INSIDE: Partnership working • Protecting the public purse • News & events • Technology • Student corner

INSIGHT

INSIDE: Council Tax • Change management • Customer delivery • Valuation matters • The Butcher

December 2018 £7.75 www.irrv.net

ISSN

136

1-13

05

At least we’reall in it together!

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

Managing challenges don’t come much bigger than revenues and benefits in Birmingham, says Tim Savill!

Your IRRV Council: FeaturesIN

SIG

HT

DEC

EMB

ER 2

018

©IRRV 2018. 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 theInstitute. 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.

2 www.irrv.net • Forums • Conferences • Training Days • News • Online Training • Qualifications • Membership • Jobs • Council • Tel 0207 831 3505

IRRV INSIGHT

Managing Editor

John Roberts

Editorial Director

Lester Dinnie

Designers

Clare Barker

Roddy Clenaghan

Copy Editor

Vicki Chastney

Publisher

WSA

IRRV

Chief Executive

David Magor

OBE IRRV (Hons)

Northumberland House

5th Floor

303-306 High Holborn

London WC1V 7JZ

T 020 7831 3505

E david.magor@irrv.org.uk

W www.irrv.net

Enquiries

Membership020 7691 8996

Conferences020 7691 8987

Subscriptions 020 7691 8996

Advertising

T 020 7691 8979

E sales@irrv.org.uk

Editorial

John Roberts IRRV (Hons)

T 07952 659 258

E jcroberts54@hotmail.com

WSA

1D, South House, Bond Ave,

Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK1 1SW

T 01908 371177

W www.wsacommunications.co.uk

IRRV Insight is produced by WSA

on behalf of the IRRV.

Unless otherwise indicated, copyright

in this publication belongs to the IRRV.

December 2018 ISSN 1361-1305

At least we’re all in it together!Managing challenges don’t come muchbigger than revenues and benefits in Birmingham,says Tim Savill!

Cover story 17

The challenge has definitely been worthwhile!Kevin Stewart reports on a management challenge of a lifetime, as his team work to bring a service back in house, following a previous partnership of three West Sussex councils.

Change management 25

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENTAndrew HethertonMRICS IRRV (Hons)

IRRVPRESIDENTLouise FreethFIRRV

Allan ClarkMSc FIRRV MCMI

Richard HarbordMPhil CPFA FCCA IRRV (Hons) FIDP FBIM FRSA

Carla- Maria HeathBA IRRV (Hons)

Zoe Kent IRRV (Hons)

Paul McDermottIRRV (Hons)

Jim McCaffertyIRRV (Hons)

Nick RoweIRRV (Hons)

Ian FergusonIRRV (Hons)

Simon Green MRICS IRRV (Hons)

Alan BronteFRICSIRRV (Hons)

Roger MessengerBSc (Est Man) FRICS FIRRV MCIArb REV

Kevin StewartFIRRV MAAT MCMI

Bob TrahernIRRV (Hons)

David ChapmanIRRV (Hons)

JUNIOR VICE PRESIDENTAlistair TownsendIRRV (Hons) MCMI

IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENTGordon HeathBSc IRRV (Hons)

HONORARY TREASURERAllan TraynorFCCA IRRV (Hons)

Editor’s welcomeContents

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

With more of the same likely for 2019, our membership magazine guarantees to cover every aspect of our diverse profession over the coming months.This month, our cover feature focuses on the challenges encountered by Tim Savill, as he outlines the work involved in keeping the revenues and benefits service of England’s ‘second city’, Birmingham, operating effectively. With more change management experiences from IRRV Past President, Kevin Stewart, there’s plenty to interest our local government practitioners. The revenue collection agenda is also served by Equita and Simon Quilter, together with a warm welcome to new contributor, Peter Heywood, who tackles the controversial issue of council tax on empty homes.

Our valuation agenda is the province of Geoff Fisher, who provides his regular update on events, case law and news, together with the forthright views of Roger Messenger, who takes the ‘Viewpoint’ podium.

Of course, there’s plenty of activity on the welfare reform scene, and Geoff Fimister and IRRV President Louise Freeth are keen to offer their view. The broader perspective is covered by Tim Morris, Mel Poluck and David Graaff, who provide the diverse view of the profession that represents our Institute. And there is always the lighter side, represented by our very own ‘Butcher’ and the archival interests of Deputy Chief Executive Gary Watson, together with the humour of revenues stalwart, Andy Burton.

From the inside of the Institute, we include Sue Williams-Lee’s encouragement for involvement in the new and ever-growing Apprenticeship scheme, together with our usual compilation of news items from the IRRV Associations and our network of events. Our incoming President, Louise Freeth, adds to the mix again with her first Presidential message, in what is surely going to be another hectic year.

And at this time of year, we wish you all a very Happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year ...and all that remains is for you to read on and enjoy!

“ Welcome to the final edition of Insight for 2018, and the end of an eventful year.”

Chief Executive’s notes 05

News and events 06

Letter from the President 07

Education and membership 09

The butcher 10

From the archives 11

Revenues roundup 12

Benefits bulletin 13

Valuation matters 15

Current account 16

Case law update 17

Customer delivery 21

Through fresh eyes 23

Credit notes 24

Technology 28Digital skills in government need a helping hand, discoversMel Poluck, if they are to keep ahead of the game!

Council Tax 30

Collection & enforcement 32

Viewpoint 34

3

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

Follow us on Twitter David Magor on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Presidents Blog

• Harrison Waine returns with the first of a new series of articles from the front line

• all the news from the latest round of Institute Council meetings, compiled as ever by Gary Watson

• staff welfare and safety is the business of experts, the Ashridge Group.

What’s in the next issue... IN

SIG

HT

DEC

EMB

ER 2

018

STOP PRESS!New IRRV

Faculty announced! The Institute’s Council has agreed the

introduction of an ‘Investigations Faculty’ to add to the three existing Faculties.

Further details will be carried in the nextissue of Insight and Benefit magazines.

Members will be given an opportunityto move over to this new Faculty

if they wish to.

E: Sue.williams-lee@irrv.org.uk T: 020 7691 8978W: www.irrv.net/apprenticeships

• Are you looking to employ an Apprentice?

• Maybe you already have a member of staff in your Revenues & Benefits Team who could benefit from training to upskill?

• The IRRV are an approved provider listed on the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers (RoATP).

• If your organisation is looking for an apprenticeship in Revenues and Benefits get in touch today.

From May 2017, employers with a pay bill of over £3m are required to contribute to an Apprenticeship Levy Account. The Government set targets for the number of apprentices each organisation must employ each year by 2020. If the funding in the levy account is not used within 2 years, the funds are automatically removed from the account. So now is the time for employers, with restricted training budgets, to engage the IRRV to deliver a separately funded apprenticeship. The IRRV apprenticeship not only leads to the award of the level 4 qualification, but also awards the apprentice with the Revenues and Benefits nationally recognised professional qualification, the IRRV Level 3 Certificate (Technician).

How it works

The IRRV have considerable experience in training staff in all aspects of Revenues and Benefits. We offer a ‘blended learning’ approach to training. As discussed and agreed with the employer, the IRRV will deliver the following training products and services as part of our apprenticeship training programme:• Legislation / Administration Training• Conferences and Professional Meetings• Forum Meetings• Training Courses• Webinars• On-line Learning• Off-site Work and Research• Face-to-face• Support Training

In addition to the above, as the apprenticeship training fee includes IRRV membership, the apprentice will receive the following membership benefits:• An area of the IRRV Web Site reserved for

Apprentices• The IRRV’s prestigious monthly journal, Insight• Membership of their local IRRV association• Subject to agreement with their employer, the

apprentice could also attend the IRRV’s flagship Annual Conference and the Spring Conference

• The IRRV’s monthly newsletter, containing the latest legislative changes, government announcements and current developments within the profession

Fees

Fees will depend on the number of apprentices in each regional cohort. Please contact us to discuss your requirements or go to our website using the link below.

Enquiries

For all enquiries on Apprenticeships, please contact Sue Williams-Lee, Head of Educational Services at sue.williams-lee@irrv.org.uk or on 020 7691 8978

IRRV ApprenticeshipsThe IRRV Level 4

Revenues and Welfare Benefits Practitioner Apprenticeship

Chief Executive’s notes

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

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

5

David Magor on Twitter

...says David Magor, but improved communication and accessibility for all is still an essential objective.

Hudson makes some important observations about the way the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have managed the business rates system over recent years. Generally, he praises the way they have addressed the growing complexity of the business rates system and whilst he also praises them for the low error rate, there is an implied criticism that they lack agility when dealing with new challenges. A good example of this is the lack of action on the growing problem of rates avoidance. Both Scotland and Wales have made it clear they are determined to act, whereas in England we have lots of talk but lit tle action.

The report makes it clear that the Department should take very careful account of the risks of adding to the complexity of the system, particularly before 2020. This is a specific reference to the recasting of the Rate Retention scheme and the Fair Funding Review, which should be with you by the time you come to read this editorial. The reality is that any changes are going to be challenging, particularly with the

The report from Andrew Hudson, the former Director General at HM Treasury and former Chief Executive of the Valuation Office Agency, should be regarded as the first small step to the overall reform of local government finance. The terms of reference asked him to consider issues under five themes – complexity, governance and management, capacity and capability, openness, and culture.

The reform of local government finance may be underway...

“ Generally, he praises the way they have addressed the growing complexity of the business rates system and whilst he also praises

them for the low error rate, there is an implied criticism that they lack agility when dealing with new challenges.”

To Advertise in Insight, Benefit or Valuer magazines, call: 0207 691 8979 • email: sales@irrv.org.uk • visit: www.irrv.net/sponsorship

impact of the revaluation and the current pressure on the rating system in terms of the burden it presents for retail, industry and commerce.

The desire to fix a stable timetable which is agreed in advance is to be welcomed. However, the proposed final set tlement date at the end of January could be a lit tle earlier, particularly if there is a significant variance from the provisional set tlement which will be delivered in early December. This is particularly important if policy changes form part of the settlement.

The important element of these changes which is addressed by Hudson is the need to improve communication

and accessibility of the settlement to local authorities.The delivery of local services is becoming more and more

demanding and it is critical that sub-national government is given every opportunity to maintain the quality of local services. The financial relationship between the tiers of government is an essential foundation to progressive decision making.

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

News and events

6

Login to IRRV Member Area

www.irrv.net • Forums • Conferences • Training Days • News • Online Training • Qualifications • Membership • Jobs • Council • Tel 0207 831 3505

News

Bristow and Sutor introduces independent advisory panelLong-standing supporters of the IRRV, enforcement agency firm Bristow and Sutor (B&S), has announced the formation of a new Independent Advisory Panel, to be chaired by Anthony Sharp of Anthony Sharp Associates, an industry wide consultancy on all matters relating to credit and debt collection.

Establishing this is designed to ensure that

B&S delivers an enforcement service that engages with debtors in a sensitive, respectful way and helps them to find solutions to their problems.

The new Panel consists of experienced individuals drawn from the debt advice, regulatory and creditor sectors and their primary role will be to advise and scrutinise B&S’ senior leadership, to ensure practice and procedures are aligned with the company’s mission and values.

John OwenIt is with great sadness that Insight reports that John Owen, a former member of national Council, passed away in early November, following a short illness.

John joined the Institute on 1st January 1974, and was Head of Rating at Chestertons for many years, based in the Birmingham office. He was a Past President and long serving Executive Committee member of the West Midlands Association, and served on the national Council for a number of years in the 1990s.

ATM interim decision favours business ratepayersAs the plight of the retail scene continues to grab the headlines, and business rate liability continues as an effective scapegoat, ratepayers will be relieved to hear that the Court of Appeal found in November that ATMs should not have been rated separately.

Retailers are hoping that this results in refunds of business rates charges, subject to any further appeals. The Court has ruled that those who have already been charged will now have to be refunded.

The December edition of Valuer magazine contains further details of this groundbreaking decision.

Student success celebrated!

Newly qualified IRRV students and prizewinners are pictured at the October Annual Conference in Telford, having been presented with their certificates by Institute Qualification Management Board chief Lee Anderson.

December 2018 ValuerDon’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’. This month’s issue features the following:

• a special cover feature valuation focus on the Institute’s key events in Crieff and Telford

• the RICS Rating Diploma Holders examine the future of rating, and whether its peculiar language will survive!

• Andrew Hetherton is on the case as the long-awaited ATM decision is revealed by the Court of Appeal

• Gordon Heath and Tom Dixon are back to tackle business rating reform

• Cain Ormondroyd and Horatio Waller unpick the outcome of ‘Gardiner and Theobald’

• the ratepayer’s world is not always a happy one, says Mark Wasilewski

• Peter Scrafton is back with a handy compendium of key case law

• more Valuation Tribunal Service news and views are presented by Tony Masella

• an update on all things valuation from our resident expert, Geoff Fisher ...and much more.

Better late than never!The Yorkshire and District Association celebrated their annual dinner rather later than usual, in October, but as ever the event was a great success.

Here we include a small selection of photos from this key event in the Association’s calendar.

(Photos courtesy of Robert Brown)

7In order to continue receiving your online magazines don’t forget to keep your membership details up-to-date. Log on to www.irrv.net

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

Institute news

Welcome to the first ‘Letter from the President’ that I have penned in this new role. I obviously couldn’t commence this series without paying tribute to the Immediate Past President, Gordon Heath, and indeed all previous Presidents of our Institute. It’s an honour to be following in their footsteps, not to mention rather daunting! I’m writing this following my second official function representing the Institute as the new President. The first official function was the meeting of Association Representatives, which is traditionally held on the Thursday morning following the Annual Conference. As for most attendees, I suspect, a morning meeting following the Performance Awards dinner was something of a challenge but it was pleasing to see so many areas of the country represented at that particular event.

The work of the Associations is something which is close to my heart

for a number of reasons. I think the work that they do is invaluable in terms of keeping the wider membership alive and informed about professional matters. It’s also how I first became more involved with the Institute, as I was asked, many years ago, to stand in for a speaker who was unable to make an event and who had recommended me as their replacement. I will confess that I didn’t know a great deal about the work of the Associations but was very pleasantly surprised when the Executive offered to take me to lunch beforehand and even supplied a glass of white wine – to settle my nerves! Well, I was sold! But, on a serious note, I often look back on that event and count myself lucky to have been given that opportunity, as from that came an invitation to speak at the Annual Conference and the rest, as they say, is history! My point is, however, that how often do we

offer unknown, junior, members of staff the opportunity to develop and get involved? When you go off to attend an Executive meeting or a ‘professional’ event, do staff in the office really understand what you’re doing?

