INSIGHT

INSIDE: Professor Cleverley returns • Welfare reform • Running the Institute • Management

January/February 2013 £5.50 www.irrv.net

ISSN

136

1-13

05

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

Wales’s ‘magnificent eight’......share £1million savings in their groundbreaking single person discount review

Jaws – the reunion!

Andrew Burton sees a few parallels emerging between council

tax support, poll tax, and a classic from

the seventies!

IRRV INSIGHT

Managing Editor

John Roberts

Editorial Director

Lester Dinnie

Art Director

Don Tregartha

Designers

Clare Barker

Roddy Clenaghan

Copy Editor

Vicki Chastney

Publisher

Tregartha Dinnie

Ltd

IRRV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jan/Feb 2013 ISSN 1361-1305

©IRRV 2013. 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.

Cover story 18

A two-part Insightrevenues specialIn part 1, Phil Round explains the background toWales’s magnificent eight’s £1million savings in their groundbreaking single person discount review.

In the second part, Jaws – the reunion!, Andrew Burton sees a few parallels emerging between council tax support, poll tax, and a classic from the seventies!

2

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

Your IRRV Council:

IRRV PRESIdENT david Chapman IRRV (Hons)

JuNIoR VICE PRESIdENT Kevin Stewart FIRRV MAAT MCMI

SENIoR VICE PRESIdENT Richard Harbord MPhil CPFA FCCA IRRV (Hons) FIDP FBIM FRSA

HoNoRARy TREASuRER Allan Traynor FCCA IRRV (Hons)

Phil Adlard Tech IRRV MlnstLM MCMI

Alan Bronte FRICS IRRV (Hons)

Robert Brown BSc FRICS FIRRV

Tracy Crowe CPFA FIRRV

Carol Cutler IRRV (Hons)

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

Ian Ferguson IRRV (Hons)

Geoff Fisher FRICS (Dip Rating) IRRV (Hons) REV

Richard Guy FRICS (Dip Rating) IRRV (Hons) MCIArb

Mary Hardman IRRV (Hons) FRICS MCMI

Gordon Heath BSc IRRV (Hons)

Julie Holden IRRV (Hons) MCMI CMg

Jim MaCafferty IRRV (Hons)

Kerry Macdermott IRRV (Hons)

Tony Masella MRICS MCIOB FIRRV AFA F.Inst.AM

Maureen Neave Tech IRRV

Roger Messenger BSc (Es Man) FRICS FIRRV MCIArb REV

Nick Rowe IRRV (Hons)

Peter Scrafton FIRRV FCIArb MRSA (Hons)

Angela Storey Tech IRRV MCMI

Bob Trahern IRRV (Hons)

Features

Editor’s welcome

INSIGHT is one of three magazines produced by the Institute. The quarterly offering for members involved in the sphere of valuation, VALUER, is another vital read, as is BENEFIT, the bi-monthly magazine element of the Institute’s Benefits Advisory Service. If you want to subscribe, or to find out more, go to www.irrv.net. In this edition, we welcome back many of our regular contributors, who combine to provide as ever a diverse picture of the Institute’s activities. Students and more seasoned practitioners will be pleased to see that our anonymous academic, Professor Cleverley, returns to give sound advice, and Deborah Davies is on hand to detail some significant developments in the courts. Valuer members will without doubt have views on Simon Wanderer ’s suggestion that mediation has a place in the appeals process. Benefit practitioners will be keen to seek out the views of the DWP, as the welfare reform process gathers pace. Revenues practitioners will be keen to read how North Wales has reacted to single person discount issues, which shares our cover story slot with Andrew Burton’s view of the changes anticipated as council tax support becomes local. That’s only a small snapshot of what our magazine has to offer, though. Management and leadership topics, developments in technology, and the thoughts of the Local Government Association and the Local Government Ombudsman are all in there, together with all the regular news from inside the IRRV. Read on and enjoy!

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

“Welcome to our first 2013 edition of INSIGHT, the membership magazine for all involved with the IRRV.”

What’s in the next issue... – Kevin Watson points to collaboration as the

way forward

– A new Viewpoint contributor makes her debut

– A special alternative revenues focus on parking issues

Chief Executive’s notes 05

News and events 06

Education and membership 08

Running the Institute 10

From the archives 13

Faculty Board update 14

Case law update 15

Benefits bulletin 17

Professor Cleverley 23

Valuation matters 24

LGA view 26

Welfare reform 27

Technology 28

LGO update 30

Management 31

Doherty’s despatch 32

Viewpoint 34

INSI

GH

T JA

NU

AR

Y/FE

BRU

AR

Y 2

013

3

Regular items

• Miscellaneous Income Recovery through the County Court, London, 7 February

• Insolvency and the Revenues Collection Process, London, 13 February

• Introduction to Business Rates, London, 14 February

• Business Rates Master Class, London, 19 & 20 February

• Introduction to Council Tax, London, 13 March

• Council Tax Master Class, London, 20 & 21 March

• Spring Pre-Examination Course, Keele, 12 to 19 April

• Benefits Conference, Keele, 16 & 17 April

• Collection & Enforcement Conference, Keele, 18 & 19 April

• Welsh Conference, Llandrindod Wells, 27 June

• Annual Conference, Telford, 2 to 4 October

• Performance Awards Gala Dinner, Telford, 3 October

• Autumn Pre-Examination Course, London, 13 to 17 Nov.

IRRV Conference and Training Diary

Please send your queries to conference@irrv.org.uk or telephone 020 7691 8987

IRRV Business Rates Level 3 Certificate

The Institute’s new Qualification in Business Rates (England and Wales) is now available, with the first examinations scheduled for June 2013. This qualification at Level 3 on the national framework for England and Wales.

The qualification consists of four subjects, including:• Non-Domestic Rating Law; • Valuation Theory and Practice;• Valuation for Rating;and a choice of either:• Valuation Tribunal Administration; or• Non-domestic Rates Administration

Distance Learning is a great way to fit the qualificationaround your current employment. It’s totally flexible, asyou decide when studying best suits you.

We are now enrolling students so please contact us for more information!

IRRV Distance Learning

Please send your queries to distancelearning@irrv.org.uk or telephone 020 7691 8984

NEW

INSI

GH

T JA

NU

AR

Y/FE

BRU

AR

Y 2

013

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

Are we facing a year of destiny or disaster? There are major

changes in the financing of local government, we have the

postponement of the 2015 revaluation, and of course the

implementation of the early phases of Universal Credit.The changes in the financing of local government are

radical. The rating system will deliver a significant proportion

of local income. This part of the wider localism agenda will

see billing authorities become far more active in forecasting

and collecting income. The importance of the valuation process in the new system should not be underestimated.

The relationship between the Valuation Office Agency and

billing authorities will need to improve, as will the quality of

information sharing. If billing authorities cannot access

sufficient accurate data, there will need to be a rethink of their

role in relation to the valuation process.

The introduction of Universal Credit will start in 2013, and will

gain pace during 2014. Senior officials from the Department for Work and Pensions have said publicly that the first major

migration will be the tax credit caseload. Not before time, if

we are to believe the recent statements from the Secretary of

State, Iain Duncan Smith. He tells us that more than £10bn

of public money has been lost in fraud and error under the

tax credit system, put in place by the last Labour government.

He further claims that the system was “not fit for purpose”,

but had been extended ahead of the 2005 and 2010 general

elections to gain support.

In a wide ranging article, the Secretary of State said that the

system was “wide open to abuse” and was “haemorrhaging

money. In the years between 2003 and 2010 £171bn was

spent on tax credits, contributing to a 60% rise in the welfare

bill.” He claimed that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(HMRC) conducts checks on far fewer tax credit claims than

suspected benefit fraudsters. That is despite about one in 12

tax credit claims being incorrect or fraudulent, compared with

fewer than one in 25 for other benefit claims.

In this revealing article, Mr Duncan Smith stated that HMRC

did not attempt to reclaim overpayments of less than £25,000,

and that is set to be reduced to £5,000 under the coalition,

alongside moves to require proof of payments from those

claiming for childcare, or where children aged between 16 and

19 are in full-time education. Let’s hope the enforcement structures will be put in place to cope with this massive

growth in work, and that the Single Fraud Investigation Service will be able to deal with the increase in caseload.

Of course, the provision of state of the art authentication and verification systems should secure the gateways, and

hopefully reduce the incidence of fraud and error.

Chief Executive’s notes

“This part of the wider localism agenda will see billing authorities become far more active in forecasting and collecting income.”

2013 – a year of destiny or disaster? David Magor ponders the likely outcome

Are we facing a year of destiny or disaster? There are major changes in the financing of local government, we have the postponement of the 2015 revaluation, and of course the implementation of the early phases of Universal Credit.

6

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

News and events

IRRV asserts its position following Welsh charity rate proposalsFollowing a review for the Welsh government recommending reducing business rate relief and tightening qualifying rules, the IRRV has issued its own response to the proposals.The response has provided the Institute with the chance to voice its long held

views that strongly advocate a total overhaul of the relief system – not only in

Wales, but in Scotland and England too. The response continues, “The review of

course needs to go deeper than any superficial highlighting of the anomalies

in, and potential pitfalls of, including other types of entity in the relief. Any fuller

examination, in which we would be pleased to play a part, should for example

look at the particular issues around the following:

• could the relief be viewed as inefficient and acting against general market

forces, and might other forms of tax relief be less intrusive? For example, is it

important that the charities get the full benefit or is it acceptable that some of

it goes to landlords? Does the certainty of relief price small businesses out of

the market at a time when we should be helping them?

• applying relief to all registered charities

• the ‘wholly and mainly’ rule

• how Community Amateur Sports Clubs should be treated

• not-for-profit entities

• application of reliefs in respect of operating companies

• the appropriateness of the 80% relief to all types of activity and whether

there should be different classes of occupation attracting differential relief

(it would not be easy to sub-divide the various charitable relief bodies, but

they are growing thick and fast, with varying degrees of ‘charity’ within their

organisation)

• the application of relief in respect of ‘Academy’ schools, and

• the growing use of charity occupation to enable empty rate to be avoided.”

It’s caption competition time again...! ...and this time we want to know what IRRV Past President and current chair of the Institute’s Commercial Services Committee Carol Cutler was thinking to herself, as she introduced the domestic announcements at the opening of last year’s Annual Conference.

The December issue’s offering produced a couple of joint winners! As ever, we have a slightly risky one, this time Peter Hurlstone’s “They tell me that it isn’t the size of my instrument that matters, it ’s what I do with it”, as he reads the thoughts of South Eastern Association President, Pat Knight. And “Yet another statutory instrument that no-one knows how to handle”, and “This is actually a double bass scaled down to my size” (sorry Pat, I thought he was your friend – Editor!) were the suggestions of Andy King. Keep ‘em coming!

Captions invited!Captions invited!

Rating Diploma qualification re-launchedIn November 2012 a new protocol agreement was signed by Paul Ridley, chairman of the RICS Rating Diploma Holders’ Section (left in photo) and Alan Collett, RICS President, launching the new style Rating Diploma Study Course.The first tranche

of candidates

undertaking the

course started

in January 2013,

with further

applications

being sought

later in the year

for a September

2013 start.

The study course consists of nine modules covering areas such

as rating law, valuation, compilation of valuation lists/rolls and

domestic/non-domestic borderline, for which assignments will be

set and marked, followed by a practical test and interview, and is

spread over a two year time frame.

Anyone who would like to find out more about the Rating

Diploma can contact the Project Manager, Duncan McLaren

(duncan.j.mclaren@voa.gsi.gov.uk) or the Rating Diploma

Holders’ Section Honorary Secretary, Helen Zammit-Willson

(helen.zammit-willson@voa.gsi.gov.uk).

The Rating Diploma Holders provide regular magazine

contributions in the Institute’s popular Valuer magazine.

7

LATEST NEWS

The bailiff debate moves onFollowing the Local Government Ombudsman’s publication of a new focus report on councils’ usage of bailiffs, Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis said,

“Clearly, councils have an obligation to their local residents to

collect council tax, as every penny of uncollected council tax effectively

increases the tax burden on the law-abiding local residents who do

pay their bills on time. Yet councils equally need to show compassion

towards the vulnerable and recognise individual cases of hardship.

The use of bailiffs should also be a last resort, they should not be

commissioned disproportionately, and councils should take direct

responsibility for them.”

(Editor’s note – read Andrew Hobley’s regular LGO column on page 30 of this month’s Insight).

Rate reliefs and exemptions to assist business extendedNorthern Ireland Finance Minister Sammy Wilson has announced that the Empty Retail Premises Relief scheme and the rates exemption for stand alone ATMs in rural areas, due to end in March 2013, will now be extended until the end of the current budget period in March 2015, subject to Assembly approval.The Minister also announced his intention to extend the current 18

month ‘developer exclusion’ applicable under the rating of empty

homes for a further 12 months. Speaking in the Assembly, he

commented, “The Executive recognises the difficulties that our local

businesses are facing, and are committed to helping them in these

challenging financial times. Northern Ireland has led the way with this

innovative scheme, and was the first devolved administration in the

UK to introduce such an initiative.” He continued, “52 businesses have

benefitted from a 50% reduction on their rates totalling £143,000

since the introduction of this new rate relief in April 2012.”

INSI

GH

T JA

NU

AR

Y/FE

BRU

AR

Y 2

013

The President’s travelsInsight is pleased to provide highlights

of President Dave Chapman’s first

months in the hot seat. Regular

excerpts from his blog, which you can

view on www.irrv.net, will be included

in Insight this year.

“After the euphoria of receiving

the President’s chain of office from

Roger Messenger at the Telford Annual Conference in October,

I was quickly introduced into the role of President, attending

the Association Representatives Meeting on the last day of

Conference in the Conference hotel. It was really heart warming to

be welcomed and appreciated by so many revenues and benefits

professionals, with whom I had previously been a counterpart in

the very same meetings. Immediately after the meeting I arranged

a planning meeting for the year ahead with the Chief Executive,

David Magor, at a secret venue in Oxfordshire on the following

Monday! Here I received diary dates of known events, and looked

at identifying future Council meeting dates. I also advised that my

charity for the year would be Rossendale Hospice, and agreed

to set up a Just Giving site to facilitate any donations – if you

want to donate, go to www.justgiving.com/David-Chapman5.

