irrv.org.uk

T: 020 7691 8984

W: www.distancelearning.org.uk

Achieve Your Potential with IRRV Distance Learning Courses

IRRV Certificate Level 3

This course is designed for those who wish to gain a professional qualification and further their careers.

Streams available:

• Revenues and Welfare Benefits Stream

• Business Rates Stream• Valuation Tribunal Stream

Fee: £1260.00 + VAT

IRRV Professional Diploma

This course is designed for those who wish to progress to senior positions. The Professional Diploma leads to the highest level qualification, IRRV Honours.

Stream available:

• Revenues and Welfare Benefits Stream

Fee: £1410.00 + VAT

Special Offer:

3 for 2 on multiple enrolments* * This offer is valid on multiple bookings with a minimum of 3 candidates.

E: gary.watson@irrv.org.uk

T: 020 7691 8988

Introducing this year’s finalists –

Team AwardsRevenues Team of the Year

• Chelmsford City Council

• East Devon District Council

• Edinburgh City Council

• Taunton Deane District Council

Benefits Team of the Year

• Chelmsford City Council

• East Devon District Council

• Fife Council

• LGSS on behalf of Northampton Borough Council

• Taunton Deane Borough Council

Most Improved Team of the Year

• Cornwall Council

• LGSS Norwich City Council

• Luton Borough Council

• Newham London Borough Council

• Oxford City Council

• Southwark London Borough Council

Excellence AwardsExcellence in Debt Management

• Glasgow City Council

• Liberata and North Somerset Council

• Renfrewshire Council

Excellence in Innovation (Local Authority)

• Argyll & Bute Council

• Enfield London Borough Council

• Luton Borough Council

• Taunton Deane Borough Council

Excellence in Innovation (Non Local Authority)

• Audit Commission

• Capacity Grid

• Rossendales Ltd

• Valuation Office Agency

Excellence in Partnership Working (Public / Private)

• Elevate East London

• London Revenues Group and Bacs Payment Schemes Ltd

• Rossendales Ltd and Census Partnership

Excellence in Partnership Working (Public)

• City of Edinburgh Council

• Essex Benefit Managers

• Oxford City Council

• Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council & Kingston Upon Thames London Borough Council

• West Oxfordshire District Council and Cotswold District Council

Excellence in Social Inclusion

• Cheshire West and Chester Council

• Liverpool Direct Ltd

• Melton Borough Council

• Oxford City Council

Excellence in Staff Development

• LGSS on behalf of Northampton Borough Council

• Northgate Public Services

• Oxford City Council

IRRV Performance Awards 2014

W: www.irrv.net/awards