As I write this, I’ve just returned from my first Association dinner. It was my pleasure to be invited to the Yorkshire and District annual dinner. It was a select affair with an exclusive gathering of members and sponsors, for which I’d very much like to thank Matthew Waite-Wright, his wife and the wider Executive for an excellent evening. The bar has been set high – wonderful weather (despite being mid-October) fantastic surroundings, great company, food, wine and a French singer (from Skipton!) to provide the entertainment – what more could a new President ask for?

Yours, Louise

Dear reader,

Louise Freeth hits the ground running with the first of her Presidential tales

Letter from the President

In early 1999, the Institute found it necessary to undertake a fundamental review of itself, its market place and its services. As a result of that review, it published IRRV: Beyond the Millennium – a plan to take the Institute into the 21st century and address a key number of issues. Further documents were published in 2002 and 2007 entitled Facing the Future.

The work outlined in these documents was overtaken by the impact of the economic downturn in 2008. Strategic decisions were made to deal with the consequences of this momentous event, which included the sale of Doughty Street and a rethink of our annual activities, in the light of a dramatic reduction in local government spending and the introduction of Universal Credit. Recent events concerning the European Union and the austerity programme, together with the continuing squeeze on public spending, emphasise the need for this document. The document is presented as a consultation vehicle, which requires answers to specific questions which will chart the delivery of the Institute’s activities over the next five years.

The marketplace in which the Institute operates is as challenging and competitive as ever. The Institute continues to secure its market share and has experienced ten years of volatile operation and trading, where

The IRRV – a vision for 2020 and beyond – have your say! A consultation document to determine the Institute’s strategy for the next decade.

Louise Freeth IRRV (Hons) is President of the Institute

its financial performance has been patchy – this, together with the continuing deficit of the pension fund, has adversely affected the balance sheet and put a considerable strain on day-to-day activity.

However, through the increased use of web technology and a better trained and a more informed complement of staff, the Institute is now better placed than it was in 2000 to compete on a level playing field. A key factor of this new strategy is the need for a business case for every limb of our enterprise, with a degree of confidentiality to protect our commercial position. In this way, the membership can see how we are using our resources, to achieve the results that they want.

In recent years, the Institute has struggled to maintain its income levels, but has contained its expenditure. However, it could be argued that expenditure should have reduced proportionally to our reduction in activity. The Council is determined to ensure that the financial health of the Institute is improved. The underlying principle of this strategy is for further growth and increased services, whilst ensuring the long-term well-being of the Institute. Please carefully read this document and respond to the questions and add any other comments to assist in the maintenance and development of the Institute, for the 21st century. You can view and download it on www.irrv.net/homenew/index.php

All responses should be submitted to the Deputy Chief Executive, Gary L Watson IRRV (Hons) by 11th January 2019 at gary.watson@irrv.org.uk

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

8

IRRV Conferences

IRRV Annual Conference and Exhibition 2019

The 2019 Annual Conference (and Exhibition) will take place in Telford from the 8 to 10 October. The first day will consist entirely of plenary sessions whilst four separate streams (Local Taxation & Revenues, Benefits, Fraud 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 2019 will take place on the Wednesday evening where the winners will be announced. There will be range of packages to suit individual needs. A limited number of bedrooms will also be held in the local area for delegates attending the conference.

More information is available on the IRRV website.

* This discount will only be made available to IRRV Members and Forum, Benefit Advisory or Organisational Members. Delegates must be from the same organisation and bookings must be made at the same time.

E: conference@irrv.org.uk T: 020 7691 8987W: www.irrv.net/conferences

IRRV Annual Conference and Exhibition 20198 – 10 OctoberInternational Centre Telford

Members can book 3 places for the price of 2*

IRRV Jobs Online

IRRV Jobs Online – Search for a New Job

Jobs Online is a web based job vacancy service offering organisations a platform from which to advertise their jobs throughout the UK to professionals in the fields of revenues, benefits and valuation. The site offers search facilities by location, salary level or area of interest for people looking for a job. Your subscription to jobs online includes the following:• Publication of an unlimited number of job advertisements on the web

throughout your subscription period• Unrivalled exposure to IRRV qualified local authority contacts in all

areas of revenues, benefits and valuation• Manageable and easy-to-use password protected web account• Link to your authority website• Search facilities by location, salary level and area of interest• Jobs are also shared on IRRV social media channelsTo subscribe to the service please go to www.irrv.info/jobs

Annual subscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £1000 plus VAT6 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £600 plus VAT3 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £400 plus VATOne-off Advert: Have just one job to advertise? Rather than take out a subscription you can simply register online and pay just £200 plus VAT per job.

E: membership@irrv.org.uk T: 020 7691 8996W: www.irrv.info/jobs

new horizonsnew opportunities

9

In late October, Gary Watson ( IRRV Deputy Chief Executive ) and I delivered student days to students undertaking their qualifications by distance learning in London, Walsall, Manchester and Bristol.

It was great to meet with students and try to allay any fears and answer their questions about the course and the requirements. They took on board lots of helpful tips and advice on how to approach the examinations and centrally set assignments. Likewise, it was very helpful to receive comments (positive or negative ) about a student’s experience of studying by distance learning.

They probably thought I was a bit mad, but when we talked about ways to study or revise I regaled them with a few of my techniques, my particular favourite being a way to remember exemptions on council tax with the sentences: • Occupied Exemptions:

“Massive Noses On Pop Stars Upset Vain Women”

• Unoccupied Exemptions (Relevant Absentee) : “Dancing Elephants Injure Jockeys”

• Unoccupied Exemptions (General) : “Big Friendly Giant Helps King’s Labourer On Purchasing Queen’s Television.”

Each word star ts with the relevant class of exemption. What can I say? It worked for me!

I f you are studying by distance learning, we will shortly be setting up an informal social media group on Facebook for students to network, share ideas and ask questions of each other and their tutors. Students will be sent individual invitations to this group. We hope that it will help to ensure they feel supported and less isolated during their studies. We want everyone to enjoy their experience of studying and to be reassured that there are lots of distance learning

students around the country, all going through the same thing.

If help or guidance in regard to distance learning is needed, please contact our Distance Learning and Day Release Co-ordinator, Mila Chladkova, on: Tel : 020 7691 8984 or email her on mila.chladkova@irrv.org.uk

In November, my colleague, Rowena, ably held the for t whilst I was out of the of fice. Rowena discussed the details of our Apprenticeship Training Programme with interested parties and fur ther developed the enrolment process and legal documentation, required at the point of sign-up to the Apprenticeship contract. We will be holding meetings with councils throughout December to identify requirements, draf t individual training plans and enrol Apprentices, ready to commence delivery in January 2019.

We would be very interested to hear from anyone within the profession on the revenues or benefits side, with up to date practical and technical knowledge in their particular specialism, who would be interested in joining our team of Apprenticeship tutors /assessors. In addition, professionals who also have a vocational assessor/verifier qualification would be a great addition to the team. We need to ensure that our standards of training delivery are consistent across the country, so assessors and tutors will be provided with full training and guidance. If you would like to get involved, or simply require fur ther information, please contact Dee Fergus or Rowena Hunter on: 020 7691 8994.

If you are interested in finding out more about the IRRV’s Apprenticeship Training Programme for the Level 4 Revenues and Welfare Benefits Practitioner Apprenticeship Standard, please get in touch as soon as possible. It is not too late to join the first cohorts, whether you have one member of staf f or a group. Please email : apprenticeships@irrv.org.uk or call : 020 7691 8994.

Finally, I would like to send my very best wishes to the students who are taking their examinations or submit ting their assignments in December. Good luck everyone!

Education and membership

Sue Williams-Lee presents the latest news on the Apprenticeship scheme, and throws in some handy exam tips too!

Sue Williams-Lee IRRV (Hons) is Head of Education Services with the IRRV

Congratulations to everyone!!

LEVEL 3 RQF BENEFITS PATHWAY Jane Batchelor Isle of Wight CouncilBonnie Smith Isle of Wight Council

Latest vocational qualification successes

STUDENT MEMBERSNAME EMPLOYERDarren McCafferty Warwickshire Co CouncilClare Taylor Oxford CCJames Cooke North Warwickshire BCJanine Camm Preston CCMartin Stafford Newcastle CCReena Kanda Ealing London BCAlexander Eady Basildon DCLucy Ann Whitehead Basildon DCLinda Sharon Mountford Basildon DCErin Jane Rowe Newcastle CCNicolle Clare Raw Newcastle CCOwen Henderson Newcastle CCSophie Maxwell Newcastle CCJulia Poppa Redbridge London BC

CORPORATE MEMBERS NAME EMPLOYERElizabeth Owen Isle of Anglesey Co C

New members

www.irrv.net • Forums • Conferences • Training Days • News • Online Training • Qualifications • Membership • Jobs • Council • Tel 0207 831 3505

STOP PRESS!New IRRV

Faculty announced! The Institute’s Council has agreed the

introduction of an ‘Investigations Faculty’ to add to the three existing Faculties.

Further details will be carried in the nextissue of Insight and Benefit magazines.

Members will be given an opportunityto move over to this new Faculty

if they wish to.

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

10

From the archives

We wondered whether Gary Watson’s time machine would ever leave 1903, and here you have your answer!

The final meeting of the Executive Committee in 1903 took place at Hemmans Hotel, 64 Cheapside in the City of London on Saturday, 5th December, with Mr Robert J Ricketts in the chair. Minutes of the last meeting were read and signed.

A letter from the Municipal Officers’ Association was presented and read; a copy whereof is as follows:

117 Holborn E.C.November 1903

Dear Sir,

I am directed by the Municipal Officers’ Association to inform you that it had resolved to convene a Conference for the purpose of discussing the advisability of furthering the promotion of a Bill for the Superannuation of Municipal Officers, and I am requested to invite your Association to send three delegates to this Conference; the first meeting of which will be held at the offices of the Association, 117 Holborn, E.C. on Thursday, December 10th 1903, at 8.00pm. I shall be glad to know the names of your three delegates.

Yours FaithfullyE A Winder

The foregoing letter having been carefully considered, it was resolved on the motion of Mr Stone and seconded by Mr Moore that the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Mr Roberts, be appointed as delegates to attend the above-mentioned conference.

Today, we know ‘Holborn’ as ‘High Holborn’, where we find the IRRV offices – just a few doors along from where the Conference was to be held in December 1903. How handy that would have been for our delegates.

The draft report of this Committee for the year 1903 was presented and read. Certain

alterations having been made therein, it was resolved that the above-mentioned report, as altered, be printed and circulated amongst the members of the Association and non-subscribing Rate Collectors in the Metropolis.

It was then resolved on the motion of Mr Sales and seconded by Mr Rust that a letter of congratulations is forwarded to Mr W P Hunter, the late Chairman of the Association, on his successful election as a Borough Councillor for Hammersmith.

Mr Robert Rycroft, a rate collector for the Borough of Stepney, was then proposed by Mr Roberts, and seconded by Mr Westwood, for election to this Association – this was unanimously agreed.

The Secretary reported the arrangements made with Messrs Lyons for the holding of the Annual Dinner at the Trocadero on 30th January next and these were approved. It was also resolved that the next meeting of this Committee be held on Saturday, January 16th next.

Having resolved that the account of Messrs. Henderson for printing amounting to £13/6 be paid, this concluded the business of the evening and a cordial vote of thanks was passed to the Chairman. The Committee then adjourned.

The first meeting of the Executive Committee in 1904 took place at Hemmans Hotel, 64 Cheapside in the City of London on Saturday, 16th January, with Mr Robert J Ricketts in the chair. Minutes of the last meeting were read and signed.

A letter from the Municipal Officers’ Association on the Superannuation Bill was presented and read, stating that a Conference of Kindred Organisations was to be convened on 10th December last, for the purpose of considering the desirability of promoting a Bill during the coming session of Parliament, for the superannuation of officers in local authorities. A copy of the resolution passed at such Conference was forwarded – also upon what terms the Metropolitan Rate Collectors’ Association would be prepared to support the Bill financially and morally.

The foregoing letter having been carefully considered, it was resolved on the motion of Mr White and seconded by Mr Kidman, that a communication be addressed to the Municipal Officers’ Association, stating that this Association will subscribe the sum of £5 towards the cost of promoting the Local Authorities Officers (Adoptive) Superannuation Bill in Parliament, providing nine other Associations subscribe similar amounts.

Turning to the election of new members, it was resolved on the motion of Mr Chatfield and seconded by Mr Goddard, that Messrs Jeffrey and Rogers, rate collectors in Hammersmith, be elected members of this Association.

The Secretary then reported on the music arrangements for the Annual Dinner and stated these were now complete, with the exception of the tenor. Mr Warner would be unable to sing on the occasion in question. Mr Moore then addressed the meeting with reference to this matter and pointed out that he was under

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 – contact him on gary.watson@irrv.org.uk In addition, copies of previous articles can be provided on request.

Gary L Watson IRRV (Hons) is Deputy Chief Executive of the Institute

“The Secretary was instructed to write to Mr Warner, expressing the Committee regret at his being unable to attend the Dinner. How the evening went without ‘a tenor’ will be covered in next month’s edition of Insight.”

Gary Watson on Twitter

the impression that the musical arrangements for the Annual Dinner had been left in the hands of Messrs Warner, Chatfield and Roberts and that in consequence thereof, he had approached Mr Warner, who had interviewed artistes with a view to engaging their services. The Chairman thereupon assured Mr Moore that a mistake had unfortunately been made on his part and expressed a hope that he would yet be able to induce Mr Warner to sing at the Dinner. The Secretary was instructed to write to Mr Warner, expressing the Committee regret at his being unable to attend the Dinner. How the evening went without ‘a tenor’ will be covered in next month’s edition of Insight.

It was resolved that the best thanks of

this Committee be tendered to Messrs Freeman, Chatfield and Strong for their kind assistance in connection with the music at the forthcoming Annual Dinner.