Apart from that initial flurry of activity, I enjoyed a relatively quiet

month in October and couldn’t understand what all the fuss was

about – it was simply business as usual... or so I thought!

November 8th saw my first official function, where I flew

out to Rome to attend the The European Group of Valuers’ Associations (TEGoVA) Conference and General Assembly, a

three day event. It was truly an experience to hear the interpreters

grappling with valuation terminology delivered through our

headsets as we listened to though provoking papers from across

Europe. I had to check sometimes that I was on the correct

language channel, and I have to say pronouncing IRRV is difficult

in any language! One thing became very clear – how really well

thought of the Institute is within these European circles. Of course

there is no higher testimony to that than the fact that Roger Messenger is the current Chair of TEGoVA. I was made to feel

very welcome, and soon found that I knew more about valuation

than I had thought. I also realised there are very real opportunities

to expand both the membership and influence of the Institute

across Europe.

My worst memory of the trip

was the six hour delay I endured

at the Leonardo Da Vinci Airport,

for the return flight, which meant

I now landed in Manchester

at 2:30 in the morning, with a

train booked for my first Council

meeting in London departing

at 7.30am. Of course I advised

my Chief Executive that I may

possibly be late or even stuck

in Rome for my very first meeting chairing Council! As it happened I

managed two hours sleep before boarding my train to London. The

same week on the Friday I attended my first Association Dinner, in

honour of Andrew Solley (photographed here with me), President

of the East Midlands Association, at the Casa in Chesterfield.”

You can read more of President Dave’s travels in next month’s

edition of Insight.

Fraud reduction announcedBenefit fraud fell last year – but more action is needed to stop the £1.2bn cost to the taxpayer each year, Minister for Welfare Reform Lord Freud said recently.The Department for Work and Pensions figures show total

overpayments due to fraud and error stood at 2.1% of all benefit

expenditure or £3.4bn over the last year.

Lord Freud said, “We are fighting the battle against fraud and

making advances, but fraud in the benefits system remains a huge

problem. We have given our teams more resources and more powers

so investigators are now actively tracking fraudsters, using a mixture

of the latest technology and old-fashioned detective work.”

He added, “From next year (2013), Universal Credit will also make

fraud much harder to commit and easier to trace quickly.” We shall

wait and see!

8

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

Education and membership

Michael Hopkins is on hand with his first education roundup of the New Year

The Institute’s education programme is

both traditional – in the form of day-

release and revision classes – and delivered

electronically. Full details of these options

can be viewed on the Institute’s home page,

www.irrv.net. In addition to examination preparation classes delivered in London

and venues around the country, training sessions for professionals are offered at

the Institute’s London headquarters. Upcoming

training sessions include a session entitled

Current Developments in Council Tax and Non Domestic Rates and a Business Rates Master Class, which are filling up rapidly, with

several ‘sell outs’. For details of these and other

events, see www.irrv.net/trainingdays.

Webinars – and free access to past webinars

– can also be found on the website, and the

Institute continues to offer online training programmes which can be purchased for

access by variable numbers of users. These

provide an invaluable source of training,

briefing and reference. Check prices and

programmes at www.irrv.net/euclidian.

The Qualifications Management Board,

Michael Hopkins is Head of Professional Services

with the Institute. You can contact him on

michael.hopkins@irrv.org.uk

New members

StudENt MEMbErSNaMe eMployeR

Adrian Johnson South Kesteven

District Council

Clare McIntosh G L Hearn Ltd

Karen Armstrong Durham County Council

Darren Glasper Durham County Council

John Naylor Durham County Council

Jennifer Childs Cardiff Council

Sean O’Donnell Caerphilly County

Borough Council

Vicki Burgess G L Hearn Ltd

Howard Dye Hull City Council

Gaynor Jackson Wakefield Metropolitan

District Council

Andrew Sims Hull City Council

Derek Frankland Preston City Council

Melanie Poole Burnley Borough Council

Richard Chambers Mua Property Services Ltd

Grainne Mears-Bullen Lewisham London

Borough Council

Ademuyiwa Oniwonlu Rochvilles & Co

Jade Pinnock Lewisham London

Borough Council

Angela McDonald Powys County Council

Mark Dent Cardiff Council

Alice Gridley Gerald Eve LLP

Fay Kyson-Waller Gerald Eve LLP

Steven Lavis Gerald Eve LLP

Andrew Rudd Gerald Eve LLP

Matthew Selman Gerald Eve LLP

David Welsh Gerald Eve LLP

Kate Herridge West Berkshire Council

Jodie Gardiner Wakefield Metropolitan

District Council

COrPOrAtE MEMbErS NaMe eMployeR

Baldeo Ramoutar Ministry of Finance (Trinidad)

Amrik Boghan Coventry City Council

Gary Yeardley Normie & Company

dIPLOMA MEMbErS NaMe eMployeR

Stephen Challis South Ayrshire Council

Ishmael Kamal Turney The Land Tax Department

HONOurS MEMbErS NaMe eMployeR

Michael Telford JTR Collections Ltd

Barry Davies Self-employed

Christine Telford SLR Consulting Ltd

David Vernon CBRE Ltd

Lorraine Arrowsmith Valuation Office Agency

Assessment Centre

Andrew McKillop Valuation Office Agency

Assessment Centre

Don’t forget to update your membership details.

Log on to

www.irrv.net

Since the early 2000s, the Institute has

been instrumental in the production and

maintenance of National occupational Standards (NOS) in the administration of local Revenues and Benefits. NOS are

statements of competence which express

the particular requirements for workplace

performance. The Standards are public

documents under the stewardship of asset Skills, the Sector Skills Council which

covers the Institute’s professional areas.

NOS can be used as a basis for recruitment

and selection, training design and delivery,

drawing up person specifications and job

descriptions, and can inform the development

of vocational qualifications.

NOS are intended as a high level strategic

overview of the competencies required to fulfil

tasks effectively within industry.

Asset Skills are now formulating a bid for

2013/14 which includes some potential work

in the area of local taxation and benefits.

This work will take in the updating of the NOS

and the apprenticeship framework, in the light,

particularly, of national changes to benefits.

To help justify this work, Asset Skills requires

industry support, and they have asked the

IRRV, as the leading body in the occupational

area, to provide the principal input. To this

end there will shortly be consultation and

requests for views and responses on the

NOS revision. Consideration must be given

to the titles, classification and content of the

NOS. Currently they are laid out under the

headings performance and Knowledge and Understanding, and this aspect as well as the

titles and breakdown of the Standards can all

be reconsidered.

Any individual or organisation wishing to be

involved in this important work should make

contact at the email address at the end of this

article. This work will directly benefit the sector

and serve its employers’ needs.

With Certificate and Diploma qualifications having been updated to take

account of benefits changes, we are currently

in a period of transition. Those students who

have learned material relating to council tax benefit, and who will be taking examinations

based on the housing and council tax benefit

syllabi, will still be able to do so in June

2013, and in housing benefit at least until

December 2013. The Institute has considered

its policy with regard to council tax benefit,

which is withdrawn from April 2013, and in the

interests of fairness has resolved that in June

2013 relevant examinations will still refer to

council tax benefit. Areas such as backdating,

overpayments and appeals, which practitioners

will still need to be aware of at that time, will

be examined. More detailed guidance will

be issued early in 2013, so that students can

revise appropriately.

It is not anticipated that questions on

council tax benefit will be set in or after

December 2013, but this will be confirmed in

the new year guidance. On this subject, the

Institute is revising its l3 QCF vocational qualification. The existing qualification

is being withdrawn, and replaced with

a similar unit-based qualification which

specifies required competence in the areas of

Universal Credit, local council tax support and welfare benefits. At the same time, an

‘advice’ stream is being introduced, aimed

at employees who offer advice rather than

carry out processing work. Further details are

available, as always, from the Institute.

Comment and input may be referred to at

education@irrv.org.uk Current NOS available from www.irrv.net/education/item.asp?Iid=203&WaI=6

INSI

GH

T JA

NU

AR

Y/FE

BRU

AR

Y 2

013

9

Name QualIfIcaTIoN emPloYeR

Natalie Farr NVQ in Housing and City of Bradford Council Tax Benefits Metropolitan District Council

Claire Norton NVQ in Housing and Exeter City Council Council Tax Benefits

Deborah Collingswood NVQ in Housing and North Devon District Council Council Tax Benefits

Carrie Stratford NVQ in Housing and Cotswold District Council Council Tax Benefits

Kerry Wykes NVQ in Housing and Cotswold District Council Council Tax Benefits

Helen Longworth NVQ in Local Taxation Cheshire East Council

Dorn Pughsley NVQ in Local Taxation Coventry City Council

Christopher Kent NVQ in Local Taxation Cotswold District Council

Hayley Bandry Level 3 QCF Benefits Pathway Shepway District Council

Beverley Madden Level 3 QCF Benefits Pathway Shepway District Council

Dani Cooke Level 3 QCF Generic Pathway Teignbridge District Council

Jemma Graves Level 3 QCF Generic Pathway Maidstone Borough Council

Claire Yeo Level 3 QCF Revenues Pathway Isle of Wight Council

Latest vocational qualification successes

FELLOW mEmbErs Name emPloYeR

Heather Neate The Audit Commission

Anne Firth Self-employed

Nicholas Chatterley Jones Lang LaSalle Ltd

Allan Clark North Hertfordshire District Council

Graham Ryall Colliers International Property Consultants UK

QCF/sVQ mEmbErs Name emPloYeR

William Sloan Shepway District Council

Kathryn Weeks Shepway District Council

Cindy Dickson Isle Of Wight Council

Ruslan Aliyev Southwark London Borough Council

Daniel Langdon Bath & North East Somerset Council

Martin Smith Bath & North East Somerset Council

Melanie Hamill Shepway District Council

Emma Pidwill Gravesham Borough Council

AFFILIATE mEmbErs Name emPloYeR

John Jones Lewes District Council

OrGANIsATIONAL mEmbErs Name

Council Tax Advisors Ltd

Congratulations to everyone!!

New members (Cont/d)

Annotated Council Tax Legislation 2012 (2nd update – December 2012)

Annotated Council Tax Legislation is a comprehensive 3 volume set, containing all the parts of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 relevant to the administration of Council Tax. It includes appropriate sections and schedules from the Local Government Acts of 1999 and 2003, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999, and is fully updated to include changes made by the Localism Act 2011 and the Welfare Reform Act 2012.

All current statutory instruments from 1992 to the publication date are included, and all amendments brought about by these regulations and orders have been made to the originating text.

Annotated Council Tax Legislation is supplied in hard copy format together with an electronic PDF version.

IRRV Publications

To purchase online or for more information, please visit: www.irrv.net or phone 020 7691 8977

Did you know?You may be able to claim tax relief on yourmembership subscription. Download the Tax Relief membership briefing guide to find out how.

Log on to www.irrv.net

10

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

Running the Institute

people certainly did give you a feeling of

warmth. The Gamesmakers were very helpful

to each other, too, and one of the best

evenings I had was when I was called into

action ‘high-fiving’ children on the spotty

bridge in the Olympic Park.

Around 9pm, Gamesmakers could go up the

Orbit – the view from there was truly stunning.

For me, it was an awesome experience – to be

in the presence of such inspiring athletes, and

to experience the atmosphere in the park and

venues, will also stay with me forever. It made

the hairs stand up on my neck!

The closing ceremony for the Paralympics

brought an end to the volunteering for

most Gamesmakers, but I was on duty for

two further days, missing the GB Athletes’

Parade on the Monday. I finally signed off my

volunteering duties at 7.30pm on Tuesday

11th September, after the last airport run for

my client. Giving up the car was emotional,

and by this time most of the cars had been

decommissioned, so at least I had a choice of

car park spaces.

I have so many memories – friends either

say I was mad, or they are very jealous of my

volunteering – although I think if the authorities

were offered such an opportunity today, they’d

be swamped by the numbers applying. I’ve

made many new friendships. but I’ll miss the

positive ‘can do’ attitude of all that participated.

I’ll miss the bacon butties in the morning, the

infamous packed lunch (I kept the insulated

lunch box!) and the decision on where to eat

my dinner. Was I really eating it in the Athletes

Village of London 2012? And I’ve got an

invitation to go to Kuala Lumpar, and believe

me, they are such fantastic, hospitable people.

There are a few moments for me that stand

The Paralympic Games Opening Ceremony

took place on 29th August – on this day fleet

transport, including the BMWs, should have

been off the road at 3pm.

The Olympic Park and other venues were

largely accessible by public transport to the

vast majority of spectators. However, there

was a complex network of service roads

linked to all stadiums and venues, including

the Olympic Park. The car would find its way

towards the front door of each venue for

me to drop off my important clients. In the

Olympic Park they had both a southern and

northern circular route, and you quickly worked

out where to go. If in the Olympic Park we’d

mostly park in the Westfield Shopping Centre,

as that car park was closed to shoppers during

the games, although the shopping centre itself

of course remained open.

The first of those special moments was

to come on 31st August. This happened to

be the 55th year since Malaysia obtained

independence from the UK. They held a

ceremony at their ambassador’s residence and

then laid on some lovely food. I was invited

to attend – a real honour – and the Malaysian

hospitality was brilliant.

The next day I was asked to report to a

residence in South Kensington. I was being

asked to drive a former Prime Minister (from

2003 to 2009) of Malaysia to the Olympic

Stadium in the Park. I drove him there and

back, together with his wife, and afterwards

they kindly invited me to their official

residence for lunch.

The hours for me were very long, and would

often change as the day progressed. I had to

be available at a moment’s notice to pick up

the client. This could mean short waits, or

waits of up to ten hours... as happened on

one occasion. Around this I tried to get into

various events, which I succeeded to do at

the Olympic Athletics Stadium, the Aquatics

Centre, Excel, Brands Hatch and Archery at the

Royal Artillery Barracks, amongst others!

The atmosphere in the park was like a big

positive bubble. Both the Great British public

and the Gamesmakers played their full part.

The noise in the stadiums I’ll remember for

life. I was very lucky to have such access.