Committee then arranged the toast list as follows:• His Most Gracious Majesty, the King

(The Chairman)• The Queen and rest of the Royal Family

(The Vice-Chairman)• The Imperial Forces (Mr J C Jones and

response by Mr John H Roberts)• The Metropolitan Rate Collectors’

Association (Mr W J Dewey – Town Clerk of Islington and response by The Chairman)

• The Visitors (Mr W P Hunter and response

by Mr C Leete – Town Clerk of the Royal Borough of Kensington)

• The Officers and Executive Committee (Mr J B Maltby and response by Messrs Rust and Moore).

A letter from Messrs Jacks and Co was presented and read, asking permission to photograph the assembly at the Annual Dinner. It was resolved that the above-mentioned application be granted, on condition that they take all risk with regard to the sale of copies.

This concluded the business of the meeting, a cordial vote of thanks was passed to the Chairman and the meeting adjourned.

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

11

A Christmas Carve-Up (a modern morality tale)

CHAPTER OneThe morning of Christmas Eve; The back room of a popular Butcher’s shop, in what we once would have recognised as a busy

High Street. “I suppose you’ll be wanting the whole afternoon off, it being Christmas?” muttered Ebenezer Butcher,

as his much put-upon under-manager, Bob Scratchings, tidied up the last scrapings of yuletide offal from

the drip bucket.“Oh, yes please Mr. Butcher” Bob replied, doffing his cap, tugging his forelock and bending his knee, a complex set of manoeuvres not to be undertaken lig htly, particularly by those with aspirations for an appearance on ‘Strictly Ballroom’, the show whose

title manages to combine Terpsichory with fashion advice.

“- and may I take these delicacies for the family dinner, I’ve done my best to remove the mould but

I don’t think even Mrs. Myopia will purchase them now ?”

“If you must”, rejoined the curmudgeonly carver, pausing momentarily to look up from counting the

takings; his be-mittened and calloused fingers belying their advancing years as they danced nimbly across

the loose change.

“Why, thank you sir,” beamed his saintly servant, imagining the looks of delig ht on the faces of his family – his adoring spouse Ophelia Scratchings

and their seventeen offspring , not forgetting the youngest, wee Patrick, known to one and all by

his nickname ‘Porky’.

CHAPTER TwoThe same day; the residence of Mr. Ebenezer Butcher Midnig ht.

Alone under the vasty eiderdown of his Trump-size bed, in the Sirloin Suite of Butcher Towers, the

venerable sage (and onions) was awoken by a hideous cacophony of wailing , gnashing of teeth, rattling of

chains and an extended ukulele version of James Blunt’s ‘You’re Beautiful’.

Despite switching on his Buzz Lig htyear nig htlig ht, our wizened old charcutier could barely make out the three hideous apparitions approaching the foot

of his bed.Slowly, slowly, he focused his gaze and recognised

their identities and their purpose…“Look”, he said, “I told you lot last year,

the address you want is Downing Street; 10, flaming Downing Street, Westminster. Now clear off, before I call Ghostbusters”

A MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL THE BUTCHER’S READERS

The Butcher... Yuletide Crackers

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

12

Focus on the appeal process

In my last article, I discussed the low number of challenges currently having been made to 2017 valuations and the lack of information available to local authorities for the purposes of forecasting appeals. Leading on from this, my focus on this occasion relates to what information is available, what it might indicate and what local authorities can make use of to assist them.

Whilst I discussed the relatively low number of challenges, I did not mention that over 160,000 properties have been claimed. I believe that it is reasonable to hypothesise that at some point during the open list period, a high proportion of these claimed properties will convert into challenges. Of course, the longer the delay, the greater the backdating of the change. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many agents do indeed have a number of challenges that they will make at some point but for various reasons have not yet entered the new system. One of the most obvious is the time limits embedded within the system. The amendment to the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009 by SI 2018/398 brought in a time limit between a ‘check’ and a ‘challenge’ and then the appeal to the Valuation Tribunal (VT). Regulation 6(1) states that a challenge can only be made within four months of the completed ‘check’ and Regulation 13B states that an appeal to the VT can only be made within four months of a Valuation Officer (VO) decision notice, or eighteen months after a proposal has been made, but the VO has not issued a decision notice.

The software of all parties involved is not yet where it needs to be. Since most larger agents use their own workflow software to process proposals and since the connections with the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) systems are only being rolled out slowly, the interfaces between the two are not ready to deal with the new legislation. In addition, the numerous outstanding 2010 List appeals mean that agents’ resources are necessarily directed to them. We also have the group pre-challenge review (GPCR), which is the protocol established by the

VOA to groups of property occupiers, owners or ratepayers. It allows them to challenge the basis of the valuation in respect of local, regional or national schemes of valuation. This grouping of challenges has only recently been introduced and it would appear that it will significantly increase challenges for certain classes of properties when it has bedded in with ratepayers and agents. In view of these reasons, it is understandable that ratepayers and agents have not been keen to ‘start the clock’ in relation to the time limits and are waiting until the process issues are resolved.

In terms of local authorities’ involvement in the process, whilst the change to the appeals legislation did not go as far as giving local authorities ‘interested person’ status (i.e. rights of appeal), they did include some elements that assist. Regulation 9 of the appeal regulations states that for each challenge, the VO must provide the following information:

(a) the identity of the hereditament(b) the date the proposal was made in relation to

the hereditament(c) the rateable value of the hereditament shown

in the list on the date the information is given to the relevant authority

(d) the proposed rateable value(e) the date from which the proposer asserts

that the proposed rateable value should have effect; and

(f) whether or not the proposal has been determined.

It states that as a result of this information, the authority may provide evidence relating to the proposal to the VO. These provisions provide clear benefits to billing authorities, enabling them to be proactive in ensuring a correct valuation list by ensuring the VO is aware of all relevant information prior to making a determination.

Since many of these proposals do not result in an actual inspection by the VOA and do not necessarily include all the localised detail that might be relevant, the information a billing

authority is able to provide can ensure that such proposals are determined correctly at the earliest point.

Under regulation 13, if the VO decides that a proposal is not well-founded and it has not been withdrawn, it is required to issue a ‘decision notice’ on the proposer and, if the authority has served a notice on the VO confirming that it wishes to receive copies of decision notices (for either the specific proposal, the hereditament, or certain classes of proposals/hereditaments), the relevant authority.

In practice, most, if not all, authorities have asked to be notified of all proposals within their borough and these are provided through the VOA portal. However, it appears that the provision of this information by the VOA currently boils down to a spreadsheet of columnised data, which does not necessarily provide all the information needed by authorities as it does not give sufficient information to assess the likelihood of an appeal to the VT.

The statutory duty of the VO to notify relevant authorities ends at this point, as the next stage is the VT. I understand that the VT is working on developing information for authorities so that they are aware of appeals and their possible implications.

All this information is obviously useful, but it will require specialist analysis to assess the likelihood and value of a reduction and its implications for authorities in terms of their forecasts. There is clear evidence that the challenges that have been settled so far are not following a linear reduction at a borough level. There are large variances by region, so straight-line forecasting of losses at an authority level will be significantly inaccurate. An analysis at a more detailed level is clearly necessary.

“ This grouping of challenges has only recently been introduced and it would appear that it will significantly increase challenges for certain classes of properties when it has bedded in with ratepayers and agents.”

Alistair Townsend FIRRV CMgr MCMI of Alistair Townsend Limited is chair of the IRRV’s Local Taxation and Revenues Faculty Board and Junior Vice President of the Institute. The views expressed here are his own.

Revenues roundup

Alistair Townsend continues his discussions as this month he throws more light on the local authority perspective

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

13

Well, there is no prize for guessing what this article is going to discuss, as the pace around calls for the reform of Universal Credit (UC) gathers even more momentum. One area where change has already been announced, however, is the funding regime for Personal Budgeting Support (PBS) and Assisted Digital Service (ADS), with the fairly recent announcement that the DWP has decided to switch the funding from local authorities to the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB) with effect from April 2019.

I must confess that, although I was aware from the national UC liaison meetings, that high level discussions were taking place with CAB to determine the role they could play in delivery, I was somewhat shocked when the letter from Neil Couling arrived in my in-box. It seems that I wasn’t alone – the local UC Partnership Manager from the DWP expressed similar surprise at a recent meeting.

So where does that leave everyone? Well, the local CAB have already written to us to confirm that they are still awaiting details of how it will work operationally but they hope that we will continue to work together to support residents.

Local authorities will no doubt be busy revising their options for next year, ahead of the budget setting process, to see what remains realistic. I think that a lot will depend on how far advanced local authority provision in this area is. It’s sometimes hard to remember that, at the time of writing, not all Jobcentre Plus areas have gone ‘Full Service’ and therefore not all local authorities have put plans in place to provide PBS/ADS. Certainly, as part of the inspection team for the Institute’s Welfare Benefits Team of the Year Performance Award, what I saw up and down the country were local authorities committed to ensuring that customers were supported as Full Service rolls out.

Many have invested heavily in staff, training, innovative tools and advertising to raise awareness of the new services available.

Some may say that we have a vested interest in ensuring that UC customers do receive this support. Not only does it mean that we’re taking full advantage of the (somewhat limited) funding available, thereby safeguarding jobs, but it also means that we are being proactive before the customer presents to us as homeless and the bill for public assistance shoots up! That is a very cynical viewpoint, of course, and while elements of it may be true, it’s also about ensuring that we help and support our residents. After all, isn’t that what we do in our day job anyway? I can safely say that I don’t know anyone who entered the revenues and benefits profession because of the fame and fortune!

So, I’ll go back to my question above – where does that leave everyone or, more specifically, where does that leave local authorities? As I’ve aged, I’ve realised one of my many faults is that I can perhaps be a little too direct. As far as I can see, the choice is clear. We either stop providing these services or we continue to do so, effectively free of charge. In reality, I suspect that there will be some middle ground whereby authorities continue to provide a degree of support but it may not be to the extent that they do so now. The oft talked about bronze rather than gold service standard! What happens on the ground is likely to be different up and down the country, depending upon the

colour of the political flag flying above the town hall and the state of the authority’s finances. So we will see yet another postcode lottery.

From the CAB perspective, I understand that the contract is only for a one-year period, therefore there are no guarantees for them either. Talking of postcode lotteries, what will happen in areas where there is no CAB presence? We have a CAB in one of our main towns but not in another. At the moment, we offer space within one of our library service hubs, which CAB take up one day a week. They’re likely to have more demand on their services, therefore that may be one way in which the two organisations continue to work together to support residents.

Of course, many CAB also rely heavily on additional financial funding from the local authority. I don’t expect that will be something that disappears with this new announcement but it may cause the local authority to re-evaluate that funding and promote less directly expensive measures such as co-location.

At the IRRV Annual Conference recently, someone referred to this service as a ‘poisoned chalice’ and I have to say I am slightly inclined to agree with that view. CAB have been campaigning for some time to get their hands on this funding stream. I’m not sure if they realised how meagre it was, assuming the budget remains the same, and what they are being expected to deliver for it, but I wish them all the best, as I do their local authority partners who have some tough decisions to make regarding how far they are now willing to go to help deliver this service.

“ So where does that leave everyone? Well, the local CAB have already written to us to confirm that they are still awaiting details of how it will work operationally but they hope that we will continue to work together to support residents. ”

Benefits bulletin

Louise Freeth homes in on the ‘poisoned chalice’ that is Personal Budgeting Support and Assisted Digital Service.

Louise Freeth is President of the IRRV and Head of Revenues and Benefits at the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. Contact her on louise.freeth@rbwm.gov.uk

The opinions expressed are those of the author.

There are some tough decisions to be made

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

14

InvestigationFaculty

IRRV Conferences

IRRV Fraud & Investigation Conference and Exhibition

This is an event which has been designed to meet the needs of frontline Investigators in local government it will also interest Heads of Revenues and Benefits who are facing ever increasing problems with fraud, avoidance and evasion of local taxes. The event will take place at ‘The Council House’, Birmingham.

More information will be made available on the IRRV website in due course.

Exhibition and Sponsorship Opportunities

To find out about exhibition and sponsorship opportunities available please visit www.irrv.net/exhibitions

Alternatively contact Evonne Edwards on sales@irrv.org.uk or phone 0207 691 8974.

* This discount will only be made available to IRRV Members and Forum, Benefit Advisory or Organisational Members. Delegates must be from the same organisation and bookings must be made at the same time.E: conference@irrv.org.uk

T: 020 7691 8987W: www.irrv.net/conferences

IRRV Fraud & Investigation Conference and Exhibition 4 – 5 June 2019The Council House, Birmingham

Members can book 3 places for the price of 2*

IRRV Conferences

IRRV Spring Conference and Exhibition

Due to the success of our 2018 event, the Institute will be returning to The Queen’s Hotel, Leeds on the 14th and 15th May 2019. This event brings together the Welfare Benefits and Revenues & Enforcement Conferences that have taken place at different venues and at different times in previous years. The conference will as always be supported by an exhibition.

There are to be two separate streams running throughout the conference; one focussing on Welfare Benefits and the other on Revenues and Enforcement. Delegates attending the event will not be confined to attending sessions on any one stream. They will have the flexibility to ‘pick and choose’ which sessions to attend.

The Queens is the most famous landmark hotel in Leeds. Situated in City Square, it is close by to restaurants, bars and shops and easily accessible by both car and train. It has its own entrance linked to Leeds train station. The main hotel car park, of which there are 80 spaces, is located below the hotel.

* Details of all fees and special offers will be made available on the conference pages of the IRRV website.

E: conference@irrv.org.uk T: 020 7691 8987W: www.irrv.net/conferences

IRRV Spring Conference and Exhibition 14 – 15 May 2019The Queens Hotel, Leeds

Members can book 3 places for the price of 2*

Geoff Fisher returnswith another collection of key

events and news items from the world of valuation

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

15Geoff Fisher FRICS Dip.Rating IRRV (Hons) REV is a Past President of the IRRV and a Rating Diploma Holder and can be contacted via the Editor. His summaries and any views given are personal and should not be taken as legal opinion.