Seeing the smiles on the faces of so many

out even more, and that is the thanks of the

public. I travelled to and from my volunteering

duty in my uniform, and the public would come

up and thank you for your efforts on the tube

and on the buses. They’d stop you on the street,

but for me the highest point of thanks was the

complete stranger who stopped their car whilst I

waited at a bus stop early one Saturday morning,

and offered me a lift to the tube, as he wanted

to thank a Gamesmaker for the wonderful

experience he had in the park the Monday

before. It really was a magical Disneyland style

event for nearly three weeks, and I am pleased

to say that I played my small part.

...maybe the oldest IRRV torchbearer?

Photographed is former long-standing

Institute member and revenues chief Ted

Morris, who, although well into his nineties,

still found time to join in the Olympic

celebrations earlier this year, at his nursing

home in Newquay!

“ For me, it was an awesome experience – to be in the presence of such inspiring athletes, and to experience the atmosphere in the park and venues, will also stay with me forever.”

Kevin Stewart continues his tale of Paralympic volunteer Gamesmaker, in the final part of a two part feature

Kevin Stewart FIRRV MAAT MCMIis Junior Vice-President of the IRRV

INSI

GH

T JA

NU

AR

Y/FE

BRU

AR

Y 2

013

11Gary L Watson IRRV (Hons) is Deputy Chief Executive of the Institute

Running the Institute

Commercial Services CommitteeThe meeting was chaired by Carol Cutler (having been re-elected for a further year).

Key agenda items included:

• Sales and sponsorship

• Conferences (including Performance Awards)

• Professional meetings and training courses

• Forum (and Benefit Advisory) Services

• Update on activities in Scotland and

Northern Ireland

• Communications Working Group

(magazines, website and publications).

Committee focussed their attention on the

Annual Conference (including Performance

Awards) that had taken place in October. The

latest position on the outturn was reported.

The feedback from delegates, exhibitors and

finalists was noted, and it was agreed this

would be discussed in further detail at the

next meeting, when the arrangements for

2013 would also be finalised. In the meantime,

a Conference Sub-committee was set up to

approve the conference programmes for 2013.

Education and Membership CommitteeThe meeting was chaired by Julie Holden

(having been re-elected for a further year).

Key agenda items included:

• Qualifications

• Membership (including a strategy to

increase membership)

• Qualifications Management Board

• Electronic learning

• IRRV courses.

A comprehensive report updating members

on the existing qualifications, together with

the planned qualifications in enforcement

and non-domestic rate was received. There

was discussion on the existing Level 3

Certificate and Diploma syllabi, and the

changes proposed by the Syllabus Review

Committee. With decisions now taken, the key

was communicating these to course providers,

employers and students straight away. With

time for the meeting limited, a detailed

discussion on membership was deferred to the

next meeting in January.

IRRV HQ was again the venue for the fourth

(and final) cycle of quarterly Council meetings

in 2012. A summary of what was discussed is

detailed below:

CouncilThe meeting was chaired for the first time

by the new President, Dave Chapman.

Key agenda items included:

• Reports of standing committees

• Chief Executive’s report

• President’s report.

In addition, Council received a presentation

from consultants engaged to review the public

relations, media, press and image of the

Institute. This was an interim report based on

interviews with those that had attended annual

conference the previous month. A final report

would be received early in the New Year.

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

Key agenda items included:

• ‘Options’ paper

• Management accounts at 31st August 2012

• Administration

• Media and marketing

• Revenue streams from Europe.

The key discussion was around the options

paper, and the decisions that needed to be

taken by Council when agreeing the budget

for 2013. Whilst the financial position of the

Institute remained sound, it was necessary to

set a budget once Council had agreed where

they would like the Institute to be in the short,

medium and long term. It was agreed that the

Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive

would put together a budget that reflected the

views of Council members, and present it to

Council in January for approval.

The management accounts at 31st August

2012 were also received and discussed in detail.

As with all organisations, there remained a need

to keep costs down whilst maximising income.

The Honorary Treasurer had revised the forecast

for the year – this had taken into consideration

the outturn from Annual Conference in October,

and the potential income streams scheduled to

arrive later in the calendar year.

Law and Research CommitteeThe meeting was chaired by Peter Scrafton

(having been elected chairman at the start of

the meeting). Key agenda items included:

• Reports of the three Faculty Boards

• Meetings with government bodies

• Research, consultancy and educational

funding streams.

Since the last meeting, the Institute (through

the Faculty Boards) had been actively involved

in putting together responses to the following

consultation documents (copies of the

responses are available on request):

• Localised Support for Council Tax Funding

Arrangements (England) (July)

• Universal Credit Regulations 2012 (including

other regulations) (July)

• Implementation of Universal Credit (August)

• Scottish Social Fund Successor (note:

submitted by the Scottish Association)

(August)

• New rules for the First Tier Lands Chamber

(England & Wales) (September)

• DCLG: Localising Support for Council Tax

(Council Tax Base) (October)

• Council Tax Reduction Scheme – Default

Scheme (Wales) (October)

• Council Tax: Long-Term Empty Homes in

Wales (October)

• DCLG: Empty Homes Premium: Calculation of

council tax base (October).

Although a number of reports are deemed

to be ‘commercially sensitive’ (particularly

those considered by Commercial Services

Committee, where a number of papers

are only circulated to those that sit on this

committee), Council remains keen for the

membership to be made aware of matters

discussed at the quarterly cycle of meetings.

Should a member require further information

on any of the reports considered by Council

at this cycle of meetings, they should contact

Gary Watson (Deputy Chief Executive) on

gary.watson@irrv.org.uk.

Gary Watson summarises the latest cycle of IRRV Council meetings, held in London on 12th November, 2012

This is a web-based, interactive learning tool designed for Revenues, Benefits & Customer Service staff. Training officers’ time is at a premium, so this versatile product has been designed to meet the business needs of Local Authorities.

The IRRV Online Training programmes are designed to train officers to a high standard AND also feature an ‘upto-date’ Resources Centre which is maintained daily with the latest circulars from the DWP. The programmes have a tutor functionality which will allow you to monitor staff progress.The programmes are written by practising specialists.

Where it fits in the workplace

• It does not replace the Training Officer.• It does allow training to take place where and

when the trainee and the employer wish.• With centrally updated programmes your managers and

trainers have more time to focus on ‘one-to-one’ tuition.• Trainees will be able to have control over their own

development.

Please send your queries to dolores.fergus@irrv.org.uk or telephone 020 7691 8994

The IRRV Vocational qualifications can be achieved whilst at work. This benefits the employer as members of staff are always present at work to complete the qualification.

The qualification introduces aspects of revenues and benefits that many members of staff have never encountered before, but which help them to gain a fuller view of their job role. Completing this qualification will allow the member of staff to have the letters Tech IRRV after their name.

Benefits of Vocational Qualifications

• Learning fits around your organisation’s needs and work demands.

• Learners gather evidence in their normal work activities for parts of the qualification.

• The qualifications are up-to-date, and can be adapted to suit the changing needs of the revenues and benefits field.

Some learners are eligible for funding to achieve this qualification.

IRRV Vocational Qualifications

Please send your queries to dolores.fergus@irrv.org.uk or telephone 020 7691 8994

Having agreed the recommendation to the

AGM for a change to Rule 5 (the creation of a

Benevolent and Defence Fund) at their meeting

on 7th September, the executive committee

then considered communications from Messrs

Rust (Islington) and Moyers (Kensington) relative

to a claim from Mr Westbrook, in respect of his

superannuation as a collector of St. Pancras.

The position was explained to the committee

by Mr Crane, who stressed that at this time,

Mr Westbrook did not require any pecuniary

assistance. However, if further action against the

vestry of St Pancras proved necessary, he hoped

that his brother-collectors would not allow the

entire burden to fall upon himself. The matter

was adjourned sine die for the time being. The

meeting then concluded with the secretary

being asked to send out a reminder to those

that had outstanding membership fees.

The executive next met on 30th November,

when Mr Gane alluded to Mr Westbrook’s action

against the Vestry of St. Pancras that had now

been considered by the Queens Bench Division

of the High Court. They had issued an ‘order of

mandamus’ commanding the Vestry to consider

and determine the grant of a pension to Mr

Westbrook. A report of the case was covered in

The Times on 23rd November 1889 – a relatively

quiet day for news, although it was on this day

the first juke box was ever used, having been

installed in the Palais Royal Saloon, San Francisco.

The scene from the Palais Royal Saloon... a

similar scene is no doubt being created in

organisations now the Institute has launched its

monthly webinar to members

It was recorded in The Times that Mr Westbrook

(aged 73) had 30 years in office as a rate

collector. In December 1888, he had given notice

to resign on the next Lady Day on a retiring

allowance. His salary was £480, and his retiring

allowance would be £230. The Vestry Committee

had considered the matter, and decided he

should only receive an allowance of £150 a year.

This was refused, and he was duly dismissed,

with a successor appointed. Lord Coleridge and

Mr Justice Mathew concurred – a ‘Rule absolute

for the mandamus’ was duly granted in favour of

Mr Westbrook in the High Court.

Mr Crane concluded the discussion by stating

it would be very gratifying for Mr Westbrook if

a communication was sent by the association

offering him some form of encouragement. It

was agreed the secretary would send such a

letter to say the association was pleased to learn

of his success to date and it was hoped this

would continue now the vestry have decided to

appeal against the decision of the High Court.

The chairman then referred to a letter he had

sent to the Right Honourable Charles J Ritchie

MP, who was the current Chairman of the Local

Government Board (and went on to become

Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer)

– a result of rate collectors being prejudicially

affected by actions of the London County Council

under the Local Government Act 1888.

The letter read:

Sir,Having seen in one of the daily papers that the provisions of the measure dealing with vestries were virtually settled and that vested interests would be preserved, I take liberty on behalf of the association I represent to draw your attention to what appears to us the inadequacy of the clause dealing with this matter in the Local Government Act of last year.

It seems that some of the Metropolitan Collectors collect the vestry rates only, and now that the county council precept is added to the Poor Rate, they lose the commission they formally received on the Metropolitan Board of Works Consolidated Rate, which was included with the Vestry Rates.

Now the former part of Section 120 of the Local Government Act clearly states that every officer suffering “pecuniary loss by...

diminution or loss of fees or salary shall be

entitled to have compensation paid to him”, but it adds “by the county council to whom

the powers of the authority, whose officer he

was, are transferred under this Act.” In the cases referred to, the officers still continue to serve the same authorities and their powers have not been transferred, but the direct pecuniary loss has in some areas been considerable.

We feel sure this was not the intention of the government, and shall esteem it a great honour if you will cause such addition to be made to the new Bill, as may remove any doubt, if you think any exists, as to the application of the above mentioned section to the cases referred to.

May I also be permitted to say that on a former occasion we were asked to supply certain information and to express an opinion concerning the practical working of such portions of a proposed measure, as came within our immediate knowledge, and that we shall be very pleased to render similar service, or any other in our power, on the present occasion, if desired.

I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient servant.

W HughesChairman, Metropolitan Rate Collectors Association

A letter was then considered from Mr

Earles who had expressed concern over

the difficulties which had arisen under the

Advertising Stations (Rating) Act 1889,

a matter which was deferred to the next

meeting. The meeting then concluded with

the date of the Annual General Meeting (and

Dinner) being fixed for 11th January 1889 and

the appointment of the dinner committee.

They then met on 14th December 1889, when

the Chairman was given a budget of £5.50 to

engage artistes for the evening.

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

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

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

Please contact him on gary.watson@irrv.org.ukGary L Watson IRRV (Hons) is Deputy Chief Executive of the IRRV

From theGary Watson dusts down the time machine with the second part of his visit into 1889

INSI

GH

T JA

NU

AR

Y/FE

BRU

AR

Y 2

013

13

14

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

Faculty Board update

in December 2012 Insight magazine, it

also generated several requests for it to be

turned into an IRRV webinar, a matter which

I am following up, as well as reporting it on

LinkedIn, as the topic had not been debated

in public in the UK, apparently, before Telford.

We must not forget, either, Keith Wheeler and John Swinnerton’s joint session

on valuation for local housing allowance.

This coverage demonstrated a distinct link

between the Valuation and Benefits Faculties of the Institute.

If you were not at Telford – you missed

some first-rate sessions – you would be wise to

pencil in a trip to this year’s conference, once

again in Telford, from 2nd to 4th October 2013, so that you do not miss out once again

next time!

Apart from its efforts in Parliament, through

our member the Earl of Lytton, to secure

improvements to the Local Government Finance Bill (he also spoke at Telford), the

Board has contributed to the recent review of

the impact of business rates relief for charities

in Wales. It is substantively a revenues topic

(and therefore led upon by the LTR Faculty Board), but it does have consequences

for private sector valuers advising ratepayer

clients, hence the VFB input. We commended

the Welsh Government’s stated intention

to “bring together partners representing

charities, business and other partners to

examine the evidence and suggest some next

steps.” The Institute has offered its full input to

that process.

In similar vein, the Board, in conjunction

with the Institute’s Scottish Association, will

provide input to the Scottish Government’s

consultation on non-domestic rates, to inform

future Scottish business rates policy – the

deadline for submissions being 22nd February.

The paper, Supporting Business, Promoting Growth, seeks views on how the business

rates system can better support sustainable

economic growth, whilst still delivering the

I begin this piece by recalling some quite

superb valuation sessions, which were provided

as part of the Institute’s Annual Conference

in Telford last October. The Rating Diploma Holders’ day was held very successfully within

the IRRV conference timetable for the second

year running, and it generated many thought-

provoking presentations.

A second day of the conference was given

over to a stream covering more non-rating

valuation topics. The December 2012 issue of

Valuer magazine has reports of the sessions

by Roger Messenger (regarding contractor’s

basis of valuation), Duncan McLaren (an

update on recent cases) and me (completion

notices). I feel it is worth mentioning in

despatches, however, Simon Layfield’s

paper on asset valuation, Stan Edwards’

presentation on retail-led CPOs and Ted Westlake and Richard Harbord’s joint

coverage of ‘planning gain, increased rate

retention and associated valuation problems’.

The latter followed on from Michael MacBrien’s paper on ‘EU legislative advances

on energy conservation and sustainability

and their impact on valuation’, which was

very well received, and while it was reported

same level of income needed to provide

the local services on which businesses and

communities rely. It includes questions on the

effectiveness of current reliefs, the valuation

appeals system, transparency and openness,

and tax avoidance.

The Board continues its involvement in the

Valuation Tribunal Users’ Group (VTUG)

on the Institute’s behalf. It would not be

appropriate for me to comment in depth on

the recent issues discussed within VTUG,

when the minutes of the meetings are not yet

in the public domain. It is, however, fair to say

that the bringing together of VTS, VTE, VOA,

the Bar, local government, small business and

the professional bodies to discuss (sometimes

quite complex) current issues in a candid

manner is, I feel, going to be of significant

longer term benefit to VT users at large, and I

wish continued power to VTUG’s elbow in the

coming year.

The Institute also continues to contribute,

along with the Rating Surveyors Association

and the RICS, to the VOA’s Professional Bodies Liaison Group. I look forward to

hearing the outcome of discussions arising

from the next meeting of that group, given the

recent announcement to postpone the 2015

rating revaluation.

At its last meeting, the Board noted with

pleasure the continuing success of viva

admissions to the Institute at Diploma level,

both from the UK and the Commonwealth, and

the increasing awareness of the importance of

Recognised European Valuer accreditation,

which may be applied for through the Institute.

Finally, the past year has seen the Board

continuing its work in the development of the

valuer qualifications in conjunction with the

Royal Agricultural College, which is now to

become a university in its own right. We are

now approaching the end of what has been a

long and a major, but satisfying, undertaking,

and an essential one which will help the

Institute in its aim to broaden its valuation

scope and to attract more valuers into

membership. We often say that we are a broad

church in the Institute – by our actions we are

showing that we are just that.

“ We commended the Welsh Government’s stated intention to “bring together partners representing charities, business and other partners to examine the evidence and suggest some next steps’.”

Valuation Faculty Board Chairman Peter Scrafton combines reflections on the Telford Annual Conference with the Board’s important contributions to valuation and rating reforms

Peter Scrafton FIRRV FCIArb MRSA (Hon)

Solicitor (Non-Practising) and Accredited

Mediator is a legal and valuation consultant

and member of the IRRV Council. Contact him

on Valuation Faculty Board matters via

valuation.faculty@irrv.org.uk

The Institute is a broad church

INSI

GH

T JA

NU

AR

Y/FE

BRU

AR

Y 2

013

15

Deborah Davies IRRV (Hons) is Customer

and Benefit Services Manager with Craven

District Council. Contact her on

ddavies@cravendc.gov.uk

Case law update

people. The property was rented for a fixed

three years term, but at the end of the period,

Camden did not give up possession, as there

was still an occupier. When the occupier did

move out, the property remained vacant,

but Camden continued to pay rent, thereby

creating a periodic tenancy. Some months

later there was a dispute about the state of

the property, and at that point the council

stopped paying the rent, and attempted to

surrender their interest by mailing the keys to

the landlord.

Meanwhile, over in council tax, it was

determined that the landlord was liable for

council tax for the time during which the

periodic tenancy subsisted. The landlord

contested liability before the Valuation Tribunal (VT), and they accepted the

appellant’s submission that a periodic tenancy

had arisen when the council continued to

pay rent after the expiry of the original lease

agreement. However, the VT also determined

that the periodic tenancy did not constitute a

material interest under the above definition,

as it was a leasehold interest for less than six

months. Therefore Ms MacAttram was held to

be liable for council tax. She then appealed to

the High Court.Ms MacAttram argued that the original

tenancy had been granted for three years,

and that the periodic tenancy was a tenancy

which arose out of the fixed term, and should

therefore be annexed to the main tenancy,

making a total tenancy period of over five

years. This would mean that Camden would

have remained liable for council tax. However,

the High Court found that the fixed term

and periodic tenancies could not be joined

together this way, as it undermined the

wording of the LGFA 1992. The court held that

the conduct of the parties involved indicated

that the tenancy was not a continuation of the original tenancy, but actually the grant

of a new monthly periodic tenancy, and

so, at the creation of the periodic tenancy, the

The hierarchy of liability

As many local authorities prepare to reduce,

or even abolish completely, entitlement to

an exemption under what we will soon think

of as ‘the former Class C ’, I am reminded

of a case, MacAttram v LB Camden, going

back to the first half of 2012, where the issue

was the correct interpretation of s6 (2) Local Government Finance Act (LGFA) 1992, the

hierarchy of liability.

In simple terms, to determine liability,

we work down the prescribed list and bill

the first person(s) that appear to meet

the description. Therefore, residents with

a leasehold interest appear near the top,

and at the bottom we get to the ‘owner ’

as the liable party. The ‘owner’ is defined

in s6(5) as a person having a material interest in the premises. A material interest

is a freehold interest, or a leasehold interest

granted for a term of six months or more.

The MacAttram case would have particular

relevance in circumstances where a landlord,

perhaps mindful of being charged council

tax otherwise, allows a periodic tenancy to

arise on an unoccupied property.

The landlord, Ms MacAttram, had rented

a property to the London Borough of Camden. They had used it to house homeless

obligation to pay council tax reverted to the

landlord, as the council would not have had a

material interest.

The High Court went on to find against

the idea of the liability switching back and

forth depending on the length of the periodic

tenancy, but did agree that if the periods had

been six monthly, then a different decision

might have been made.

The appellant, Ms MacAttram, had also

argued that the posting of the keys did not constitute a surrender, but the High Court

found that the surrender was effective,

because the landlord had accepted it by

her conduct.

Thus the High Court upheld the decision

of the Valuation Tribunal, and the appeal

was dismissed.

Deborah Davies is on hand to showcase a key decision focusing on landlord and tenant issues and their effect on council tax liability

“ However, the VT also determined that the periodic tenancy did not constitute a material interest under the above definition, as it was a leasehold interest for less than six months.”

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

You can subscribe to Jobs online under the following price tiers:

Annual subscription . . . . . . . £1000

6 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £600

3 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £400

Have just one job to advertise? Rather than take out a subscription you can simply register online and pay just £200 per job.

To subscribe to the service please go to http:/www .irrv .org .uk/jobs

Jobs Online

If you require further information please contact membership@irrv .org .uk or phone 020 7691 8996

new horizons new opportunities

Miscellaneous Income Recovery through the County Court, London, 7 FebruaryThe aims of the course are:• To provide you with a detailed insight into collection and

enforcement of sundry related debts.• To help you understand the legal requirements and adopt

best practice for different debt streams.• To give you pointers geared to service improvements and

increasing collections.• To help you understand the legal process of enforcing

a County Court Judgment.• To help you understand the importance, and use of, the

telephone in debt collection.• To equip you with key skills in assertiveness, negotiation

and listening.• To help you deal with callers in a professional, efficient

manner.

We also offer bespoke in-house training on the topics of your choosing. Great rates guaranteed.

Please check www.irrv.net/trainingdays regularly as courses are added continually.

Insolvency and the Revenues Collection Process, London, 13 FebruaryIn a time where formal insolvencies are at a historically high level and where such insolvencies impact disproportionately upon the collection activities of local authorities it has never been more important that revenues professionals understand the insolvency regime and its workings. There has been an increasing prevalence of schemes and behaviours in the operation of insolvency procedures that have led to avoidance of liability for NNDR and CT and this course examines, as one of its modules, both this problem and the potential to resolve it. The course is designed in order that delegates will be better armed to protect their authority’s position and promote the maximisation of returns in insolvency proceedings.

• Insolvency and the formal regimes in England and Wales.• Enforcement Rights and Obligations in Insolvency.• Anti-Avoidance Strategies for Recovery Professionals.• The Appropriate Use of Insolvency as an Enforcement

Remedy.

IRRV Training

Please send your queries to conference@irrv.org.uk or telephone 020 7691 8987

INSI

GH

T JA

NU

AR

Y/FE

BRU

AR

Y 2

013

17

Maureen Neave IRRV (Tech) MBA is Benefit

Manager with Vale of Glamorgan Council,

and an IRRV Council member

Benefits bulletin

more households stand to lose out under its flagship welfare scheme than previously thought. In a revised impact assessment report recently published, the DWP have stated that under Universal Credit (UC), roughly 2.8 million households will get less in benefits than first thought, compared to 2 million in October 2011.

The majority of losers will be full time and part time workers, and lone parents will also be affected. They will all receive lower entitlements under UC than they would under the current system, and they will principally be those who currently receive a large amount of support through working tax credits. Also, working families on low income lose out on other benefits, such as free school meals, because they are in work. Obviously the decision to increase benefits below the rate of inflation will impact on UC. Therefore, we will see the income of the poorest fall yet again, when they are already struggling to make ends meet. There are now more adults in poverty from working households than from homes where no-one works. This goes against what the government keep reminding us all of – that a lack of work is the key to Britain’s poverty problems, and that benefit reforms are designed to ensure those in employment will not be worse off than those out of work. Liam Byrne, the Shadow Works and Pensions Secretary, told the Independent that “the report lays bare the scale of working poverty”, and added, “Britain’s ‘strivers’ are getting ‘screwed’”.

Following on from my last article, it was confirmed by Lord Freud at the IRRV Annual Conference in October that UC will go ahead next year, with the pilots kicking off in April 2013, and national roll out in October 2013. However, he did

Things are looking bleak at the moment...

As I write this article things are looking quite bleak in Wales, and I don’t mean the weather! The Welsh Government, at their last full meeting of the year, failed to temporarily set aside rules so that the new regulations for the council tax reduction scheme for all of Wales could be rushed through. Opposition Assembly Members criticised ministers for tabling more than 300 pages of regulations late, just minutes before they were due to be debated, not giving them enough time to read the documents. They also accused the Welsh Labour government of treating the Assembly and the public with ‘contempt’, and ‘being negligent in their duty’. Another meeting has been scheduled for the Christmas recess, so hopefully they will come to an agreement.

In the autumn statement, the Chancellor unveiled changes that will cut a further £3.8 billion from the benefit bill. This will be done by limiting the annual benefit increases to one per cent for each of the next three years, rather than increasing them in line with inflation, which will include tax credits as well as social security benefits. A number of critics have said this is a move that will lead to benefits being eroded over time, as they fall behind the cost of living. It has been reported that the government has admitted that 800,000

state this would be for new JSA claims for single people, as the government would be taking the soft approach. After he finished speaking, I clarified this with him, and he stated it would be for single people that had no housing element included at the start, as the government was not going to rush into doing everything at once. I also confirmed that this was correct with the DWP, and they said that the housing element will not be included to start with, but once someone was receiving UC they would continue to receive it, irrespective that at a later date the housing element was claimed. In other words, ‘the lobster pot effect’ – once they are caught, they will not get away!

Further on the UC front, Whitehall sources have claimed that two civil servants working on the UC project have been replaced, and a third, the most senior civil servant overseeing the project, is on sick leave. We have been informed that Julia Sweeney has moved on to another role in DWP, and Bill Hern is taking over her role as the Head of Housing Delivery. I leave you to contemplate all this!

As the welfare reforms bite, I thought I would add a bit of trivia to end on a lighter note. For those of you that didn’t attend the IRRV Annual Conference, Lord Freud comes from my neck of the woods – Wales. Please don’t hold this against the Welsh, but I would add that he moved to England when he was six years old, so I think there should be a bit of give and take on this one!

...says Maureen Neave, and it’s not just the weather!

“ It has been reported that the government has admitted that 800,000 more households stand to lose out under its flagship welfare scheme than previously thought.”

18

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

Cover story

we do a complete review. We knew it should

be done, so what did we do? I did consider

hiding under my desk and hoping it would

go away, but that didn’t work, so we needed

another plan to review 20,000 plus SPDs.

With this in mind, a short walk around the

IRRV Annual Conference exhibition

brought me in touch with a company who

said they could help me with my problem

and willing to discuss possible solutions. A

discussion with my Chief Officer and other

revenues and benefits service heads at the

North and Mid Wales Revenues Practitioners

Group concluded that this was possible, with

benefits for all authorities.

Why we did itWith eight authorities now involved, there

were over 135,000 SPDs to be reviewed, and

sending out that number of reviews would be

a massive task, never mind the phone calls,

letters and other enquiries we would get from

such an exercise. As mentioned before there

had been staff cuts, or should I say posts that

had not been filled when someone left. We

needed help!

What were the processes?Our first task was to get some intelligence on

what and who was out there to help with such

a big project. Discussions took place with a

number of market players in the field, so that

we could understand what was available in the

market place.

What were the problems?The problems were as mentioned before lack

of staff, lack of available resources, and lack

Wales’s ‘magnificent eight’!

Three years ago, after a period of years of new

systems, system changes (including changes

from the revenues and benefits Fujitsu

system to Pericles and then to Northgate),

the introduction of a document management

system, e-benefits and various other changes,

time has been limited, with staff being

taken from their normal day job to work on

these projects. Inevitably, with years of cuts

and savings, some work is curtailed or not

completed at all. The review of single person discounts (SPDs) was one of these victims,

where only parts were reviewed each year –

what was needed was a complete review.

This was an excellent idea – let’s review all

the SPDs we hold on our system. But with the

savings that all councils had to make at that

time, and staff not being replaced when they

left, the resources were not there to complete

the process.

So we were left stuck in the middle, with

internal and external auditors requesting that

of time, albeit with an audit requirement to

review all our SPDs.

What were the benefits?• evidence from previous reviews completed

by these companies appeared to show

that there was something like 2% to 4% in

savings to be made

• our staff could get on with the normal ‘day

job’ of collecting council tax

• the cost of the review was paid for out of

the savings

• an initial view of doing the review in-house

was that it would cost us as much as

collaborating with a specialist company

• working in collaboration as a group meant

that we had one tender, which we all had

input into drawing up. However, I must

thank a couple of the midland authorities

who put their SPD tender document on

the internet – this was a very helpful

starting point

• we had one procurement for the contract,

which was done electronically through Buy

for Wales

• one council produced the contract

• one council did all the translation for the

letters and documents into Welsh.

• we had a dedicated person in the Northgate

contact centre who could speak Welsh to

those citizens who wanted help in their

own language

• all the calls and letters that were received as

a result of the canvas were handled by the

Northgate centre

• we had one point of contact in Northgate to

obtain statistics and deal with any queries.