Valuers’ Association Monthly Page

Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber)D1 Learning Centre South London – 2010 List. In an appeal by the VO (A. Ricketts) against the VTE decision to reduce the RV by 20% for ‘Planning Restrictions’, the UT gave little weight to a Borough High Street RV, with a similar D1 reduction, having an office location and value. The member gave weight to the VO’s local D1 comparables, which supported the £175 pm2 value without deduction for this 2013 built award winning building and allowed the appeal and determined £149,000 RV. See http://landschamber.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk//Aspx/view.aspx?id=1446

Giraffe Concepts Ltd v D Jackson VO concerned a late appeal against the VTE decision reducing the 2010 List RV on a restaurant on the western concourse of Kings Cross Station from £223,000 to £161,000. The ratepayer’s appeal (for a further reduction), was struck out under Rule 8(3)Tribunal Rules 2010, following repeated non-compliance. See http://landschamber.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk//Aspx/view.aspx?id=1449

Gaer Ltd v J Williams VO concerned whether the self-catering holiday cottages in Wales were rateable. The Sec.66 LPGFAct88 definition of domestic property was amended by Order (only) for Wales, introducing from 2010 a requirement that actual letting for at least 70 days should be non-domestic. The VT Wales had dismissed the appeal, as the number of days occupied had not been provided – the VO deleted the 2010 List £12,000 RV entry but the ratepayer appealed, making two appeals to be considered by the UT. The UT decided as a preliminary issue that each self-contained part needed to be let for at least 70 days, as argued by the VO, not just any part of the hereditament. See http://landschamber.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk//Aspx/view.aspx?id=1443

RATING

The Rating Diploma Holders’ AGM, Professional Meeting and Lunch on 30th November at the RAF Club is due to present Diplomas to this year’s successful candidates – Khyati Bailey, Mandy Franklin, Judith Smith, Nathan Place, Andrew Thomas, John Gowland, Jacqueline Dell*, Alastair Hainey*, Steven Dalton*. *Scottish syllabus. Diploma Study Course details can be found on http://www.diprating.co.uk/

The VOA have been recruiting nationwide for full RICS/IRRV surveyors (Valuation/General Practice) at SEO level – £41,903/£47,383 London and £37,146/£42,168 – national pay rates. The closing date was 19th November. See https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/jobs.cgi?jcode=1605106 Also advertised was the post of VOA Head of Communications at £65,000/£90,000: closing date 28th October. See https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/index.cgi?SID=

RICS Global Red Book – new UK Supplement just published (replacing 2015 RB UK Chapter).See https://www.rics.org/uk/upholding-professional-standards/sector-standards/valuation/red-book/red-book-uk/

See December Valuer for a Professional Update on Red Book Rating and CPO Compensation.

Valuation Tribunal – 2017 ListD Ambrose v C Sykes VO. The appeal on Station Garage in Rayleigh Essex was allowed in part. The tribunal accepted that rents and comparables supported the VO’s value at £75 pm2 (£17,500), being close to the Southend railway car park, but noted the “manifest deficiencies of the subject hereditament in terms of location and access to trade” and adopted a 20% allowance (as the 2010 List), determining RV of £14,000. See Case CHG100009433 at https://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk/decisions-and-lists/lists-cca-2017-rating-list/

San Marco Ltd v Richie Roberts VO concerned Pinocchio’s Restaurant just outside Preston, dating from the 17th century and assessed at £39,000 RV, based on £100 pm2. The ratepayer’s representative quoted rental evidence to support his argument of a rental decline between lists, yet the 2017 RV was 10% above the 2010 List RV. The Vice President found the VO’s rental evidence inadmissible, as no Reg.17 Notice had been served, so the agent had not been able to inspect the Forms of Return until he had submitted an appeal. However, he did not find the ratepayer’s rental evidence reliable, and looking at VO’s comparable assessments, he found that the £100 pm2 adopted was reasonable and confirmed the £39,000 RV. See Case CHG100005630 at https://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk/decisions-and-lists/lists-cca-2017-rating-list/NB The VT website now includes a List of 2017 List Appeals listed for hearing at https://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk/decisions-and-lists/lists-cca-2017-rating-list/

Valuation Tribunal – 2010 ListEnergy Power Resources Ltd v C Syles VO concerned a receipts and expenditure valuation of this 13.5MW Biomass Power Plant at Flixborough, Lincolnshire, to generate electricity from meat and bone meal. The VO’s R&C was based on a three year forward look standard model, which gave £1.25m, but the RV of £900,000 was based on a cap of 10%of the first year’s turnover, which the VO used for Biomass plants. The ratepayer’s agent contended for £750,000 RV, based on a five year model, including using post-AVD fuel costs (hindsight) and quoting much case law, but the VTE dismissed the appeal, the £900,000 RV being found to be not excessive. http://info.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/decision_document.asp?Decision=&appeal =%2Fdecision%5Fdocuments%2Fdocumen ts%2FNDR%2F200324367326%2F539N10

Royal Astronomical Society and Society of Antiquaries v D Jackson VO. The Grade 2 listed Burlington House in Piccadilly had two rating entries with description of Library Offices and Premises and RVs of £224,000 and £267,500, based on £350 pm2. Lambert Smith Hampton for the appellants quoted agreed comparables and sought £275 pm2 - the VTE noted that on offices, Piccadilly had lesser values than St. James Square, where the London Library at 14 St. James Square had been agreed at £350. The appeals were allowed and the RVs reduced to £141,000 and £204,000 respectively, based on £275 pm2. Go to http://info.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/decision_ document.asp?Decision=&appeal=%2F decision%5Fdocuments%2Fdocuments %2FNDR%2F599025338393%2F538N10

V@MP

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

16

Longer serving IRRV types will recall that after implementing Council Tax (CT) in the nineties, we moved on to raise the standards of customer service, mainly with a Charter Mark (1991-2008). The Charter Mark quandary for senior managers was corporate or service? It said much that ‘revs and bens’ services were often up first.

We set standards, grasped equality of service, communicated with citizens and aimed higher from customer care to customer satisfaction. Or was it customer delight? Just what is the buzzword nowadays?

Amazon, who are number one at customer service, refer to customer obsession. Of course, Amazon has figured out that it’s not the words that matter – it is emotions and customer experience that drives loyalty. Jeff Bezos puts his customers at the centre of everything they do. Knowing that today’s customers hold all the power, with mobile devices affording them the opportunity to change brands instantly, the mission at Amazon is creating a superior customer experience.

I like Amazon. They employ around 30,000 people in the UK. Whilst we have been attending to CT, Amazon has become the world’s first trillion dollar company, having transformed from niche second-hand book seller to global superior e-commerce retailer. They get some stick about avoiding taxes but they pay huge amounts in NNDR, and that’s just for warehousing. Oh, and my older son Alex works for Amazon’s web services!

I recently attended a ‘meet the parents day’ at their impressive offices round the corner from Liverpool Street station. Everything about that day convinced me why Amazon is number one (according to the Institute of Customer Service ( ICS) survey 2018).

The key to their success is re-imagining their customer offer based on the customer journey. Re-imagining eh? How’s that for a new management bingo phrase?

Amazon focus like a laser on providing a superior customer experience. Key elements of price, product and service, score highly alongside outcomes of future behaviours, such as trust, retention, future purchase, recommendation and brand preference.

Amazon listens to how customers see and do things. The Echo or ‘Alexa’ hardware was born out of customers not knowing the title of a song they wanted to buy – but quite often they would say to the HMV assistant, “well it goes like this”. Amazon move on by inventing products that fortify their established range, e.g. Echo reinforces sales of their music streaming services, rivalling Spotify.

Moving on, the ICS 2018 findings show that customer satisfaction in the transport sector (rail, air and bus) is down. This may be linked to charging about £40 extra to sit with your partner on an aeroplane, or timetable fiascos on the railways.

While you read this, I may be on a short break to the Canaries which we booked in August with TUI. It looked a good deal with a further £75 off using a promo code ‘CAN 75’. However the TUI computer refused to accept that code although they were offering it at the time of the online booking.

I sought help from a TUI customer agent. He told me to pay in full and email the booking reference and he would apply the discount. However, TUI then refused, stating the discount had been removed. On appeal, two different TUI supervisors rejected my claim. So I invoked the online ABTA complaints process and then things changed in my favour.

Customers require trust, ease of contact, helpfulness, competence, speed of response, right first time and effective complaint handling. The

ICS states that over a quarter of customers said “making it easier to contact the right person” should be a top priority.

Local government is not like Amazon. There is no scope for our customers to switch, e.g. from one planning service to another. In other ways, however, ‘revs and bens’ administration is no different when looking at the factors above. We are wooing the customer with better technology to access services and providing holistic solutions to maintain optimum service to an individual, helped by the right person.

Another experience of mine underlines the need to get it right first time. My mother in law, Vera, due to her age, sought my advice for the assisted bin service and I managed to set this up in July by emailing forms and scanned documents to her council. So far, so good – they accepted and set it up pronto. However, Vera has texted me several times since, telling me that her bin was not touched. The slick front end is at odds with the contractor’s old-fashioned list – or lack of it. Under Charter Mark, that service might have scored well even though the end to end experience was poor.

Amazon has made it clear that technology adds significant value to the customer experience, which has innovated or disrupted traditional book selling, music, grocery stores, grocery home delivery, package delivery, ‘jack of all trades’ electrical retailing, etc.

Technology now presents a smart solar powered dustbin called ‘Big Belly’, which compacts its own rubbish and notifies the crew which (full) bins to empty. Councils seeking customer obsession could make a real difference with refuse collection as they touch every household. By re-imagining, we can picture a service that has no place for a dissatisfied senior citizen, just out of hospital, chasing the refuse vehicle up the road.

Investing in Big Belly might just drive up satisfaction, if councils have the stomach for it!

“ Customers require trust, ease of contact, helpfulness, competence, speed of response, right first time and effective complaint handling. The ICS states that over a quarter of customers said “making it easier to contact the right person” should be a top priority.”

Andy Burton can be contacted on andyrichburton@gmail.com

Current account

...says Andy Burton

Amazon is no mug when it comes to customer service

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

17

At least we’reall in it together! The opportunity to manage the largest revenues and benefits service in the country (in the largest council in Europe) proved to be a challenge I could not resist! The scale of the task in front of me when I joined Birmingham City Council in May 2017 was clear:• £392 million of council tax to collect from

442,000 households• £456 million of business rates to collect from

47,200 businesses• £279 million of rent to collect from 61,500

council tenancies• £560 million Housing Benefit (HB) payments

to 101,800 people; and• £96 million of Council Tax Support (CTS)

awarded to 123,000 households.

Any new job brings its pressures, and in many ways the difference is just ‘numbers’. But it is the added local issues which inevitably need to be added to the mix. Hence, just a few of the issues waiting in the ‘in box’ as I arrived:• a revenues service bought back in house

from a contract with Capita in February 2017 (around 30 vacancies and no Revenues Manager)

• going live on a new (revenues and benefits) document management system in my second week!

• a benefit service planning for ‘Full Service’ Universal Credit (UC)

• a rent collection service (with full UC service rolling out) facing delays in payments and associated increases in arrears.

Where to start then? It had to be revenues. The major early pressures were around filling all the vacant posts with associated training ( just 25 new Revenues Officers) and ensuring the in-house team had the right tools for the job. The small matter of recruiting a Revenues Manager was also on the ‘to do’ list. At the same time some development work was needed to ensure the tax base was being maximised.

Business rates was part of the previous Capita contract and dealt with mainly ‘off site’. Consequently, in house resource for this high profile work was limited. Plans had to be made to quickly identify staff and training so the work could safely return back to the council.

Arrangements are now in place using credit data on a rolling monthly basis to ‘risk base’ our Single Person Discount (SPD) reviews. This is already showing benefits in the collection fund – and around 650 accounts were cancelled in month one of the initiatives, with a further 950 as part of the ongoing monitoring. There are fewer SPDs in place (October 2018) than there were at annual billing – achieving a ‘flat line’, which makes the accountants very happy. A procurement exercise identified a supplier to help identify sites where an increased rateable value could bring in more business rates to the council. This has proved very successful, with more than a £7.2 million increase in RV identified (of which so far £2.8 million verified by the Valuation Office Agency) within the first seven months of the contract. Valuable income created at a time where it is most needed by the council.

Quick wins have been possible – some very straightforward, such as increasing Direct Debit dates and getting a regular dialogue going with key stakeholders, such as the CAB and enforcement agents. Others will take longer to evolve. The council has recently introduced the ‘Brum Account’, which will allow citizens to do a lot more straightforward transactions for themselves. In revenues, this has already meant we can shift resources from routine billing tasks to being a lot more proactive with our collection activities. Much more to come here, as we still don’t have the IT in place to support e-billing, although that should be available very soon. Further IT enhancements have been implemented with a ‘hybrid mail’ solution due to be live soon. Collection is up on 2017/18, so the early signs show positively that the service improvements are leading to the right outcomes.

The benefit service has also faced a challenging time. It has undergone a significant review, which has resulted in a new grade of staff – Benefit Assistant – assimilated into our structure. The 17 new posts (replacing vacant posts and outsourced work) have been recruited to help prepare for UC Full Service and beyond. Their work will focus on the more straightforward elements of the caseload – such as pensioners and council tax support – leaving the more complex work to experienced Benefit Officers. This has helped service levels to be maintained within the significantly reduced administration grant cut from DWP – £500,000 for the second year running in Birmingham.

Benefit processing performance improved over the first four months of 2018/19, with year to date times for new claims on average around 18 days and changes around six days. A very helpful health check from the DWP’s Performance Development Team (PDT) in July 2018 provided assurance, as well as some helpful suggestions for further improvement. We are currently working on an action plan to further improve processing times. We are

“ Where to start then? It had to be revenues. The major early pressures were around filling all the vacant posts with associated training (just 25 new Revenues Officers) and ensuring the in-house team had the right tools for the job. The small matter of recruiting a Revenues Manager was also on the ‘to do’ list.”

Cover story

Managing challenges don’t come much bigger than revenues

and benefits in Birmingham,says Tim Savill!

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

18

firmly of the view that efficient and timely payments help to reduce our operating costs, as well as the obvious improved outcomes for our citizens. Improvements in overpayment collection – over £17 million in 2017/18 – have contributed to much needed council funds.

UC and the DWP Hub have had a considerable impact to our work. In a typical week, Birmingham receives around 3,000 new items. We took the opportunity to share our concerns with the PDT while they were on site and hope that our messages for improvements in the process will be heard by DWP. It clearly is masking what should be a reduction in our workload as more and more cases are lost to UC. The live HB caseload has reduced from 109,000 to 97,000 over the last 12 months or so. It makes forward planning very difficult. Birmingham’s benefit service will need to downsize as UC reduces our working age caseload. However, our pensioner caseload of over 30,000 and CTS caseload of over 123,000 – added to any cases which DWP deem not fit for the UC model – will mean a considerable ongoing processing operation. As ever, horizon gazing is key, as is trying to anticipate fluctuating caseloads/workloads against future grant reduction and the ongoing financial pressures in local government.

The constantly changing timescales for UC rollout/migration (the latest is the 18th change

I gather) only emphasise the uncertainty.This brings me on to the final challenge in

my new role. It really makes you see UC in a new light when you realise you have overall accountability for collecting rent from 61,500 council properties. The financial consequences are huge – especially factoring in Full Service UC. This was gradually rolled out across the 12 Jobcentres in Birmingham between November 2017 and February 2018. Our initial estimates assumed this would mean:• £28million less housing benefit credited to

the rent account in a full year of Full Service (so we have to collect this from tenants instead), and

• an increase of rent arrears of around £4.3million if the council took no proactive action.

The numbers of council tenants in Birmingham in receipt of UC has therefore quickly risen from:• 1,414 (prior to Full Service in November

2017), to• 7,755 (October 2018); and an average of

127 new cases per week (council tenants onto UC).

This is likely to represent around 50% of the UC (housing cost element) caseload in the

city, with private tenants and RSL tenants making up the balance. The impact of UC on rent arrears has been considerable for council tenants in Birmingham. The table below highlights the difference between the number of UC tenants in arrears in comparison to the number of non-UC tenants. The table shows that although UC is being claimed in only 13.3% of tenancies, this accounts for 36.6% of the total arrears. The current difference in arrears between UC and non-UC households is (on average) around five weeks’ rent liability. Whilst the increase in UC arrears reflected above is in the region of £5.8 million, the increase in total arrears compared to this time last year has increased by £1.8 million. Of the 7,755 tenants on UC in arrears, 4,885 UC tenants were already in arrears to the value of £4.1 million prior to claiming UC.

In preparation for this change, the council has introduced a pilot initiative to examine existing cases in receipt of UC. The pilot is looking to identify the positive examples where people have claimed UC and not gone into rent arrears. Similarly, it is examining cases where arrears have built up, and look at what interventions may have prevented this situation arising. The outcome will give clarity around which interventions are most helpful and this will help to mitigate the impact of the change on tenants and the Housing Revenue Account.

“ In a typical week, Birmingham receives around 3,000 new items. We took the opportunity to share our concerns with the PDT while they were on site and hope that our messages for improvements in the process will be heard by DWP.”

Cover story

UC tenants (% of tenancies)

Tenants in arrears

Value of arrears (% of total arrears)

Average arrears per case

7,755 (13.3%) 5,900 (76.4%) £5,786,700 (36.6%) £746

Non-UC tenantsTenants in

arrearsValue of arrears

Average arrears per case

50,600 (86.7%)

13,000 (25.8%)

£10,025,400 (63.4%) £198

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

19

Tim Savill is Assistant Director, Revenues, Benefits and Rents with Birmingham City Council

Close working with Jobcentre Plus – and our own staff in their offices – has been a critical success factor in our work so far.

Three-way telephone conversations with tenants and the DWP are arranged to resolve queries. However, this is resource-intensive and a known frustration for other landlords currently operating in UC Full Service areas. Nonetheless, it is often required to resolve queries in some situations. This support is also particularly required by vulnerable tenants who may need Assisted Digital Support or Personal Budgeting Support. The pilot initiative is enhancing the council’s knowledge of the impact UC full service has on its tenants. The main objective is to reduce the additional potential arrears. The project is starting to show some positive outcomes:• it is helping the council to understand the

behaviour of customers in receipt of UC and establish the critical risk areas in relation to rent arrears

• staff have had an 80% successful engagement rate with the citizens. This shows the advantage of early intervention

• the proactive work has prevented around 40 evictions by close working between the DWP, the benefit service and housing

• the team has been successful in making arrangements to pay rent/arrears. Around 90% of these are thought to be sustainable in the long term

• the work is helping to identify which payment methods do not meet tenants’ circumstances: • the majority of UC tenants do not want to

pay by Direct Debit. The team has found that people prefer more control over their payments and standing order or payments via the phone

• Alternative Payment Arrangements are not suitable for people who are on ‘zero hours’ contracts or whose financial circumstances fluctuate regularly.

The full impact of UC is yet to be seen. Further rollout of Full Service, followed bythe migration – when all the details are known – means the numbers are still relatively low. Clearly the impact on arrears is starting to bite and it remains to be seen if the proactive measures that housing providers are taking will be enough to prevent further funding pressures.

The first 18 months or so in Birmingham have raced by for me. The next year will see many further challenges as the squeeze of local government finance continues – and the role of collecting taxes becomes even higher profile. UC brings a whole new dimension to all our work, whether it is delivering benefit services, rent collection or council tax collection. One comfort has been the willingness of other colleagues in local government to share information and good practice. We certainly are all in this together!

“ The pilot initiative is enhancing the council’s knowledge of the impact UC full service has on its tenants. The main objective is to reduce the additional potential arrears.”

STOP PRESS!New IRRV

Faculty announced! The Institute’s Council has agreed the

introduction of an ‘Investigations Faculty’ to add to the three existing Faculties.

Further details will be carried in the nextissue of Insight and Benefit magazines.

Members will be given an opportunityto move over to this new Faculty

if they wish to.

IRRV Professional Meetings

E: conference@irrv.org.uk T: 07899 877887W: www.irrv.net

* Bookings must be made at the same time and can be spread over the two courses. At least one of the delegates must be a member of the institute in order to receive this discount or alternatively if the organisation subscribes to the Forum or Benefits Advisory Service then they will also be able to receive the discount.

** Places limited to 25 delegates per course.

Members can book 3places for the price of 2*

Representing the Council at the Magistrates Court**7 December: ManchesterA one day professional meeting designed for officers looking to attend and / or represent the Council at the Magistrates Court. This meeting will look at the role played by the Council in the Magistrates Court and will be of interest to practitioners working in both council tax and non-domestic rate. It will address both the liability order and means enquiry hearings and cover the action that needs to be taken prior to, during and after a court hearing. In addition to covering the statutory provisions, the course will focus on the specific role of the officer who is representing the council. This will be a practical course with half the day dedicated to running mock liability and means enquiry hearings. The Course will be delivered by Gary Watson, Deputy Director, IRRV.

Representing the Council at the Valuation Tribunal**11 December: London • 7 January: ManchesterThis one day professional meeting will look at the role played by the Council in the Valuation Tribunal and will be of interest to practitioners working in both council tax and non-domestic rate. It will cover the action that needs to be taken prior to, during and after a tribunal hearing. In addition to covering the statutory provisions, the course will focus on the specific role of the officer who is representing the council. This will be a practical day with half the afternoon dedicated to running mock hearings. The Course will be delivered by Gary Watson, Deputy Director, IRRV.

Fees: IRRV Member (valid for Individual Members) . . . . . . . £175 plus VATBAS/Forum/Organisational Member. . . . . . . . . . . . £205 plus VATNon Member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £235 plus VAT

IRRV Scotland

E: scotland@irrv.org.uk T: 07899 877883W: www.irrvscotland.org.uk

Data Protection: what can and cannot be done with personal dataUnderstanding data protection law

Monday 10 December 2018The Leapark Hotel, Grangemouth

Includes Free Places Special Offer *

* See website for more details

There is now a daunting amount of legislation covering data protection.

By the date of this training event, it will have been over six months since the Data Protection Act 2018 bought into UK law the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) and the Law Enforcement Directive (LED).

This course will provide an up to date digest of data protection legislation from the local authority perspective and, in particular, revenues and benefits. Attendees will get a solid grounding in the requirements of data protection law and the key emerging issues so that they can act within the law, protect their employer from challenge and provide accurate advice to the public.

The course will take the local authority perspective and cover:• Current data protection legislation• Data Subject rights and where those rights may be restricted• Sharing personal information• Consent, what it means and when it applies• A digest of the latest data protection enforcement and good practice.

Fees: The workshop represents excellent value for money, with fees starting at only £145 + VAT.

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

21

Driving customer experience forwardThis summer, a long car journey and a series of new experiences set me thinking about customer journeys in general and how we design our customer-facing processes. I had taken some time out to participate in the Mongol Rally - driving an elderly Nissan Micra 11,500 miles through 20 countries, from London across central Asia to Mongolia and finishing in Eastern Siberia. A great experience and one I would recommend to anyone who likes driving!

Crossing borders in Europe is easy enough, for the moment! You might see a sign saying which country you’re in, and your mobile provider sends you a welcome text. Once past Bulgaria, though, the border crossings became increasingly onerous and the levels of bureaucracy increase. In total, we made 24 crossings, entering and leaving ten countries once, and Russia twice. Some of the crossings were quick, taking maybe an hour or so, but typically they took two or three hours, and on one occasion a full ten hours.

Most of this time was spent waiting, but there was also the production and checking of passports, inspection of documents for the car, searches of the vehicle and luggage, payment of various fees, official and otherwise, and much stamping of pieces of paper. Often the process was not clear, and I would end up having to go back a stage to get another stamp or signature or return to pay another fee.

I wondered how much of the ‘customer journey’ had been mapped or tested, and whether

any thought had been given to making these processes easy for the customer. Perhaps they had been deliberately designed to deter people from crossing. Some border practices seemed designed to frustrate the process on the other side. As we left Iran, there were some thirty vehicles held together on the Iranian side for about four hours, until the paperwork for all of them was completed. Rather than release individual cars as they were processed, all thirty cars went through to the Turkmenistan border at once. So, the Turkmen border staff had nothing to do all morning, followed by a sudden rush of thirty cars to process.

Once inside Turkmenistan, we all trooped from one room to the next, where the same details were repeatedly checked and written in large ledgers – passport numbers, visa numbers, car chassis numbers and so on. In one room we had to see a doctor, who took drivers’, but not passengers’, temperatures and wrote these in a book along with name and address. We were sent to the cashiers to pay for the visa, and then sent back to the first queue to retrieve passports – then on again to another room for the visa to be entered into yet another ledger. We were issued with an electronic tracker for the car and given a set route which we told to follow. This did not match our itinerary and resulted in a $15 fine two days later, as we left through the ‘wrong’ crossing into Uzbekistan. All this process took a couple of hours and each stage was accompanied by requests for

‘tips, tips, money, money’. Unfortunately, I don’t speak Turkmen or Russian and couldn’t understand what they were asking for, much to the officials’ disappointment. Eventually, having emptied and re-packed the car and assured the customs officers that we had no drugs or pistols, we were released into the 35km no-stop, no-photo zone and carried on our way. The point of these marathon administrative exercises wasn’t clear. Perhaps they were genuinely protecting national security, perhaps it was about personal power (or earnings), or perhaps it was just a job creation scheme.

But away from distant countries that few will ever visit, we don’t put barriers in the way of people trying to access our services, do we? I recently tried out a customer journey to set up a Direct Debit for Council Tax. “It’s quick and easy, online or on the phone”, said the council. I went online first, through a multitude of menus, and eventually got to a message saying “we’re sorry, this service is not available online, please ring the contact centre.” Again, there were many menus and sub-menus, and at every stage a recording enquired whether I knew I could do this online. Eventually the options for Direct Debit petered out so I was left with, “and for anything else please hold for an agent.” Eventually, I got through to the agent, who explained that I would need to fill in a form, and could they have my address so that they could post one out to me – even driving to Mongolia was quicker and easier!

“ I wondered how much of the ‘customer journey’ had been mapped or tested, and whether any thought had been given to making these processes easy for the customer. ”

Customer delivery

Travelling the customer journey with a difference.

David Graaff fears that our own customer journey can

be equally daunting!

David Graaff is Principal Consultant with Graaff Ltd.

IRRV Qualifications

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• Non-Domestic Rate• Valuation Tribunal

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.

Fees• IRRV Certificate Level 3: £1260.00 plus VAT• Diploma: £1380.00 plus VAT• Individual Subjects: on request

Students can enrol for Distance Learning at any time throughout the year.

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

E: distancelearning@irrv.org.uk T: 020 7691 8984W: www.irrvdistancelearning.org.uk

IRRV Distance Learning

3 places for the price of 2 on multiple enrolments*

IRRV Training Days 2018/19

Introduction to Council Tax** – Janet Alexander IRRV (Hons)8 January 2019, London • 2 May 2019, London

Introduction to Business Rates** – Janet Alexander IRRV (Hons)5 April 2019, London

Council Tax Master Class**– Janet Alexander IRRV (Hons)17 & 18 December 2018, Manchester • 18 & 19 March 2019, London

Business Rates Master Class** – Janet Alexander IRRV (Hons)11 & 12 March 2019, London

PhoneCoach In House Training – Allan Traynor FCCA IRRV (Hons)For more information (including fees) please visit the IRRV website

Fees: Introduction Master ClassIRRV Member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £155 plus VAT . . £270 plus VATBAS/Forum/Organisational Member. . £185 plus VAT . . £330 plus VATNon Member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £215 plus VAT . . £390 plus VAT

* This special offer will only apply to the introduction and masterclass training days and is available to IRRV Members and Forum, Benefit Advisory or Organisational Members. Delegates must be from the same organisation and bookings must be made at the same time.

** Places limited to 25 delegates per course.

E: conference@irrv.org.uk T: 020 7691 8987W: www.irrv.net/trainingdays

Early Booking Advised!

Members can book 3 places for the price of 2*

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

23

The best of both

First, a few background thoughts along the wayLaura and I joined Dukes Bailif fs Limited, the family business, in July 2015, following graduation from university. Having moved into our respective roles (bid writing and marketing) we were keen to expand our knowledge of the revenues and benefits industry. At the 2016 IRRV Spring Conference in Harrogate, we were persuaded by some of our peers – Darren Walklate and Kevin Stewart – to sign up to study for the Level 3 Certificate. We each decided to study different

streams to gain a broader knowledge between the two of us.

Laura studied National Non-Domestic Rates and Valuation via distance learning, and I studied Council Tax and Welfare Benefits via day release in London. Following the first exam, you are able to complete the course within three years, so we both decided to do one exam per sitting – one in June 2017, one in December 2017 and with the assignment and the final exam in June 2018.