In an Insight revenues special, Wales’s ‘magnificent eight’ share £1million savings in their groundbreaking single person discount review. In the second part, ‘Jaws – the reunion!’, Andrew Burton sees a few parallels emerging between council tax support, poll tax, and a classic from the seventies!

Phil Round explains the background to the £1million savings in their groundbreaking single person discount review

19

Who did we work with?The winning contract was awarded to

Northgate Information Solutions, who

worked with Experian on comparing our SPD

data with all their records.

What did we do?There was a considerable amount of work

involved in agreeing the tender document and

selecting the winning bidder. After that stage,

we were left with extracting the data from our

system and loading it on in a secure site. We

were then tasked with removing the discount

from our system for all those households

which admitted they were no longer entitled

to a SPD.

The process also included checking all cases

where there had been no response to the

canvas, or where reminders had been issued.

This was probably the most difficult task, as it

meant checking about 400 cases per authority,

trying to find why there was no response.

After checking the ‘non-responders’, about

25% were removed, on top of those that had

admitted that they were no longer entitled.

What was surprising was the very limited

number of people who appealed against the

decision to remove their SPD, and no-one

went to the Valuation Tribunal.

What were the outcomes?The eight authorities involved in the

collaboration removed a total of £1million

in SPD.

All single person discounts were reviewed

using the best possible information that

was available to use. Most of the work was

completed by Northgate and Experian, taking

the pressure off our staff, and allowing them

for most of the time to get on with the normal

day to day work of collecting council tax.

In the past, most of the councils carried

out periodic ‘paper based’ reviews by writing

to taxpayers to establish that the discounts

were correct. The old methods were resource

intensive and costly, especially when

considering postal costs. The use of more

innovative ways of conducting these reviews

allowed the councils to verify taxpayers’

entitlement with the need, in most cases, of

writing to customers. The new ways of working

also helped to identify those taxpayers who

had received SPD for several years, but had

previously gone undetected using the old

review methods.

We now have a tender document and

selection process that can be used again

by any of the eight authorities without a great

deal of work.

What was learntWe learnt:

• that where the benefits are clearly shown to

exist, then collaboration will work

• that working together produced a tender

document that all agreed, and one that can be

used again at short notice

• that perhaps there is a need for a bank of

documents which authorities could draw on,

instead of reinventing the wheel each time

• that working together saved us all doing the

same thing eight times over

• that the letters issued and all communications

relating to this review were standard across the

whole of North and Mid Wales

• that we should have contacted the Wales Audit

Office before the exercise started to gain an

exemption from the NFI SPD review, as when it

was completed they still insisted that we had to

complete their review as well!

• that the use of credit reference data to analyse

household composition provided the councils

with reliable information that allowed them,

for the first time, the opportunity to specifically

target those households who were suspected of

fraudulently claiming single person discount.

This project was made possible by a lot of hard

work not only from the people who worked on

the tender and selection process, but all the

staff in each of the authorities who removed

the discounts from their systems. Thanks to all

those involved in Flintshire County Council, Denbighshire County Council, Conwy County Borough Council, Gwynedd Council, Isle of Anglesey County Council, Ceredigion County Council, Powys County Council and

Wrexham County Borough Council.

“ We were then tasked with removing the discount from our system for all those households which admitted they were no longer entitled to a SPD.”

INSI

GH

T JA

NU

AR

Y/FE

BRU

AR

Y 2

013

“ The new ways of working also helped to identify those taxpayers who had received SPD for several years, but had previously gone undetected using the old review methods.”

Phil Round BSc Hons IRRV (Hons) is

Revenues and Benefits Manager with

Wrexham County Borough Council

20

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

Our values, professionalism, vision, vast

experience and competency have made a

significant difference.

We have evolved beyond recognition

since council delivery plans for poll tax were

laid in 1988. We changed and delivered the

IT, mastered the legislative requirements,

focussed on the staff training, and we

championed widespread communication about

the change. You never lose these core sets.

This explains why council tax implementation

in 1992/3 was less of a challenge than it

might have been. The same goes for the

2012/13 changes.

Since 1990, Institute members have

grasped the principles of best value, target setting and performance management, cutting edge IT, ‘more for less’ lean efficiency, customer centric approaches,

debt reduction, anti-poverty strategies, and

circles of need with our partners such as

CAB and credit unions. In the last 20 years, we

have moved faster than Bolt!

The members of the Institute are ‘can do’

– we make things work. Whatever has to

be implemented is done professionally and

to very high standards. Of course, the risks

are there, and a good deal of these could

have been avoided by better central

government planning.

This made me think of Barchester, the

made up council used as an example in

council tax and poll tax pre-implementation

practice notes prepared by the Department of

the Environment. These practice notes covered

issues like billing and collection, recovery

and enforcement, tax base and exemptions.

This was primarily technical guidance on

the emerging legislation with references

to Barchester Council. Barchester helped

me to set our first council tax base. I have

really missed these gems of guidance whilst

preparing for the new order. If we had them

now, some 300 councils might not be setting

their tax bases in different ways, or does it just

The ill-fated poll tax has been topical of

late. Our Institute Chief Executive did a

splendid panellist slot on Radio 4’s ‘Reunion’

programme last year. He wasn’t the first to

point out that the impact of welfare reform,

including the new council tax support system, might signal a return of the days we

hoped to never see again.

I suppose there are similarities. Council

tax support will result (under many local

schemes) in a minimum 20% liability from

non-working households who, in turn, may

be unable to muster such funds. There may

be an option to collect that from standard

DWP entitlements. Like the poll tax, there

is a transitional scheme stuck on at the last

minute, and the local scheme concept may

only last three years. So there you have it! It ’s

a bit like poll tax, but hopefully without the

controversy, hostility and unfairness.

The good news is that the new council tax

support (or reduction) will visit its unfairness

on less households than the poll tax. Better

still, those who are clearly unable to pay will

receive support that was simply unavailable

back in the day. In the present, we strive to

fully support our customers, and that reflects

development in the reach of our Institute.

seem like that?

What we had in 2012 were statements of

intent of what regulations might say, but they

aren’t ready until consultation is exhausted.

The consultation phases on various changes,

be it council tax support, discounts for empty

property, or parishes and the tax base, have

been endless.

This may seem the best way of sharing the

draft ideas of the decision makers so that we

can influence change, but are we sure that lots

of plans did change as a result of consultation?

Of course not!

In November 2012, for example, 242

organisations out of 258 agreed to simplify

the 2013/14 parish tax base by excluding the

new support discounts from their calculations.

Incredibly, the parishes lost that one, and as

I write this, suspicions will reach fever pitch

that the parishes will be paying for the ten per

cent cut. That’s impossibly not the case, but

try explaining it to the local council clerk when

he’s off on one. Some believe that precepting

has finished forever. Work that one out.

Of course, a clear example of the

government not quite following the

consultation responses is to do with them

ignoring the advice of the professionals

regarding council tax support, just as

happened in the run up to poll tax. This is why

we now have a transitional fund of £100million

for council tax support, because too much was

to be asked of low income households.

Some good things have come out of the

work we have done to implement the new

council tax support scheme. It has brought

the elected member much closer to the

work we do in revenues and benefits. Under

poll tax, they sent us away to administer it.

Council leaders have been switched on for

months, and they understand the implications.

Councillors have had to face some difficult

decisions. Taking more money from low

income groups and asking empty property

owners to part-subsidise the benefit cut is not

“ Of course, the risks are there, and a good deal of these could have been avoided by better central government planning.”

Andrew Burton sees a few parallels emerging between council tax support, poll tax, and a classic from the seventies!

Jaws – the reunion!

Cover story

21

easy. The trust between elected members,

revenues officers and senior managers has

become as solid as the rock and hard place

that the elected members find themselves in.

We have also spotted some new dynamics

by stirring up the

100% council tax

benefit claims.

Passported accounts were

largely untroubled

for years – bottom

line zero. In

the new order,

it has become

important to gather

information about

bedroom tax,

and separately,

disability, for the

local scheme’s

‘vulnerable’

classification.

Bedroom tax

mailings highlighted

potential cases for

council tax disability

band reductions,

due to an extra

room(s) used by

a disabled person.

Also, it became

important to

check passported

accounts to make

sure that the council

tax benefit to single

person discount profile was

correct. A passported council tax

account can hide matters that need

to be put right now. When you make

plans to stop a zero liability, it ’s amazing what

you can find out. Good job it is in our nature

to help – we will all be doing the ‘online’ Universal Credit tutorial next!

What worries me is the risk. Unlike previous

change, council tax support expects us, the

practitioners, to devise the council’s local

scheme as a basis to pay out £millions. Some

200 plus councils who are not adopting the

default scheme have to agree on a complex

set of rules which is a hybrid of locally

defined and default regulations.

We never had to think

about the legislative

framework

for any previous change. We do now – the

potential for a show stopping appeal from

forensic type readers of 200 page documents

is only a short while away, somewhere.

If that somewhere is here at Bassetlaw, then

my last hoorah will be a final contribution

to the direct debit improvement journey

that we have all made. Council tax collection is a worry, as there will be more

liability in 2013 from the changes mentioned.

We need to collect as much local taxation as

possible, cheaply.

I recall the scene in Jaws where Chief

Brody tells Quinn that he’s going to need a bigger boat. We are all going to need a

bigger direct debit campaign in 2013!

INSI

GH

T JA

NU

AR

Y/FE

BRU

AR

Y 2

013

Jaws – the reunion!

“ Taking more money from low income groups and asking empty property owners to part-subsidise the benefit cut is not easy.”

Andrew Burton IRRV (Hons) is Head of

Revenues, Benefits and Customer Services

with Bassetlaw District Council

Advert

We are now only a few months away from some of themost radical changes to the welfare system we have ever seen.2013 is going to be a very difficult year for many who are alreadyclassed as vulnerable.

These will be your customers who will perhaps enterfor the first time the environment of Council Tax Recoveryand Enforcement.

ARE YOU READY for this? Do you have a STRATEGY?

At Rossendales we have a strategy, it involves the teamshortlisted for Excellence in Social Inclusion and Innovation atthe IRRV Performance Awards in October 2012.

To find out more, contact Dave Chapman on 07834 044585 or email dchapman@rossendales.com

Welfare reform – are you ready?

Copy

INSI

GH

T JA

NU

AR

Y/FE

BRU

AR

Y 2

013

23

Professor Cleverley

liability order. The limitation only applies

if a committal warrant has been issued, or

the court has fixed a term of imprisonment,

postponed on conditions. If an authority is

simply pursuing committal but the court has

not actually made a decision on committal, the

authority can halt the proceedings and switch

to another enforcement action.

Whilst looking at this issue of enforcement

restriction, we should note the different rule

relating to deductions from state welfare

benefits, described in the regulation as

“deductions from allowances”. Regulation

52(2) (b) says that if there are deductions

from allowances, that is from the principal

state welfare benefits, such as income

support and JSA, etc., no other steps may be

taken. The words “under it” are not used in

52(2)(b), so the restriction on enforcement

remedies where there are deductions from

state welfare benefits means that, whilst

deductions are being made, no other action

can be taken at all against that person on any

other liability order. The regulations also state

at 52 (2A) that no application for deductions

from state welfare benefits can be made whilst

any enforcement action is being taken against

the debtor concerned. This does mean that

although you can use the bailiff or attachment

of earnings, etc, for your current year’s debt,

attachment of welfare benefits would not be

lawful whilst you are still enforcing the arrears

by other methods, such as committal.

To sum up, the effect of regulation 52 is

that only one remedy can be taken at a time

in respect of any liability order, but except for

IS/JSA deductions, this applies only in respect

of any particular liability order. Otherwise,

different remedies can be used at the same

time for different liability orders. You are free

to take alternate enforcement action against

your debtor for the current year, and are not

prevented by his arrangement for paying last

year in response to your committal action.

The Prof

Dear Professor Cleverley,Our council is taking committal action for

council tax against a council tax payer.

Following three hearings, the magistrates

issued a suspended committal order on a

promise by the debtor to pay monthly, which

the taxpayer is now doing. The debt relates

to 2010/11 and 2011/12, that is last year and

the year before. The taxpayer also owes this

year’s council tax and we obtained a liability

order for the current year a month or so ago.

Does the committal action stop us taking any

other steps to recover this year’s debt until the

committal debt is cleared?

Gerald Hardman

My dear Mr Hardman, It is reg.52 (1) which says that where a

warrant of commitment is issued, or a term

of imprisonment is fixed, no further steps

may be taken in relation to the relevant

amount mentioned in reg.47. The effect of

this is to place a limitation against that liability

order only which by a normal reading of

English means that action on other liability

orders is not prevented. Strictly speaking,

your magistrates have not suspended the

committal order, but they have fixed a term

of imprisonment and postponed issue of the

order, which you can apply for at any time.

Regulation 52 goes on to say that the

various enforcement remedies authorised by

a liability order may not be used in relation

to a person against whom a liability order

has been made while steps by another of

those remedies is being taken under it. So,

the restriction is limited only to the particular

liability order, because the provision uses the

words “under it”.

The result of all this is that action by other

enforcement remedies is stopped for the

amount due under liability orders in respect

of which the committal action has been

taken, but it has no effect on your latest

Our learned Professor is back with more questions and answers

Professor Cleverley is a pseudonym.

He is a qualified member of the

IRRV with over 40 years’ experience

of revenues in administration and

teaching. The problems published

have all been submitted by members

of the profession, albeit the names

have been ‘anonymised.’ The

Professor’s replies are simply his

opinion and should be treated as

such. Questions are invited, but it is

only possible to answer those that

are selected for publication. Insight

regrets that it is unable to enter into

private correspondence.

The Prof explains the effects of Regulation 52

Dear Professor Cleverley,Our new Visiting Officer asked me a question

about completion notices, and I wonder if I

gave the right answer. Does a completion

notice on a new office building cover any

new hereditaments created if different floors

are let separately? I told her we normally

issue one completion notice when the

property is first built, and then deal with all

properties created in the normal way, using

the effective date in the List to calculate any

charge free period.

Sincerely, Nick Basayake

Hello Nick,Your completion notice practice is correct. A

notice covers the whole building, regardless

of how the building comes to be occupied.

This was tested in the case of Brent London

Borough Council v Ladbrokes Rentals Ltd

(1981). The case went to the Court of Appeal,

which decided that a single completion notice

on an office building was sufficient for all

the subsequent hereditaments that may be

created if the building is let in parts. The court

made the point that the legislation (the words

that are now in Schedule 4A LGFA 1988) states

that a completion notice must be served on a

‘building’, but does not say that a completion

notice must be served in respect of each

‘hereditament’. The effect of the decision is

that there is no requirement for additional

notices as and when separate hereditaments

are created, and there is only one three month

(or six month) rate free period.

The Prof

24

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

Valuation matters

litigation. Set out below are a number of

key features which typically differentiate

mediation from litigation. I deliberately avoid

characterising the differences as advantages

and disadvantages as what is advantageous

may vary depending on the circumstances.

Cost and timingMediation is typically a cheaper and more expeditious way of resolving a dispute

than litigation. As we will consider below,

however, this is not always the case. Timing of mediation will generally be at the parties’

convenience rather than specified by the court.

FlexibilityLitigation is, by its nature, governed by a

rigid structure and defined range of possible

results/remedies. Mediation on the other hand

allows for a fluidity of structure, as well as

any sort of final settlement the parties may

agree on. The absence of formality and rights

of audience protocol within mediation tends

to give the client a more central role than they

have in litigation.

ConfidentialityGenerally speaking, courts and tribunals

are open to the public, and what goes on

in them is a matter of public record. Many

judicial decisions have the power of binding

precedent. By contrast, mediation is carried

out in private and without prejudice.

The past two decades have seen

tremendous growth in the use of mediation.

A particular catalyst has been the way the

Civil Procedure Rules encourage litigants to

consider ADR.

The present rating system – an overviewMany readers will of course already know that

there are a number of institutions and bodies

involved in the non-domestic rating system.

As with any tax, policy and rules are dictated

by central government, currently falling within

Mediation in non-domestic rates

IntroductionNon-domestic rating is one of the oldest and

best established forms of taxation in the UK.

Tracing its routes back to the Poor Relief Act of 1601, HM Treasury forecasts over £26

billion in business rates receipts during the

current financial year. Parties to the rating

system – and their professional advisors –

regularly find themselves involved in various

sorts of disputes. This article considers the

role mediation could play as an alternative

means of dispute resolution in this arena.

Whilst the structure of the rating system

and the rules it operates in are broadly

similar throughout the UK, we will focus on

the framework and institutions of rating in

England specifically.

MediationMediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). CEDR, a leading

independent commercial ADR provider,

defines mediation as ”a flexible process

conducted confidentially in which a neutral

person actively assists parties in working

towards a negotiated agreement of a dispute

or difference, with the parties in ultimate

control of the decision to settle and the terms

of resolution.” As this definition suggests, the

mediation process is most unlike orthodox

the Communities and Local Government (CLG) portfolio. The day to day operation of

the system uses a model that might best be

called two-pronged, with valuation issues the

responsibility of the Valuation Office Agency

(VOA), an executive agency of HM Revenue &

Customs, and the billing and collection of

rates being carried out by local authorities

(referred to in this piece as billing authorities,

or BAs). This structure is graphically represented

in the following diagram:

Disputes frequently arise between ratepayers

and both the VOA and BAs. If not settled by

negotiation, valuation disputes involving the

VOA will proceed initially to the Valuation Tribunal for England (VTE). Disputes

between BAs and ratepayers on billing

matters will in the first instance come before

a magistrates’ court. There are routes to

further appeal – the decisions of both of these

bodies to superior courts and tribunals – but

we will limit ourselves to a discussion of the

initial stages described above.

Valuation disputesDisputes in this arena will usually revolve

around an entry made by the VOA in the

rating list. The ratepayer (or its representative)

may, for example, challenge the level of value

applied, a particular aspect of the valuation,

or even whether the property ought to appear

in the rating list at all. This challenge may be

made informally, but to have legal force a

“ Many judicial decisions have the power of binding precedent. By contrast, mediation is carried out in private and without prejudice.”

– could it be a new way forward, questions Simon Wanderer

CLG

VOAValuation

BAsBilling/Collection

INSI

GH

T JA

NU

AR

Y/FE

BRU

AR

Y 2

013

25

formal ‘proposal to alter the rating list ’ must

be lodged, and it is in this form that the vast

majority of disputes between ratepayers and

the VOA start out.

In the event no negotiated settlement is

agreed, details of the proposal will be passed

over to the VTE, at which point it is relabelled

an appeal and a hearing scheduled. In most

cases the hearing will take less than one day,

with a length of around two hours not atypical

for a straightforward case. The hearing is

before a panel of three lay volunteers, assisted

by an employed clerk on points of procedure

and law. Each party gets an opportunity to

put forward its case, present evidence and

cross examine witnesses and the other side.

The panel will often ask its own questions of

the parties. Following the hearing, the panel

usually meets in private and makes a decision,

which is written up and sent to the parties in

the next month.

We now consider the arguments for

using mediation to resolve some rating valuation disputes.

In my view, one of the biggest problems

with the current VTE system is what might

be referred to as a power imbalance,

particularly in cases where ratepayers are

unrepresented. For Valuation Officers,

attending VTE hearings is a regular event. For

members of the public, on the other hand, this

can be a stressful and intimidating experience,

meaning that parties do not present their

case in its best light. The less formal and

adversarial atmosphere of a mediation could

go some way to addressing this imbalance.

There are, however, a number of likely

problems with the use of mediation in this

context, making its adoption highly problematic.

The present VTE system is entirely free to use, both in the sense that there are no

application fees, and that the tribunal has now

power to award costs. This would, therefore,

be one of the unusual instances where

mediation is a more costly alternative.

The VOA as a statutory body is tasked with

maintaining a correct rating list. For this reason

it has a tendency to stick to its principles, and

is unlikely to wish to compromise and settle

disputes on the basis of expedience in the way

commercial litigants might.

The idea of the confidential and without

prejudice nature of mediation would be

very hard to reconcile with the fact that any

settlement would have to end up appearing in

some form on the rating list, a public document,

and would then potentially fall to be used as

precedent or a comparable in other valuations.

Billing disputesWhere a ratepayer disputes the principle or

quantum of a rates bill, this can be taken up

with the BA involved, but there is no formal

process whereby the ratepayer can instigate

a challenge to the bill. The genesis of a

legal dispute in this situation would be the

ratepayer refusing to pay the demand and any

reminders, at which point the ratepayer will be

summonsed to magistrates’ court to defend

the BA’s application for a liability order.

A number of commentators have expressed

their concerns that the existing state of affairs

is unsatisfactory. We now turn to consider

some of these criticisms, and discuss whether

mediation may offer a useful alternative.

Ratepayer passivityAs indicated above, in any legal challenge

to a rates bill, the ratepayer must be initially

passive and wait for a summons. Many

view this as less than ideal, as a ratepayer

with a legitimate challenge is unable to take

the initiative and advance its cause. It is also

deprived of the certainty of a decision one

Simon Wanderer BSc (Hons) IRRV (Hons)

MRICS is an Accredited Mediator and Managing

Director of Simon Alexander Consulting, a

surveying practice specialising in rating and

valuation. Contact him on

sw@simonalex.co.uk

“ Many view this as less than ideal, as a ratepayer with a legitimate challenge is unable to take the initiative and advance its cause.”

way or the other until such time as the BA

instigates proceedings. There are a number of

ways this could be addressed, introducing the

option of ratepayer-instigated mediation

as a pre-court stage as part of the solution.

SpecialisationWhen a rating liability case reaches

magistrates’ court, it is usually heard before

a lay bench, that deals with a great range

of cases, encompassing motoring offences,

burglary and TV licensing to name a few.

Rating cases are relatively uncommon,

and can involve complicated issues, leading

many practitioners to question the quality

of decisions reached. The use of a specialist

mediator as a preliminary stage may well

be a good way of introducing more in depth

knowledge to the process.

On the other hand, it is not the role of

the mediator to make a decision or finding,

meaning that his or her professional

knowledge of business rates may end up being

of little consequence.

CompromiseOne of the strongest arguments for the use of

mediation is that billing disputes are frequently

a complex mix of issues – facts, the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. There are,

by contrast, only two options available to the

court in making its decision – liable or not liable. There is a clear mismatch between the

multifaceted nature of the dispute and a black

and white outcome. A mediated settlement

could be more nuanced and potentially more

satisfactory to both parties. Examples may

include an agreement to partial liability,

an extended payment period, or even

a ratepayer offering some form of public service in lieu of a rates payment.

ConclusionWe have briefly evaluated the contribution

mediation may play in non-domestic rating

disputes. Mediation would appear a more

useful option where the dispute relates to

billing rather than valuation. A more detailed

study including a limited trial of mediation in

such cases would be an appropriate next step.

26

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

LGA focus

But the decrease in RSG has come about

because the government has increased the

local share by RPI – that is 3.1%. So the

increase in the local share in 2013/14 due to

RPI is to be taken by the government and used

to cut the amount of Revenue Support Grant

by 17%. One ask going forward is that the

government now needs to indicate that this

is a one-off, and that further increases in the

local share will not be used to cut RSG over

and above the reductions in SUFA.

And so to local council tax support. As I indicated above, there was also a bit of

good news in the grant allocations. Following

extensive contacts between the LGA and

DWP and DCLG, the government updated

the methodology for working out how much

funding support to give – an additional

£31m was put into SUFA, due to the forecast

being updated from the Budget 2012 to the

Autumn Statement 2012. And the government

announced £33.5m new burdens money, but

refused to put in any more money for the

additional costs of enforcement.So after extensive consultation, the

introduction of local council tax support is

nearly upon us. There does not seem to be

one clear picture emerging. Some councils

will take the government’s transitional grant

– even though it is only for one year and will

not cover the whole of the gap. Councils are

also using the new flexibilities for charging

for empty and second properties, although

again it remains to be seen how collection

rates hold up, and whether there will a rush of

applications to the Valuation Office Agency to

take dwellings which are having major repairs

There does not seem to be one clear picture emerging

The local government finance settlement this year was the latest on record, finally making

its appearance on 19th December. That is one

record which no-one is in a hurry to see broken.

The year starting April 2013 was supposed

to be the ‘flat ’ year, with no reductions for

the main local government services. But that

is not quite how it turned out. The reduction

for the ‘start-up funding allocation’ (SUFA)

– one of those new acronyms with which we

have now to become familiar – was 3.9%.

That included a reduction made at the 2011

Autumn Statement and various top-slices.

At one stage, the position looked worse, as

DCLG originally consulted on taking out no

less than £2bn for the New Homes Bonus.

The final sum, including a grant giving back

the surplus not needed, is £411m. It originally

wanted to top-slice £245m for the safety

net – this was reduced to £25m. And as a

result of a hard fought battle, the top-slice for

academies’ central services was £180m less

than consulted upon. In addition, there was

more money for local council tax support, of

which more below.

But 2014-15 is much worse – not only

the additional 2% cut announced in the

2012 Autumn Statement, which the LGA

characterised as unsustainable, but a tougher

original 2010 settlement means that the

overall decrease in the SUFA is 8.6%. But that

hides a cut in Revenue Support Grant of

17%. Revenue Support Grant is now the grant

which is mainly paid for out of the central

share of business rates. The logic of business

rates retention is that the increase in the local

share should be kept within local government.

out of the list altogether.

The overall picture will only become

clear in 2014/15, and the LGA will wish to

monitor carefully how local schemes develop.

One point that we are trying at the time of

writing to clarify urgently is local council

tax support funding for 2014/15. The DCLG

has not included a separate line for it in

the documentation published along with

the settlement, leaving councils with the

expectation that support is falling in line with

the start up funding allocation – by 8.6%. But

the material published by the Office for Budget

Responsibility at the time of the 2012 Autumn

Statement suggested that the same amount of

support would be given – in technical terms a

transfer from Annually Managed Expenditure

(AME) to Departmental Expenditure Limits

(DEL) – so support ought to be flat. This is

important as councils plan the second year of

their schemes.

“ And the government announced £33.5m new burdens money, but refused to put in any more money for the additional costs of enforcement.”

The battle for fair funding goes on, assures the Local Government Association’s Mike Heiser

Mike Heiser is Senior Advisor (Finance) with

the Local Government Association

INSI

GH

T JA

NU

AR

Y/FE

BRU

AR

Y 2

013

27

Wayne Norfolk is with the DWP LADS Delivery

Team Project. Contact him on wayne.

norfolk@dwp.gsi.gov.uk. All Housing Benefit

communications that have previously been

issued are available at http://www.dwp.gov.

uk/local-authority-staff/housing-benefit/

Welfare reform

benefits of batch processing as many of

the ATLAS notifications as possible, and

gives examples of where local authorities

have successfully done so. The HB Direct

publications referred to also draw attention

to the batch processing issue. I acknowledge

that not all sites have the capability to

batch process, but we are aware this will be

available early in the New Year for those local

authorities without that ability now. I hope that

you will consider adopting batch processing

and the benefits it can bring.

You will all be aware of the duplication of data between ATLAS notifications and

Electronic Transfers of Data (ETDs). We

are working on removing this duplication for

April 2013 or soon af ter. In the meantime,

the guidance suggests the best way of

handling ATLAS/ETD notifications, to

minimise double handling.

The guidance also emphasises that there

is generally no need to check the ATLAS

data against the Customer Information System (CIS), because the data on the ATLAS

notification is drawn directly from CIS – it is

not changed or manipulated in any way by

the ATLAS system. Our experience shows

that where a local authority is up to date with

their ATLAS notifications, there is no need to

check CIS as the data has always been shown

to match.

I regularly see reports that state there are

problems with the data provided by ATLAS.

However, this is not borne out by the number

of, or type of, incidents that are being reported

to the LA Support Team. I would urge all

of you to report any mis-matches of data/

data errors to the LA Support Team. Only by

reporting issues can we investigate and, where

possible, implement fixes and enhancements.