Day release versus distance learningMy preference has always been to learn

through interaction with the tutor, so the day release course was crucial for both my success and my enjoyment. Overall, despite being required to travel to and from London, the classroom environment meant I was able to ask questions and get support when it was needed, as well as having the advantage of meeting some like-minded individuals along the way.

Initially, Laura found distance learning very challenging, as she prioritised her day job and did not consistently set aside any time to study her course material. Whilst preparing for her

first exam, she learnt the lesson that distance learning requires focus, dedication and routine. She adapted for the next two exams she sat and scheduled the necessary time away from the office in advance, resulting in a much more relaxed yet consistent approach. She started to enjoy learning.

We also both attended the pre-examination revision days and would highly recommend them. They are fantastic for identifying gaps in your knowledge, asking last minute questions, and familiarising yourself with the exam format.

Why should you study?The whole process was undoubtedly a challenge but one that we both enjoyed and would recommend to anyone who is determined, self-motivated and has a willingness to learn and grow.

We recognise that the number of

professionals who study the course from the enforcement industry is low – however, they should not be deterred. The tutors were very accommodating and considerate to the fact that some classes were completely new to both of us, especially welfare benefits and valuation. It is an invaluable step towards understanding more about revenues, rating, valuation, benefits and the Institute itself. It is also a great platform for meeting colleagues and understanding how different authorities work to achieve the same goal.

What’s next for us? As a result of studying for and passing Level 3, Laura and I have been able to:• engage with more clients and peers, being

more respected through our enhanced knowledge of the industry

• recommend and adapt processes at Dukes that complement council processes

• enhance our participation at IRRV conferences, forums, seminars and most importantly keep up to date with industry changes.

Based on that, Laura and I have both signed up this coming year for the Diploma qualification level, and our colleague Rebecca Gaffney has signed up for the Level 3 certificate. Both courses start in October, and having moved to London to open our commercial office in July, we are getting the best of both – attending day release with no additional travel !

“ It is an invaluable step towards understanding more about revenues, rating, valuation, benefits and the Institute itself. It is also a great platform for meeting colleagues and understanding how different authorities work to achieve the same goal.”

Through fresh eyes

Sarah Naylor chronicles the progress of both herself and twin sister Laura, as she embarks upon an IRRV-influenced career!

Sarah Naylor is Bid Manager and Laura Naylor is Marketing Manager with Dukes Limited

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

24

Not very managed migration!

Last issue, I looked at the Universal Credit (UC) ‘managed migration’ draft regulations, which at the time were before the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC). I also described some of the key recommendations of the Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC) submission to the SSAC.

As we go to press, the government has responded to the SSAC and made concessions1, but much remains to be fixed. We shall return to this in future issues.

Another significant development since last issue has been the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)’s announcement that funding for ‘Universal Support’ – to help people claim UC – is to be switched, from April 2019, from Local Authorities (LAs) to Citizens’ Advice Bureaux (CABx) across England, Scotland and Wales.

Universal supportThe first local government knew of this was when Esther McVey MP announced it at the Conservative Party Conference. There followed a letter to council Chief Executives:

“You will have seen today that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has announced a new partnership between DWP and Citizens’ Advice to deliver the important service of Universal Support, from 1st April 2019. This means that Local Authorities will no longer be asked to deliver Universal Support from that date”2.

It is true that LAs have often been unenthusiastic about the funding and remit associated with Universal Support. Much of the feedback I have had has been negative, on three grounds:• the amount of funding from the DWP is

inadequate • this small amount of funding is offered in

the context of massive cuts in local advice provision

• the emphasis in Universal Support is on personal budgeting and digital skills, whereas (useful though these may sometimes be) the

main problem for claimants is often lack of money, not least because of the long wait for a payment.

Nevertheless, the sudden announcement of a shift to CABx has generally not been well received in local government circles. Partly, this is an understandable reaction to the perceived snub of announcement via conference speech. However, some LAs had been doing serious planning to integrate Universal Support with their own advice and support provision, so the sudden switch has been disruptive. And there are also concerns about gaps in CAB coverage.

Clearly, the idea of a network of support with claims is a good one. Will CABx be able to make a better job of it than LAs? This remains to be seen. The money on offer is £39m. from April 2019, with £12m. set-up costs this year. But CABx will still be sustaining cuts in other funding – and the structural problems in UC will remain. There is also the matter of ongoing maintenance of the claim, including avoiding sanctions for trivial infringement of online requirements.

One aspect of this that went strangely un-announced was that this funding covers UC claims other than those arising from the ‘managed migration’. Curiouser and curiouser...

‘Managed’ migrationI shall now return briefly to the DBC proposals.

Readers may recall from the last issue that some key recommendations were that:• ‘managed migration’ should not proceed until

the many outstanding problems have been analysed and addressed

• while this problem-solving exercise is taking place, there should be no further ‘natural migration’ – as has already been conceded for recipients of the Severe Disability Premium

• as and when ‘managed migration’ takes place, there should be no termination of existing benefits until an award of UC has been determined.

The full report is available on the DBC website3. But other important recommendations included that:• the (at least) five-week delay in making a first

payment of UC should be removed• there should be alternative options for

assessment and payment cycles• clarification is needed as to how access

to passported benefits (free prescriptions, dental and optical treatment; free school meals etc.) will be affected while a new UC award is awaited

• the DWP needs to ensure that alternative methods of claiming, other than digitally, are readily available where needed (face-to-face, by telephone or through home visits)

• all communications with claimants on all aspects of the transfer must be clear and specific and in the claimant’s required format

• the turmoil surrounding the sudden cessation of legacy benefits is likely to throw into sharp relief the DWP’s unsustainable policy of demanding repeated ‘explicit consent’ in order to communicate with claimants’ advisers. The restoration of an orderly system of ‘implicit consent’ must be achieved before managed migration commences.

And there were a number of others.The rollout of UC will affect the wellbeing

of millions. The many emerging questions and concerns need to be answered.

“ However, some LAs had been doing serious planning to integrate Universal Support with their own advice and support provision, so the sudden switch has been disruptive. And there are also concerns about gaps in CAB coverage.”

Geoff Fimister is a writer and consultant on social security and related issues and a member of the Institute’s Benefits Faculty Board.

1. https://disabilitybenefitsconsortium.wordpress com/2018/ 09/03/dbc-responds-to-consultation-on-universal-credit-draft-regulations/

2. Neil Couling, Director General, Universal Credit Programme, extract from letter to Local Authority Chief Executives, 1/10/18.

3. https://disabilitybenefitsconsortium.wordpress com/2018/ 09/03/dbc-responds-to-consultation-on-universal-credit-draft-regulations/

Credit notes

Geoff Fimister returns to the next stage of the Universal Credit rollout

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

25

As many of you will know, the CenSus Partnership for the revenues and benefits service finished on 31st March 2018. Adur DC left the partnership on 30th September 2017 to join the Adur and Worthing shared service for revenues and benefits. Horsham DC left on 31st March 2018, to be run by Local Government Shared Services (LGSS). Mid Sussex DC wanted to bring revenues and benefits back ‘to the family’, in-house. All in all, it was quite a project !

The CenSus Partnership, contrary to popular opinion and as stated by LGSS and others, was not underperforming. Performance was good, with mainly excellent collection rates and very good benefits processing times, but it had one well documented issue. It had issues with the management of housing benefit subsidy by the partnership and it was losing money for the partner authorities. Some of the local press coverage at the time

suggested it was errors by the benefits team that caused the issues – this was not the case, as they were only doing what they were instructed to. And when they voiced their concerns as team members they were not listened to by the partnership management at the time. A lack of accuracy checking at the time hit all three authorities hard financially.

This needed quick action and when the decision to end the partnership had been

taken, that was not the case. Adur DC was always likely to leave the partnership to join forces as a shared service with Worthing but Horsham DC then decided to leave as well.

It was quite a challenge that we had. We had to ensure that the CenSus Partnership continued to perform and do ‘business as usual’, continuing to meet performance targets until it ended, as well as preparing Mid Sussex DC for its own in-house revenues and benefits service going forward.

I first was kindly given permission by my employers at the time, Wealden DC, to help Mid Sussex DC one day a week for a four-week trial. At the time I was managing the revenues and benefits services of three individual councils as well as coping with the severe health conditions and major operation that my partner was facing, although I am pleased to say she has made a full recovery! During this trial, the revenues and benefits management team at the then CenSus Partnership agreed a new structure for Mid Sussex DC going forward. After much ‘toing and froing’, including the use of consultants, this structure was put forward and agreed in one afternoon in an office in Horsham. It is largely the structure that is still applicable today, with a lit tle tweaking. It was a remarkable achievement and this proposed structure was quickly agreed by senior management at Mid Sussex DC.

There were of course still legal and HR issues to resolve – such as consultation with staff and other stakeholders, such as the union – so we knew it would take some time for Mid Sussex DC to take this structure forward. Due to the required consultation, they only really started putting the new structure in place once I had started at Mid Sussex DC. The support from valued colleagues such as HR has been vital in moving this forward.

In the new structure, there was a Business Unit Leader role, which I had agreed to

“ Some of the local press coverage at the time suggested it was errors by the benefits team that caused the issues – this was not the case, as they were only doing what they were instructed to.”

Change management

Kevin Stewart reports on a management challenge of a lifetime, as his team work to

bring a service back in house, following a previous partnership

of three West Sussex councils.

The challenge has definitely beenworthwhile!

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

26

help Mid Sussex DC, help end the CenSus Partnership and help kick-start Mid Sussex DC’s revenues and benefits service. However, having seen the challenge at Mid Sussex DC (those who know me are aware that I love a challenge! ) and the potential of the team that could take the service forward I quickly took an interest in that newly created Business Unit Leader.

It was rightly clear that I would have to apply for the job (you have to be in it to win it ! ) and knowing the profession as I do knew there would be competition, as there are outstanding candidates out there despite a number retiring due to the ongoing rollout of Universal Credit. After talking to my partner about a new opportunity, I spoke to Wealden DC about the job.

The interview was held on 4th December 2017 and I gave it my all. I have too often been the bridesmaid and never the bride with interviews, so took absolutely nothing for

granted. The same day as the interview I got the wonderful news that I had been successful in the application. Wealden DC rightly made me do my full notice period, with my last full weekend overseeing main billing with them. I left the authority on the Monday after an emotional and humbling send off with my old team – they had helped me on a very personal and professional journey and I will always be

grateful to them. I am sure they will continue to build on what they have achieved to date.

Management of housing benefit subsidy has always been critical for me and for 2016/17, Mid Sussex and Wealden DC lost nothing, with Horsham DC only losing a very minor amount compared to the £250,000 in previous years. At Mid Sussex and Horsham, this really was a team effort, with some very able team members who were allowed to manage and show their undoubted skill. It was my job to encourage their massive potential, an opportunity they may not have previously

“ At Mid Sussex and Horsham, this really was a team effort, with some very able team members who were allowed to manage and show their undoubted skill. It was my job to encourage their massive potential, an opportunity they may not have previously fully realised.”

Change management

fully realised.Quickly when in post at Mid Sussex, I put

in place a revenues and benefits management team with all four members being new to that specific role – and two new, like me, to the council. We were conscious of what LGSS needed to do for Horsham DC and we wish them well, but we were keen to move the structure at Mid Sussex forward. It was clear that the CenSus Partnership had no exit strategy. All the benefits staff were based at Haywards Heath, whilst the revenues team were based at Horsham – and of course most, if given the choice, would stay where they were based, which they did. To maintain a career structure and keep opportunities for people in the future, we introduced senior officers and the interviews for these key posts were truly inspiring. The benefits team was quickly put in place and unfortunately we had to let some staff go, as we were downsizing from three authorities to one. However, we had the ultimate challenge with the revenues team, virtually building up the team from scratch. Overall, 12 new staff will have joined us, with three redeployed – most of them starting at Mid Sussex DC on 23rd July 2018. We have put an intensive five to six week training programme in place to get them ready and in the meantime we have put in place interim arrangements to ensure business as usual. To date we have retained

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

27

Kevin Stewart is a Past President of the Institute and Chair of the IRRV’s Benefits Faculty Board.

The views expressed are his own.

every one of these new staff and they have really integrated into the team. We are really indebted in the interim to valued help from Simon Rosser and his team at Reigate and Banstead Council, in providing suppor t in key areas for us, including handling telephone calls. I believe this is a par tnership that can be very fruit ful in the long term for both councils and we are already, despite our own challenges, processing work for other councils.

The small number of established staff have really stepped up even more than they normally do in the revenues service. As well

as taking on the telephone calls they are remarkably staying up to date and we are fully meeting our performance targets, which is amazing considering the restructure and bringing the service back in-house.

The benefits team are also fully up to date too. This is truly remarkable, considering all the uncertainty the team have been through and the pulling together of a completely new structure. They are, like the rest of the team, so enthusiastic and made this difficult job for me so easy.

In addition, three members of the team have undertaken IRRV studying at Level 3 Certificate level. They all sailed through the exams and went to Telford to collect their student certificates at the IRRV Annual Conference in October.

The team that we have, including the newcomers, give me so much hope for the future. Their potential is massive and we are looking at going in for the 2019 IRRV Performance Awards to showcase what they have achieved, as I believe they have a such a story to tell. It definitely has made the challenge worthwhile.

“ We have put an intensive five to six week training programme in place to get them ready and in the meantime we have put in place interim arrangements to ensure business as usual.”

STOP PRESS!New IRRV

Faculty announced! The Institute’s Council has agreed the

introduction of an ‘Investigations Faculty’ to add to the three existing Faculties.

Further details will be carried in the nextissue of Insight and Benefit magazines.

Members will be given an opportunityto move over to this new Faculty

if they wish to.

The IRRV provides Accreditation to training organisations and trainers.

The IRRV is the professional body for Revenues, Benefits and Valuation. With a wealth of experience as a qualifications awarding body, it is ideally placed to evaluate and accredit training organisations and trainers. IRRV accreditation will be a guarantee of quality, backed by the Institute’s rigorous monitoring process.

The accreditation service we offer will recognise existing good practice, encourage continuing high standards, and foster a culture of continuing improvement in all aspects of your training processes.

Once your organisation and trainers have been approved as efficient, you will be able to market your recognised status and use the IRRV Accreditation logo on all your promotional literature.