The LADS Delivery Team (as they

now are) convenes a sub-group of the

Practitioners’ Operational Group, which

offers support and guidance to the project

team when developing the solutions we

It pays offto pay attentionto ATLAS

As we approach the end of yet another year

that has seen further changes to the way the

Department shares data with local authorities,

it provides an opportunity to reflect on the past

12 months. From the reports that have been

received from local authorities, it is clear that

many of you are coping with the Automated Transfer to Local Authority Systems (ATLAS) notifications, while some of you are

finding it difficult to manage the volumes.

We have previously published articles in the

HB Direct newsletter, which is also available

on the housing pages of the DWP website.

In issue 130, we included an item from

South Norfolk and in issue 131 there is a

further item from East Riding, giving a brief

explanation of how they have adapted their

processes and identified best practice to deal

with the ATLAS notifications.

I am aware that several authorities

are experiencing dif ficulties dealing with

the volume of ATLAS notifications. The

volumes being received are broadly in line

with our estimates that were sent out to all

authorities at the star t of each phase of the

ATLAS releases.

Housing Delivery Division has been

working closely with many of you, and

has carried out several visits to individual

authorities, as well as attending LA IT supplier user groups, IRRV in Scotland and regional group meetings of authorities, to identify and

share good practice. A revised version of the

ATLAS Awareness Pack and good practice guidance has been issued, and I hope that

you will take the time to read it.

The guidance draws attention to the

introduce for data sharing. The sub-group

comprises LA representatives, LA IT suppliers and DWP. I would like to take this

opportunity to thank all members for their

invaluable contributions, and look forward to

working with them in the future.

Speaking of the future, the speed of

change continues into 2013, and the ATLAS

infrastructure will be used to transmit

notifications for Personal Independence Payments and Benefit Cap from April 2013.

We will also be using the infrastructure to

support the transmission of Universal Credit data in support of Localised Council Tax Reduction schemes from October 2013.

Please bear in mind that the use of ATLAS

data is mandatory. If any authority is not

using ATLAS, or needs help or assistance in

developing their processing of the ATLAS data,

please contact us as soon as possible.

To help communications between the

Housing Delivery Division, local authorities

and their IT Suppliers, we have introduced

‘Huddle’, which we will continue to roll out

early in the New Year. This will give you the

opportunity to view the existing library of

documentation, including the revised ATLAS

Awareness Pack, as well as to discuss and

share best practice.

This month, Wayne Norfolk of the DWP provides the Local Authority Data Share Delivery team’s summary of the year

“ Our experience shows that where a local authority is up to date with their ATLAS notifications, there is no need to check CIS as the data has always been shown to match.”

28

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

Technology

money. One of the ways in which councils are

adapting to restricted budgets is to develop

new approaches to working methods with

the help of technology. Strategic sourcing,

strategic partnering, joint ventures, shared

staff and even council co-ops have begun

to emerge.

Shared services are a tried and tested

option between neighbouring councils to

create savings, but even that may no longer

be enough, according to Rhian Gladman,

Programme Manager with the Productivity Team at the LGA . “Local government has

borne the brunt of cuts to public spending,”

she says. “Many have worked together to

share Chief Executives, management teams

and services to improve services and release

efficiency savings.

“For those councils who have already shared

services and management, applied systems

thinking and lean processes and improved

their procurement practices, what should they

do next to achieve the savings required? The

need to think and do something completely

fresh is urgent,” she continues.

On the positive side, there are many

intriguing examples emerging of new ways

to deliver services that use a combination of

innovative working methods and web-based

digital technology. Technology by its nature

almost constantly offers improvements to

how we perform tasks, with better user interfaces, super fast mobile technology

and apps to make our lives easier.

A report, ‘Planning into uncertainty ’,

launched in November 2012, consolidated

thinking around the changing shape of service

delivery. The report envisioned four proposed

scenarios, not to predict the future, but to help

Smaller spider,bigger web

Whichever political party or parties hold power

in Westminster, one thing is certain – local government spending is never again likely to

reach the heights of the past decade.

With a 28% reduction in its budget over

five years from 2010, local government has

taken a huge blow from government’s public

expenditure cuts. The Local Government Association (LGA) predicts that this could

even reach 33% or more.

In December, the LGA predicted a ‘crisis’ in

local government services, and said councils

could struggle in future to fund anything

other than social care and waste services.

In response, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles argued to the Communities and Local Government select committee that

the prediction was ‘utterly ludicrous’, and that

councils’ funding cuts have been ‘modest’.

To complicate matters, local authorities are

faced with increasing demands on services

brought on by housing and public health

pressures, the rise in the cost of social care,

and the largest baby boom England has

faced in 40 years, while we continue to live

for longer.

But councils still need to deliver the same

services, at the same level of quality, for less

organisations plan for it.

Published by business process outsourcing

company Capita, one scenario is summarised

as ‘smaller spider, bigger web’, in which small

solutions are ‘joined up by local government’.

Author Jonathan Flowers, Capita’s Local

Government Market Director, tells Insight, “There is potentially a very large role for

web-based technology. It could provide a

simple common platform for a number of

organisations to use. Social media platforms

could be the customer face of smaller

organisations and there will likely be relevance

for cloud-based, simple admin systems.”

Flowers proposes one ‘future’ in which a

mood of ‘greater centralisation’ exists, but in

that case, would innovation be stifled? “In the

hypothetical world I described,” says Flowers,

“I painted a picture where councils, as the

heart of local public services, are targeted on

outcomes, not specifically how they do things.

If the world came to pass in this way there

would be scope for local innovation.”

It is “impossible to say” which of the four

scenarios is the most likely outcome for the

majority of councils, says Flowers, “which is

why the exercise is useful, as you can prepare

for all.”

The report proposes that those councils

which have positioned themselves as national

providers of services will survive. “There is

tremendous diversity in the ambition and

competence of councils. Some are capable of

playing a role on a national stage in ten years

time, if they take appropriate steps today to

establish the alliances and capability they need.”

Alliances may actually be the keystone in

creating new, long term, ways of working.

Staff can’t be expected to do their day

“ One of the ways in which councils are adapting to restricted budgets is to develop new approaches to working methods with the help of technology.”

Combining new ways of working with the use of technology could combat draconian cuts in local government budgets, argues Mel Poluck

INSI

GH

T JA

NU

AR

Y/FE

BRU

AR

Y 2

013

29

job effectively and come up with whizzy,

money-saving concepts as well. Sourcing and

generating new ideas is a challenge.

But there are solutions. ‘Not for profit ’

social enterprise Innovation Unit, which solves

‘social challenges’ for the public sector has

set up Innovation Exchange, to help social

ventures access support and investment and

helps public services commissioners find new

partners and solutions.

And a collaboration between Coventry City Council, Coventry University and

CityCamp Coventry, enables new ideas to be

funnelled to councils from innovators through

‘Simpl Challenges’ events. Each challenge

poses a question addressing a social issue to

which local people, students, innovators and

entrepreneurs respond.

Simpl is the brainchild of FutureGov, a

consultancy-cum-digital-innovation house.

Their mission is to design better, cheaper

public services in tandem with local

government built on three key elements –

modern technology, elegant design and

change management. “Where we see a

system failing, we work to find solutions.

Crucially we do this with people, not to them,”

says their website.

Director and founder Dominic Campbell tells Insight that traditional government

IT projects have been risk averse, and that

you could “draw a line from national policy

papers down to how the technology is built”

providing neat statistics for politicians post

implementation. “Traditional e-government is

not truly transforming the way people work,”

Campbell says. “That was early, trivial stuff.

We’re at a tipping point and we’re about to tip.”

The FutureGov modus operandi is instead

to work alongside the ‘front liners’, to develop

the technology to improve service delivery.

“We’re extremely user focused. It’s not

about management, it’s about supporting

practitioners to do their every day job better.

Too many solutions are built in a room in

Shoreditch rather than out with practitioners.”

Another of FutureGov’s projects is a social

web app, Patchwork , for multi-agency

practitioners working with children and

vulnerable adults to work across organisational

boundaries. It was initially devised in response

to the Baby Peter case, to join up teams

working on cases with the objective of

bringing about earlier intervention. Funded

with investment from NESTA , Nominet Trust and Staffordshire County Council, Patchwork has been used by Brighton

and Hove City, Lichfield District and

Staffordshire County Councils.

Campbell and his team did not apply any

special tricks or complicated methods to kick

off the project. They published a blog post

outlining the idea and waited for responses.

They then went round the country using their

network of senior contacts to “find one who

would say ‘let’s give that a go’ ,” then held

a round table event which 100 front line

workers, web experts, council executives and

politicians attended to thrash out ideas.

There are promising signs that this kind of

innovation is set to continue. Last July, The

LGA Improvement Board awarded six local

authorities funding to create Future Council pilot schemes, showcasing savings under

several criteria. East Riding of Yorkshire

and Scarborough Borough Councils

are developing a shared virtual web-based

customer services centre for example, under

Mel Poluck is a freelance journalist

and copywriter. Contact her on

mel_poluck@yahoo.co.uk

the scheme’s new delivery structures stream.

The results of the whole

initiative will be evaluated by

think tank New Local Government Network (NLGN)

in April. “We all recognise that

local government needs to uncover

radically new ways of delivering

services if it is going to thrive over

the next five years,” says NLGN

Director Simon Parker. “Further

cuts are coming, and the only way

out is to innovate.”

“Future Councils is about backing new

thinking and establishing a strong business

case for new delivery models that can then

be shared more widely across the sector.”

What about post initiative? Will councils

revert back to ingrained, less efficient ways of

working? “The best way to embed a new way

of working is to make sure that it succeeds,”

says Parker. “If these projects deliver better

outcomes and cost savings, then councils will

want to keep using them. In the past it was

easy to dismiss a successful pilot once the

seed funding ran out and return to business

as normal, but that’s a lot harder when the

spending squeeze is tightening,” he says.

With such reduced budgets to deliver vital

front line services, councils may be more

prepared than ever to take a leap of faith in

trying something new. But ask Future Gov’s

Campbell the challenges he faced with

implementing Patchwork and he’ll tell you

straight – “Finding a council brave enough to

try it out! ”

“ The report proposes that those councils which have positioned themselves as national providers of services will survive.”

30

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

LGO update

The report looks at the fees bailiffs charge.

Often explanations of what the fees are for

are unclear – phrases such as ‘enforcement fee 1, enforcement fee 2,’ give no clue to

which part of the relevant fee regulations

are referred to. Sometimes fees are charged

that have no place in the regulations, such as

broken arrangement or tracing fees. On

other occasions, there is a lack of evidence

to show that the actions for which the fee is

charged have really taken place. Or fees are

charged for actions that have not happened

at all – such as when a Head C council tax fee

for attendance to remove goods is charged,

when in fact no goods had been levied on to

be removed. The report recommends councils

ensure their bailiffs only charge costs and fees

shown in the schedules to the regulations,

when giving details of costs and fees refer to

the specific headings in the relevant schedule,

or make clear why an alternative sum has

been charged.

I know that bailiffs feel very strongly that

councils should not put restrictions on what

level of fees they can charge. But a council is

entitled to its own view about how it wishes

its agents to act, and that can include defining

the ‘reasonable’ level of charges, whether

one off or multiple charges, when collecting

several warrants for the same debtor. The

Ombudsman recommends that bailiffs and

councils agree in advance any areas of

possible dispute over interpretation of the

costs and fees.

The report also highlights problems with

levying on vehicles, in particular when

the debtor finds they are being charged for

a levy on a car they have never owned. The

Ombudsman recommends that bailiffs make

proper checks when levying on vehicles,

especially when enforcing costs and fees.

Collecting debts from vulnerable debtors

is always difficult. The bailiff may be the first

person a debtor sees from the council, and

can play a valuable role in identifying such

Bailiffs: a difficultand unloved job

In December 2011, I wrote about our focus

report on bankruptcy – as I write this article

in December 2012, I am concentrating on

our new Focus Report on bailiffs, ‘Taking possession: councils’ use of bailiffs for parking and local taxation debt collection’. This draws on our experience

of complaints that the Local Government

Ombudsman has received about bailiffs. In

all cases, unlike some other organisations or

online forums, we have taken comments from

both the complainant and the council into

consideration, so giving a balanced view of

what happened.

I must emphasise that the Ombudsman

sees bailiffs as a very important part of the

local revenue collection process. They do

a difficult and unloved job, governed by

increasingly archaic legislation, and with

fees that do not meet their actual costs. The

Ombudsman is not anti-bailiff, and looks

forward to the government’s proposal for

reform of the system. The Ombudsman does

not find councils and their agents to be at

fault in every complaint she receives that

involves bailiffs. But she expects bailiffs to

operate within the legislation, the National Standards, CIVEA’s Code of Conduct and Good Practice Guide, and any guidance that

a council has issued.

cases. We suggest a possible approach that

bailiffs and council officers should take with

those who may possibly be vulnerable.

Finally, the report looks at complaint handling. Too often, councils’ handling of

complaints about their bailiffs is poor, with

little examination of what the bailiff has

said, and sometimes a refusal to take any

responsibility for what their agents have

done. Councils need to ensure they take final

responsibility for their bailiffs’ actions, and

that any complaints are handled appropriately,

including considering complaints themselves

when necessary, and not simply referring the

complainants back to the bailiffs.

The report can be found on our website at

http://www.lgo.org.uk/publications/advice-and-guidance#focus.

Finally, on a personal note, readers may

notice my job title has changed from Senior

Investigator to Assessment Team Leader. The Local Government Ombudsman service

is undergoing a transformation of the way we

work, and I am now leading one of what will

eventually be five small teams assessing all

complaints we receive, to see if they should be

investigated. But my interest in local taxation

and bailiffs has not flagged, and I intend to

continue reporting back on our experience of

these complaints.

“ The report also highlights problems with levying on vehicles, in particular when the debtor finds they are being charged for a levy on a car they have never owned.”