IRRV Accreditation is given to organisations and trainers. Trainees who attend courses delivered by the Accredited Training Organisation, will receive certification.

The IRRV logo will provide assurance that you are delivering the best to your clients and trainees.

FeesPlease refer to the IRRV website, on the link below, for current fees and much more.

EnquiriesFor all enquiries on Accreditation, please contact Vaishali Patel at vaishali.patel@irrv.org.uk or on 020 7691 8995.

E: education@irrv.org.uk

T: 020 7691 8995W: www.irrv.net/accreditation

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

28

Not all digital skills are created equal

There has been plenty of focus on improving the digital skills of the public so that they can use online services – less so on the digital skills of government employees.

The digital skills gap across all sectors in the UK has been well publicised. Some of the more sensationalist reports have even called it a crisis.

In the public sector, technology holds the promise of improving public-facing services and internal efficiency as well as picking up the slack where spending cuts have reduced services or cut them altogether. But do local government employees possess the skills needed to deal with current and emerging technologies?

Based on the flurry of initiatives launched recently by central government, they do not. In January, the Prime Minister announced the launch of the £20million Institute of Coding, a consortium of 60 universities, businesses and industry experts set up to address the digital skills gap. It is based around five themes including the digital workforce, ‘to develop specialist skills training in areas of strategic importance’ and digitalising the professions, ‘to transform professions undergoing digital transformation.’

Then the Local Digital Declaration set out plans in July to help local authorities break their dependence on inflexible technology and adopt better digital ways of working to improve and reduce the cost of service delivery. The declaration included a promise of funding to train 1000 local government staff in digital skills.

In an article published on the Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government’s digital blog, Gavin Beckett of the department’s recently-formed Local Digital team writes, “This isn’t skills training. As one of the people we interviewed put it, digital leadership training should be about what senior leaders need to understand enough about to make decisions in

the digital age.”The team has conducted workshops and

a survey to shape their plans. At the time of writing, it had proposed a two-day course aimed at council CEOs, Strategic Directors, Service Directors, Heads of Service, Leaders, Mayors and members. Course content would include how the internet will change public services, best practice through local digital service transformation case studies and agile digital services.

While improving and maintaining the knowledge of government employees on the technology itself is vital (say, implementation of software or infrastructure upgrades), there is a drive to equip senior staff with the skills to manage major transformation programmes.

“We need to make sure all local government leaders everywhere have access to the skills and training they need to capitalise on all the opportunities that technology brings”, says an article by Local Government Minister Rishi Sunak MP, published on the same blog.

The GDS Academy also recently began to provide digital skills training to local government employees. It already provided training to civil servants (8000 have ‘graduated’ in the past three years), devolved

administrations and other public servants, with a focus on digital change and agile working methods.

Courses are taught at GDS offices as well as ‘pop-up academies’ across England and Wales, and include a digital and agile foundation course ‘for anyone working on a digital service who needs to understand how to be part of an agile, multi-disciplinary team, delivering digital services in government,’ digital and agile awareness for policymakers, teams and analysts and user-centred design and research.

But training is not free. A six-day course aimed at service owners who are new to the role, working on the development of a digital service, will set councils back £1,128.

An obvious place to start when it comes to addressing the deficit is education. Since government has announced its recognition of the digital skills gap, there has been increased emphasis on digital learning in schools, such as the introduction of Computing into the national curriculum and a Computer Science GCSE and A-Level.

“All children should leave school digitally literate, with the skills needed in the workplace and to realise social outcomes,” says the ‘Digital skills for the UK economy’ report, published by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport and Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. “Digital literacy should be seen as a core skill alongside English and Maths.”

But one has to ask, is local government an attractive enough place for young, digitally-literate people to choose to work in the first place? One organisation trying to address that particular challenge is the Local Government Association. Their National Graduate Development Programme (NGDP) is a two-year course aiming to find and develop future public sector leaders. It offers opportunities for students at more than 50 UK councils. During

“ While improving and maintaining the knowledge of government employees on the technology itself is vital (say, implementation of software or infrastructure upgrades), there is a drive to equip senior staff with the skills to manage major transformation programmes. ”

Technology

Digital skills in government need a helping hand, discovers Mel Poluck, if they are to keep ahead of the game

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

29

Mel Poluck is a freelance journalist and copywriter. Contact her on mel@melaniepoluck.co.uk or 07903 957173. You can also follow Mel on Twitter: @melpoluck, or connect with her on LinkedIn

a two-year contract, they rotate between corporate, front-line and support service placements. In the first ten months of this year, LGA had placed 123 students.

The NGDP website positions the course as a chance for young people to make their mark on a changing sector. “Rapid technological advances open up opportunities to develop the sector in ways that we have never seen before. It is an exciting time to be working in local government, tackling complex issues at the heart of your community while developing your own skills for the future,” it says.

Many councils run careers development courses in house but it is difficult to assess the national picture when it comes to how they are improving employees’ digital skills.

Some local authorities are, however, investing in the digital skills of future employees. One example is the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, comprising ten councils which announced in October that it plans to use £4million to support a raft of apprenticeship schemes, including the creation of at least 500 placements for digital and other businesses.

Technology, by its nature, is ever-changing. It requires continuous effort to maintain the knowledge to handle emerging technologies. Take cyber security. Cyber threats are on the increase, constantly evolving and becoming more sophisticated. Government’s National Cyber Security Centre received more than 1,100 cyber incident reports in its first year.

In response, the government has set out plans to plug the gap between demand and supply for cyber security roles within its National Cyber Security Strategy. It started by investigating the deficit of young people entering the profession, the shortage of specialists and ‘the insufficient exposure to cyber and information security concepts in computing courses.’

Industry body techUK has also worked

alongside government to create a professional body for cyber security that grants royal chartered status to professionals working in the sector.

But when considering the skills needed for twenty-first century government roles, it is also worth considering that those roles may be radically redefined in future.

“To some, the solution is simple,” says the ‘Bridging the skills gap in the future workforce’ report from consultancy Accenture. “Train more engineers, raise the number of creative designers, produce more data analysts. But creating larger cohorts with specialist skills is not the answer. It’s equally naïve to assume that intelligent technologies will simply eliminate some jobs and create new ones. In fact, the biggest effect will be a reconfiguration of positions, as tasks evolve and worker capabilities are augmented by machines.

“Instead of asking which jobs will prevail, we should instead ask how roles will be redefined and in what ways tasks will be affected by intelligent technologies,” it says.

When it comes to resolving the digital skills divide, a complicated blend of factors stands in the way – the redefinition of roles, the impact of automation technology such as Artificial Intelligence, not to mention the potential ‘brain drain’ of Brexit and an ageing population.

The nature of work is evolving quickly, accelerated by the increased collaboration between humans and machines. What is key then, is to learn the right digital skills to ensure local government can thrive despite rough conditions.

In innovation charity Nesta’s analysis of future employment, it looked at 41million job adverts to identify the digital skills needed in jobs most likely to grow by 2030, and jobs most likely to disappear.

It found that not all digital skills will guarantee a future-proof occupation and disappearing jobs are more likely to need a digital skill than those that are most likely to grow.

“Where digital skills are needed, they are noticeably different in jobs likely to grow and jobs likely to decline,” says Nesta. “What sets future-proof digital skills apart is their use for non-routine tasks, problem solving and creation of digital content. The government’s answer to these shifts has been to ‘invest in digital skills’ – but this isn’t enough. Not all digital skills are created equal.”

“ The nature of work is evolving quickly, accelerated by the increased collaboration between humans and machines. What is key then, is to learn the right digital skills to ensure local government can thrive despite rough conditions.”

STOP PRESS!New IRRV

Faculty announced! The Institute’s Council has agreed the

introduction of an ‘Investigations Faculty’ to add to the three existing Faculties.

Further details will be carried in the nextissue of Insight and Benefit magazines.

Members will be given an opportunityto move over to this new Faculty

if they wish to.

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

30

Bring long-standing empty homes back into use

Readers will no doubt be aware of government plans to increase the level of Council Tax (CT) premiums that councils may apply to properties that have been unoccupied and unfurnished for two years or more. If fact, it may well be the case that by the time this article is published, government proposals to introduce a discretion for councils to levy a premium of up to 100% for properties that have been empty for two years or more may have already passed into legislation. Additionally, the government is also proposing premiums in subsequent years of up to 200% for properties empty for five years or more and up to 300% for properties empty for ten years or more.

The aim of this policy, in the words of the Secretary of State for Communities the Rt Hon James Brokenshire MP, is to ‘incentivise owners to bring long-standing empty homes back into use’. The MHCLG have further stated that councils that have applied the premium consistently every year have seen a 9% fall in the number of homes being charged the premium.

CT charges for long term empty propertiesHistorically, properties that were unoccupied and unfurnished for over six months received a 50% CT discount. In 2004, the government granted councils the discretion to either reduce or remove this discount and in 2013 the discretion to charge a CT premium of up to 50% for properties that had been unoccupied and unfurnished for more than two years was introduced.

However, what is less clear is whether there has been a causal link between councils that have exercised these discretions and any corresponding reduction in the numbers of long-term empty homes. In 2012, immediately prior to the introduction of the 50% premium, I researched the short-term impact on the numbers of properties that had been empty for six months or more, at councils that had

decided to remove the 50% discount on these properties.

In light of the proposed increases to the level of premiums that councils may apply, it is an appropriate time to look again at the outcome of this research. Whilst there may be differences to the findings in respect of any outcomes from increasing the levels of premium that are charged, readers may wish to take into account the impact on long-term empty property numbers that removing the 50% discount had.

MethodologyThe Council Taxbase (CTB) form which councils complete and return to government during the first week of October each year was used as the basis for the research. By comparing the returns for October 2010 and October 2011 it was identified that 13 councils had decided to reduce the 50% long term empty discount to zero in April 2011. The CTB form was also used to identify any changes in the numbers of long-term empty properties at these councils between October 2010 and October 2011.

The research then used the CIPFA Nearest Neighbours model, which compared 30 variables, including demographics, population and ethnicity to identify councils that were most

similar to the 13 councils identified from the CTB form as having removed their 50% long term empty discount. In effect, it was possible to use these councils as comparator councils and identify what the situation would have been if the original 13 councils had not chosen to reduce their level of discount.

The CTB dataset held by the former DCLG was then checked for each nearest neighbour, to ascertain whether they had already removed the discount or not. If they had already removed the discount, then the next nearest neighbour was considered. This process continued until a neighbour who had not yet removed the discount was identified.

The impact upon single occupancy discounts Many Revenues Managers had traditionally expressed an opinion that any reduction in the numbers of empty properties that may have occurred as a result of changes to the amount of CT charged on those properties, could result in a subsequent increase in the number of single occupancy discounts at those councils, as taxpayers sought to mitigate their liability.

The CTB dataset was once again used to obtain the numbers of single occupancy discounts that were in place at the 13 councils and their comparators in October 2010, and the numbers of discounts in place in October 2011 following implementation of the increased charges for empty homes.

Results and findingsThe table opposite compares the property figures obtained from the CTB dataset for those councils that removed the 50% empty property discount in April 2011 against those that retained the discount.

It can be seen that there was an increase in the total number of properties across both groups of councils during the course of the year, and that these increases were

“ In 2012, immediately prior to the introduction of the 50% premium, I researched the short-term impact on the numbers of properties that had been empty for six months or more, at councils that had decided to remove the 50% discount on these properties.”

Council Tax

Peter Haywood discusses the critical impact of Council Tax charges on the empty homes agenda

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

31

Peter Haywood IRRV (Tech) MBA is Account Manager with Destin Solutions Ltd. You can contact him on peter.haywood@destin.co.uk

not dissimilar, with increases of 0.73% and 0.52% respectively.

Both groups of councils also saw a reduction in the number of properties that had been empty for more than six months. However, the reduction of 2,048 properties was far greater at those councils that had removed the discount than the reduction of 198 at those councils that had retained the discount. In percentage terms, the number of long-term empty properties at councils that removed the discount reduced by 16.94%, whilst there was a reduction of 1.48% at those councils that retained the discount.

As discussed earlier, the next step was to look at the number of single occupancy discounts at the two groups of councils, to consider whether any reduction in empty properties had been offset by an increase in the numbers of these discounts. The councils that had removed the empty discounts saw a reduction of 319 discounts, which represented 0.10%, whilst the councils that had retained the empty homes discounts actually saw an increase in single discounts of 3,652, or 1.04%. As a Revenues Manager myself at the time, I must admit to being surprised at this particular finding!

Conclusions The results from this research suggest that the short-term impact of increasing the amount of council tax payable for empty properties is that there is a reduction in the number of long-term empty properties and that the identified reduction of 16.94% is significant. Additionally, from this research there is no evidence of a reduction in the number of empty properties resulting in an increase in the number of properties that receive a single occupancy discount over the short term.

As stated earlier, this article has looked into the short-term impact that reducing the level of empty homes discount in 2011 had on the volume of empty properties at that time. Therefore, further research into the longer-term impact of increasing the amount of CT charged for long-term empty properties would be welcomed - in particular, with respect to the impact of increasing the levels of premiums and understanding the extent to which these changes account for reductions in the numbers of empty properties.

“ In percentage terms, the number of long-term empty properties at councils that removed the discount reduced by 16.94%, whilst there was a reduction of 1.48% at those councils that retained the discount.”

Councils that removed the 50% discount

Councils that retained the 50% discount

2010 total properties 909,792 1,019,997

2011 total properties 916,413 1,025,311

Change 6,621 5,314

% Change 0.73% 0.52%

2010 Long-term empties 12,090 13,413

2011 Long-term empties 10,042 13,215

Change -2,048 -198

% Change -16.94% -1.48%

2010 Single occupancy discounts

307,664 351,046

2011 Single occupancy discounts

307,345 354,698

Change -319 3,652

% Change -0.10% 1.04%

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

32

Who would be an enforcement agent?

Does anyone like enforcement agents? At the moment it seems almost as if everyone has a problem with the use of them – with some councils even suggesting that they will no longer be using enforcement agents or somehow replacing them. But replacing them with what? Surely, the more options that councils have to collect money, the more successful any collection strategy will be. There is no doubt that enforcement agents provide a valuable service - that has been shown to work. If this method of enforcement was removed, then undoubtedly collection rates would fall and the option to use committal ( in appropriate cases) removed.

Is it really the enforcement agents who are a problem? If those customers who genuinely can’t pay sought help, the local authority could adopt more of a targeted approach to the ‘won’t pays’. Maybe if this was the case I would be out of a job and you would not be reading this article!

It seems sometimes that the opinion of people outside the debt collection world is that, although there are people sat at home with the means to pay either by cash or card, when the enforcement agent visits, the agents are only interested in confrontation, ramping up fees and being aggressive, rather than just taking the money that is due.

On the contrary, I believe the Taking Control of Goods Act has been proven to work. The use of body-worn cameras by our enforcement agents has seen complaints fall to an all-time low and has helped to develop a much better targeted approach to training.

The Taking Control of Goods Act sets out that enforcement fees are not recoverable where the debtor is a vulnerable person, but how do enforcement agents identify those that are vulnerable? The National Standards for Enforcement Agents clearly sets out that discretion is required when dealing with vulnerability, and that it is for the agent and the

creditor to decide on how each situation should be dealt with. We provide our enforcement agents with in-depth training on how to identify vulnerability, and since 2014 our agents have been focussed on ensuring that they can identify vulnerability, ahead of taking payments.

So, why are enforcement agents leaving the industry in their droves? There are more cases than ever, and with improved technology and more sophisticated information systems, more opportunity to better target appropriate cases.

We all know in the industry that there are not enough enforcement agents, so why is that? Could it be that the job is becoming more dangerous? The streets of England and Wales are becoming more dangerous. May bank holiday saw gun incidents in London, Oxford and St Helens. Knife crime is on the rise. When I was a bailiff (as we were once known) I remember a colleague who was based in Birmingham had a gun pulled on him. Unsurprisingly, he left the industry shortly afterwards. There was also an incident when a bailiff was stabbed. Whilst these particular incidents happened some years ago, and are thankfully a rarity, make no mistake, they are still happening. Through the use of video badges, we have recently seen an enforcement agent being attacked from behind and as a

result suffering a broken eye socket. Another agent was locked in a house, and there was also an incident when an agent putting a clamp on a car was attacked with a hammer.

These enforcement agents are asked to work in some of the most deprived areas in the country and asked to collect from people who do not want to pay. When an enforcement agent knocks on that door, they do not know what they are going to face or who they might meet.

So next time you think that enforcement agents have an easy job and are only in it for the money – think again. We do a dangerous job in dangerous situations – more often than not, with little or no thanks - we are trained to identify and deal with some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and we know no-one is ever looking forward to meeting us!

“ So, why are enforcement agents leaving the industry in their droves? There are more cases than ever, and with improved technology and more sophisticated information systems, more opportunity to better target appropriate cases.”

Gary Carr is Sales Director with Equita

Gary Carr explores the question and defends this very necessary part of the profession

Collection and enforcement

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

33

When theeffort really is worthwhile Billing authorities provide financial support to people in a wide variety of ways. Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Reduction (CTR) schemes are the most obvious methods by which financial assistance is provided to help residents with their rent and Council Tax (CT). Using S13a of the regulations, assistance can also be provided to those struggling to pay CT bills through reductions in the form of Discretionary Hardship Relief or other local discounts.

In the last couple of years, authorities have been encouraged to use S13a to assist previously looked after children (care leavers) by reducing or exempting them from CT up to the age of 25.

Every parent knows that responsibility for their children rarely ends when they reach the age of 18. Whether they go into higher education, take an apprenticeship or go out to work, they very often still need financial support and help with learning the lessons of independent living. Care leavers have to learn many of the lessons of life and cope with financial challenges without the same support as children who come from settled families.

As a ‘corporate parent’, unitary and county councils have a primary responsibility to support care leavers whilst they are developing the skills and confidence to live independently. These responsibilities have been extended to district councils under the Children and Social Work Act 2017.

The Billing Authority makes the decision over whether to award a local discount under S13a and bears the cost of such a reduction. In a two-tier authority, where a district council bears the cost of these discounts, it is not uncommon for the burden to be shared with the higher tier authority, who may contribute to the cost of a discount.

Across the country there has been a growth in local CT discounts for care leaver households, to help them in the transition to independent living. Inevitably there will very often be more care leavers living in cities and urban neighbourhoods

than in rural areas. This means that metropolitan authorities are likely to face a higher cost of allowing such discounts, given the larger numbers involved.

Many care leavers are on a low income, particularly when first living independently. This is likely to mean that a higher proportion than normal are in receipt of CTR and HB/Universal Credit. The consequences of this are that this group struggles to meet CT liabilities and may, as a result, be subject to recovery action. It makes it all the more important to help this group if at all possible.

Implementation of a care leaver discount can be a difficult process in a two-tier area. In my experience, agreeing a common policy across all the districts in the county is essential. This will help everybody by ensuring commonality at a local level. It will also inevitably help to get buy-in from the county council, who favour a common approach when getting agreement from their officers and members. In reality the authority with the primary responsibility for assisting care leavers will very often be the one to instigate a discussion around implementing a care leaver discount.

Consideration needs to be given to whether a discount will be allowed in full or part and what the approach will be where there are non-care leavers who are joint and severally liable

residents. For example, a single occupier care leaver may be allowed a full discount. However, would you allow 25% discount where there are two residents, only one of which is a care leaver? These decisions are best taken in collaboration with neighbouring authorities and in clear consultation with higher tier authorities.

Another important factor may be the age limit where such a discount is allowed. Many authorities take the approach to support care leavers with a discount up to the age of 25, whereas others offer support to a lower age, frequently up to and including age 21.

The issue of CT discounts for care leavers is receiving attention in the media and online. The Children’s Society is one organisation which is putting pressure on local authorities to allow a CT discount. Their website has a heat map which shows those councils who have already agreed to allow a discount, or those considering it. There is also a list of authorities by name, which shows that over 80 have allowed the discount. The heat map shows the number of care leavers in each area and has a link to allow people to directly lobby each local authority to implement a discount.

The implementation of a care leaver discount can be a time consuming process. Also, the number of people assisted may be modest but helping this group of young people is extremely worthwhile as they adjust to living independently.

“ In a two-tier authority, where a district council bears the cost of these discounts, it is not uncommon for the burden to be shared with the higher tier authority, who may contribute to the cost of a discount. ”

Simon Quilter explores the options for local

discounts for care leavers

Simon Quilter is Local Taxation Manager with Broadland District Council

Collection and enforcement

INSI

GH

T D

ECEM

BER

201

8

34

The whole truth and nothing but

We are now more than 18 months into the 2017 rating revaluation for NNDR and the statistics show that the number of challenges lodged so far is very few.

The new system of ‘Check, Challenge, Appeal’ (CCA) has had a well-documented troubled start, with a problematic IT platform and a torturous method of engagement for ratepayers and their advisers. As predicted, those problem areas are gradually being resolved, although the timescale is not impressive and we are seeing significantly more Checks being implemented but yet to be followed by Challenges.

Some Billing Authorities (BAs) seem to be under the impression that the new CCA system has effectively removed the volume of the appeals seen on the last List and are living in a euphoric state of assuming little or no losses on appeals. As time goes on, such a view will be a demonstrable fallacy. The effect of CCA may well have been to remove some of the more ‘spurious’ appeals but BAs should rest assured that there will be a significant volume of Challenges made to the 2017 List. Unfortunately, these will be made from now on until the end of the List in 2021, which means that many of the Challenges will be ‘back-ended’ in the List, yet still effective from 1st April 2017. This represents a major headache for BAs in the provisions for losses on appeal. The lack of Challenges currently is no measure of the losses that will flow late in the List from successful Challenges or appeals. BAs need to watch out.

The recent case of Gardiner and Theobald has caused some unrest among rating agents and advisers. This was an Upper Chamber (Lands Tribunal) case and the most important part of the decision is what the member had to say about contingent fee arrangements or success-related fees.

All surveyors know (or they should do) that in the Upper Chamber, when acting as an Expert Witness, such a fee basis is not appropriate, and as in all Tribunals, the witness duty is to the Tribunal, not to the instructing client. This means the whole truth and nothing but, etc. The expert is required to provide all the evidence and deal with it appropriately. The

member had cause to examine these issues in detail and, whilst there were no real surprises to most of us in respect of work in the Upper Chamber, his thoughts in his judgement have potentially wider and deeper repercussions.

For some time now, either for a Statement of Case to VT for outstanding 2010 Lists or a Challenge document for 2017, a surveyor has to complete a Statement of Truth in the document which should contain a statement about not acting under a CFA (Contingent Fee Arrangement) or confirming that he or she is indeed acting under a CFA.

There is no bar at VT concerning a CFA but the panel may well consider what weight should be attached to the evidence of a surveyor acting under a CFA where he or she has a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of a case. That said, a well-presented, evidenced and competent case should stand on its own.

The difficulty in Gardiner and Theobald suggests such a fee basis is not appropriate at all for an expert, even in VT (though not barred).

Many clients over many years have instructed surveyors on CFAs and latterly with a different basis of VT work or beyond. What the case implies is that any work, including preparation and negotiations undertaken and subsequently used in evidence, should not be on a CFA.

For many clients, small ratepayers and indeed many public sector ratepayers, they would never dream of instructing a surveyor or agent on any other basis – then a CFA – as it would be unaffordable. This raises the question of whether such purity in a fee basis denies access to justice in a ratepayer being able to instruct someone to assist. There is much ongoing discussion and certainly it is evident that the whole industry will not change overnight, and it will be a long process, if ever, to remove the CFA. Indeed, the access to justice issue may mean that can never happen. In appearing at a VT with a declaration made on CFA and possibly some questioning on it, the surveyor may be in an uncomfortable place.

As Chair of the Institute’s Professional Conduct Committee, I take the view that, provided the expert

is honest and upfront about the fee basis and their appearance, then from a professional conduct point of view, they have nothing to fear. A lack of transparency or hiding the truth may bring them into a more difficult space!

You might be forgiven for thinking that CCA is enough of a hurdle for ratepayers to jump in order to examine their property tax liability without further tension and angst in the process by fee restraint on advisers.

It all points to the access to justice being rather more torturous and difficult. Hopefully the profession can settle into an acceptable way forward that we can all be more comfortable with, allowing appellants to pursue the right tax assessment for ratepayers. We shall see.

On another tack entirely, despite the meaning of market value having been established now over very many years, The European Group of Valuers’ Associations (TEGoVA) has been discussing the definition in recent months purely as a result of Anglo-Saxon language. It is a fact that ‘arm’s length transaction’ has no available translation in a number of European languages and as such, appearing as part of the market value definition, this has caused a few problems when the definitions have been translated.

Notwithstanding ‘arm’s length’ appeals in a number of other legal and tax arenas and for that reason, there is no will to completely remove it. Instead, TEGoVA has debated an agreed alternative meaning of what is understood by ‘arm’s length’ and it now means translators are able to use that if ‘arm’s length’ is causing difficulty.

There is much I could, in this opinion piece, offer for the property outlook pending Brexit, but as things remain so unclear at the time of writing, perhaps another day or another year (even) will give us a better chance to understand any repercussions.

“ This represents a major headache for BAs in the provisions for losses on appeal. The lack of challenges currently is no measure of the losses that will flow late in the List from successful challenges or appeals. BAs need to watch out.”

Roger Messenger BSc FRICS FIRRV MIPAV REV MCIArb Hon. CAAV RICS Registered Valuer is a Past President of the IRRV. The views expressed here are his own.

Roger Messenger tracks the valuation agenda from Check, Challenge and Appeal to Europe and beyond

Viewpoint

IRRV Publications

Council Tax Law and Practice

This is an essential guide for anyone involved in the operation of the Council Tax. It shows in detail how the tax works on a practical level, and is fully up to date on all the most recent amendments to the law.

Topics covered include:

• liability;• discounts and exemptions;• reduction schemes;• billing and collection;• enforcement;• valuation and the valuation list;• appeals and the valuation tribunals;• insolvency, and funds;• precepts and grants.

Council Tax Law and Practice is supplied in hard copy format together with an electronic PDF version.

Price: New subscription price: £195 plus VAT & P&PUpdate price: £145 plus VAT & P&P

E: publications@irrv.org.uk T: 020 7691 8977W: www.irrv.net/publications

Council Tax Law and Practice

2018Update

Out Now

IRRV Publications

Rating Law and Practice

Rating Law and Practice is the authoritative guide to non-domestic rating legislation and its operation. An essential reference for anyone working in the field, it is designed to make the legislation easier to understand.

The book includes comprehensive footnotes to assist in the cross-referencing and location of the legislation itself. It is kept fully up to date by annual updates.

Rating Law and Practice is supplied in hard copy format together with an electronic PDF version.

Price: New subscription price: £195 plus VAT & P&PUpdate price: £145 plus VAT & P&P

E: publications@irrv.org.uk T: 020 7691 8977W: www.irrv.net/publications

Rating Law and Practice

2018Update

Out Now

INSIDE: Partnership working • Protecting the public purse • News & events • Technology • Student corner

IRRV Forum Service 2019

E: loraine.jones@irrv.org.uk T: 01902 750889W: www.irrv.net/forums

Providing a platform for discussion since 1952

The Forum Subscription year runs from 1st January until 31st December. Organisations can join at any time of the year on payment of a pro-rata subscription. 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. Membership includes:

• Quarterly regional meetings with a technical update delivered by our contracted technical expert who is supported at each meeting by guest speakers (i.e. representatives from DCLG, DWP and MOJ) focussing on topical issues

• Unlimited user licence to the Forum Portal where forum members can book, view and download agendas, maps, minutes and presentations

• Discounts at all major conferences / professional meetings / training courses run by the Institute together with price reductions on our electronic products and consultancy

• A weekly alert that brings to the attention of members all the latest developments in the profession

• Unrestricted access to the enhanced Technical Enquiry Service, which includes a Q&A feature as well as a search facility

• Webinars, which give Forum members unlimited attendance (at no cost) so all employees can benefit without having to leave the office

• Free access to ‘Jobs Online’, which offers you unrivalled access to a targeted pool of professionals.

For details on the Forum Service in Scotland and Northern Ireland, please contact Fraser Macpherson at scotland@irrv.org.uk or 01382 456029.

Fees:

The Forum Subscription year runs from 1st January until 31st December. Organisations can join at any time of the year on payment of a Pro Rata subscription.

New and Existing Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .£1200.00Other Organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . price on application