Andrew Hobley’s focus continues to home in on the actions of bailiffs and the organisations that employ them

Andrew Hobley is Assessment Team Leader

with the Local Government Ombudsman

INSI

GH

T JA

NU

AR

Y/FE

BRU

AR

Y 2

013

31

Ian Nisbet IRRV (Hons) is Subsidy and

Overpayments Officer with Agilisys’s Enhanced

Revenue Collection Programme, in partnership

with LB Hammersmith and Fulham. Contact him

on ian.nisbet@hfbp.co.uk

Management

known as randomised controlled tests – you

send different letters to two groups of debtors

or drivers, and compare the responses. In one

trial, a letter sent to non-payers of vehicle taxes was changed to use plainer English,

along the line of ‘pay your tax or lose your car ’. In some cases the letter was further

personalised by including a photo of the car in question. The rewritten letter alone doubled

the number of people paying the tax – the

rewrite with the photo tripled it.

Another set of trials in Britain focused

on energy efficiency. Research into why

people did not take up financial incentives

to reduce energy consumption by insulating

their homes found one possibility was the

hassle of clearing out the attic. A nudge was

designed whereby insulation firms would

offer to clear the loft, dispose of unwanted

items, and return the rest after insulating it.

This example of what behavioural economists

call ‘goal substitution’ – replacing lower

energy use with cleaning out the attic – led

to a threefold increase in take-up of an

insulation grant. One of the key aspects

involves using ‘personalisation’ and ‘social norms’. For instance, instead of writing to the

‘householder’, you write to them by name,

saying that they might be interested to know

that many people in their street, with families

like theirs, have already decided to do what

you want them to do.

Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet

Secretary, and his predecessor, Lord O’Donnell, are giving the unit enthusiastic

support. The latter, who chairs the unit’s

advisory group, says such techniques will bring

“revolution, not evolution” in Whitehall. He

points out that even a one per cent increase

in people’s level of honesty when paying tax

or claiming benefits could bring in an extra £7

billion. As a result, all senior civil servants are

soon to be taught how to nudge the public

into doing what the state wants.

For example, there is currently some £500

Nudge, nudge,say no more!

In 2008, two American academics, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, wrote a bestseller,

‘Nudge’, which may have a significant impact

on central and local government. Their

book was based on a simple theme – that

by making small changes in the interaction

between state and individuals, or between

businesses and customers, you can alter their

behaviour in big ways.

The ‘nudge theory ’ is about the potential

for behavioural economics to improve the

effectiveness of government. Behavioural

economists have found that all sorts of

psychological or neurological biases cause

people to make choices that seem contrary

to their best interests. The idea of nudging is

based on research that shows it is possible

to steer people towards better decisions by

presenting choices in different ways.

The book’s idea was picked up by Steve Hilton, David Cameron’s former blue sky

thinker, who persuaded his boss to set up

an 11-strong behavioural insights team,

nicknamed the ‘Nudge Unit ’, to come up

with ways of applying the idea to public

administration in Britain.

The Nudge Unit has been running dozens of

experiments, and the early results have been

promising. The figures showing the impact

of such small changes come from what are

million in unpaid fines in this country. Trials

show that if letters are sent demanding that

people pay up, only five per cent do so. If text

messages are sent, 20 per cent pay. If a text is

sent to you by name, warning that the bailiffs

are coming, it rises to a third.

So can it work for local government? There

has been research from an independent

consultancy, Impower, which suggests that

encouraging behavioural change amongst

citizens could save local authorities in England

up to £5 billion a year. The report, Changing The Game, is based on the body’s analysis

of authorities’ spending and performance

data, and opinion research among 100 senior

council decision makers. It says no less

than 98% of council executives contacted

believe they can reduce demand by changing

behaviour – and that local authorities are keen

to embrace the concept, with 65% of senior

council executives claiming that it presents the

“single greatest opportunity” to reduce costs.

There are, however, fears that the public will

soon come to recognise how they are being

manipulated, and will resent it. And while

nudge may be winning influential supporters,

some officials insist that the public often need

a legislative shove as well!

Ian Nisbet wonders whether a nudge in the right direction is what we all need

“The idea of nudging is based on research that shows it is possible to steer people towards better decisions by presenting choices in different ways.”

32

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

Technology

undertaken during 2012 on the level of reserves that councils hold, and on the

decisions councils make relating to them.

The Commission concludes that reserves

are an essential part of good financial

management. They help councils cope with

unpredictable financial pressures and plan

for their future spending commitments. The

level, purpose and planned use of reserves

are important factors for elected members

and council officers to consider in developing

medium term financial plans and setting

annual budgets.

The report encourages English councils to

focus more attention on the £12.9 billion set

aside in their reserves – the equivalent of

nearly a third of their net spending on services

in 2011/12. Reserves increased by £4.5bn

between 2007 and 2012.

While it finds that councils routinely consider

reserves as part of their annual budget setting,

the report calls for officers to offer elected

members clearer and more comprehensive

advice, equipping them to make better-

informed decisions. It also calls for greater

clarity from councils about the reasons for

holding reserves.

Naturally the Local Government Secretary

has seized upon the contents of the reports to

have a go at local authorities, saying “People

would be surprised that councils are hoarding

billions whilst some are pleading poverty.”

Given the rise in reserves, it was “disappointing

and irresponsible that some sections of local

government have chosen to needlessly scare

the public with unfounded predictions of doom

and gloom.” He added, “Whilst local authorities

should maintain a healthy cushion, it’s time

for them to tap into their substantial reserves

to ensure they protect frontline services, with

a view to building up their reserves again in

sunnier days to come.”

What the Local Government Secretary

appears to have overlooked is the fact that

the report identified that £9.9bn of the total

Cutting costs while protecting services is an art, not a science

Customer service in the public sectorA recent survey undertaken by Ipsos Mori in

relation to the public perception of customer

service does not make for good reading, in that

only 25% of people in the UK are satisfied with

the service they receive from the government

and public sector.

The poll questioned some 2,000 people

on their dealings with various public and

private service providers, and the public sector

scored poorly against the private sector, where

satisfaction rates were 40%. Around 60%

of people said they got angry if public sector

organisations kept them waiting unnecessarily,

or if mistakes were made. More than a third

(38%) said they were dissatisfied, and only

25% said they were satisfied. That said, at

40% satisfaction rate, the private sector has

nothing to smile about either.

Some 29% of people said they had waited

more than ten minutes for a government

organisation to resolve an issue, 14% said

they had found mistakes in paperwork they

had received, and 20% said they felt customer

service operators did not have the information

required to help them.

The survey also established that people

were now more likely to share poor customer

service experiences with friends via Facebook

and other social media outlets.

I find the results of this survey disappointing,

as there is no doubt that the public sector has

tried very hard in recent years to improve

the customer experience, but it is difficult

to see how, with impending budget

cuts, the customer experience

represented by this survey can be

improved upon. It is still however important

that public sector bodies listen to their

customers and if necessary improve processes,

workforce management and training.

Using balances‘Striking a balance’ presents the Audit Commission’s findings from research

Pat Doherty has spotted a series of unwarranted criticisms and advice aimed at the public sector, and he is crying ‘foul’!

“ I find the results of this survey disappointing, as there is no doubt that the public sector has tried very hard in recent years to improve the customer experience.”

INSI

GH

T JA

NU

AR

Y/FE

BRU

AR

Y 2

013

33

had been earmarked for specific purposes.

However, it stated that this did not mean there

was always a confirmed plan for spending the

funds. Also, many authorities had set money

aside to prepare for possible funding

reductions, and to deal with uncertainty arising

from local government finance reforms.

There is no doubt in my mind that reserves

are an essential part of financial planning

for local authorities, and good financial

management dictates that a healthy level of

reserves is essential to help councils manage

the significant and growing financial risks

to vital local services, brought about by the

uncertainty of an increasingly difficult financial

position and budget cuts.

Local government finance settlementThere were no seasonal presents from the

government when the finance settlement for

2013/14 was announced just before Christmas.

The announcement confirmed that local

government continues to bear the brunt of

public spending cuts in this spending review

period. The Autumn Statement promises that

cuts will continue at least until 2018.

It is generally recognised that councils have

managed the cuts so far by maximising efficiencies and redesigning services.

With further cuts on the horizon, it is hard to

see how this can be repeated, and at some

point there is bound to be an impact on front

line services.

The government has made adjustments

to the total business rates aggregate, to take

account of appeals, and has reduced the ‘top

slices’ for the safety net and academies. This is

a total gain of £405m.

These reductions in funding can only lead

to more pressure on council tax levels,

and It should be for local people to determine

whether they find a suggested council tax

increase ‘excessive’, rather than the Secretary

of State decreeing what constitutes ‘excessive’

from the centre. If local referendums are to

Pat Doherty FIRRV CPFA is an independent

consultant and a Past President of the IRRV. If you

wish to comment on anything in the article please

email him at pkd@pkdconsultancy.co.uk

“ No two local authorities are the same. The essence of local innovation is to find the best strategy to reduce costs, taking advantages of local strengths and meeting local priorities.”

I am sure most

of you in local

government will

smile when you read

through this publication, as it is a statement of

the blindingly obvious, and perhaps should be

directed to those working in Whitehall!

That said, it is not the content of the

document I find most disturbing. It is the

fact that the Local Government Secretary is

suggesting that local authorities should “do every

single one of our 50 ways to save.” Even if they

were all sensible, workable ideas, implementing

them wholesale would be simply impossible.

Many will not suit some local authorities’

circumstances, and there are probably twice as

many innovative cost saving ideas initiated by

local authorities being used across the country

that do not get a mention.

No two local authorities are the same. The

essence of local innovation is to find the best

strategy to reduce costs, taking advantage of

local strengths and meeting local priorities.

How can the government talk of a liberating

and localising settlement while dictating not only

how much to cut, but how to do so? Sharing

good ideas is vital, but there’s no ‘one size fits

all.’ Cutting costs while protecting services is an

art, not a science – and local authorities have

already shown over the past few years how

innovative they can be.

be truly local, they

should be triggered only

at the behest of local

people. Even the relaxing

of the referendum rule

for the districts within

the lowest quartile of

council tax rates in

2012/13, allowing

them to increase

tax above 2%

without a public

vote as long as

the increase is

not more than

£5 in cash terms,

is not really

localism – it

still dictates

the maximum

level of increase.

There is no

doubt that local

government has borne

the brunt of cuts to public spending, and

December’s announcement confirms that

this will continue to be the case until 2015.

What was scheduled to be an extremely

challenging 28% reduction in council funding

will now exceed 33%, and for some councils

this may go much higher. In comparison,

Whitehall departments’ budgets are being

cut by an average of 8%. This pattern cannot

be repeated into the next spending review

period. Councils provide essential front line

services, and are one of the few parts of the

public sector that actively promote economic

growth. Curtailing that role hampers Britain’s

economic recovery.

50 ways to saveThe government has now produced its own

version of a recent best seller, “50 Ways to

Save – Examples of Sensible Savings in

Local Government.”

34

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

Viewpoint

will always require a national framework and

rules, but in my opinion, to be successful it

will also need the creativity, discretion and

flexibility at a local level to generate real

change, stability and momentum. As a leader

of an organisation, I have long been driven

by the best customer-centric cultures, and

all the empirical evidence I have seen has

demonstrated that the best establishments

operate within an empowered and trusting culture. Our profession has a track record of

talking to and building relationships with our

customers, which will be crucial in moving

forward to ensure citizens continue to get the

help they need.

Therefore, my wish would be for a new trust

relationship and partnership to be formed

between central and local government to

deliver the Universal Credit system in a joint and joined up way. I have long advocated

that there is an opportunity to rethink the

delivery framework to embrace national, local and private sector services, working

in harmony to support the most vulnerable

and least confident citizens, who wish to

proactively improve their life opportunities.

Due to our continuing track record in change

management, we are clearly best placed to

identify, shape and deliver the increasing,

needed support services which can truly

provide independence and reliance upon the

state and professional services.

In particular, I remain convinced that

we have long identified the need for more

proactive and fit-for-purpose money and

debt management support services, which

may need to be supported by an increasing

demand for monetary and loan services. In

my view, the skills of our housing benefits staff

could easily be realigned to assist people with

new services such as emergency, payday

and mortgage deposit loans. These types

of services have the potential to provide a

trusted brand in providing advice, support

and protection, whilst also further gaining the

They think it’s all overThere is nothing as certain within both the

local government and revenues world as

constant change, and the move towards

Universal Credit has the increasing risk of

generating significant change, uncertainty

and revised working arrangements. I know as

I write this article that many housing benefit

staff will be wondering just how long they

will remain in work, and whether TUPE will

apply or not apply, whether the timetable and

momentum will be maintained, and when

someone will provide clarity regarding their

futures. It is all too easy to get into a mindset

of negativity, believing that we may as well

throw the towel in early – as, after all, housing

benefit staff will not be needed... or will they?

Over recent months, I have become

increasingly optimistic that despite the clear

intentions of government to move away from

a ‘dependency culture’, that the skills of

revenues and benefits staff will once again

become a highly prized possession. I have

long held the belief that our profession has

led the way in customer-centric values,

behaviours and practices, resulting in many

great examples of early intervention policies,

which assist our citizens to take responsibility,

help themselves and generate positive

outcomes. Whilst I would be the first to admit

that not every local authority is perfect, I

remain confident that the majority of our

citizens value the work that we do, and the

way in which we do it.

I believe, therefore, we need to remain positive, and once again demonstrate our

sector’s strength in acting corporately and in

the interests of the citizen, and demonstrating

through proactive and real life examples,

our ability to be flexible, innovative and

progressive in creating new solutions to deliver

the government’s agenda in supporting people

back into work. It seems to me that this huge

cultural shift will require both the elements

and strengths of process and regulation in

respect of the civil service. Any revised system

confidence and trust of our citizens to enter a

dialogue regarding the need to address skills,

confidence and educational issues required to

secure future employment opportunities.

Finally, I am also absolutely convinced

that if the government wishes to secure the

widest commitment to the use of digital technology, that once again local government

and benefit officers offer amongst the best

opportunities. It is often not recognised

enough that revenues and benefits teams

were amongst the first to fully grasp the

use of document management and work flow technologies – we are also amongst

the most proficient at promoting online assessments tools to assist claimants.

However, our success in respect of these

technological advances has been secured by

the understanding that to gain confidence we

have to remain accessible to the claimant

when things do not go according to plan.

Therefore, despite the claims of the doom

and gloom merchants, I believe that a new

era is dawning, that will once again see the

realignment of our profession centred upon

the needs of our citizens. For those who still

think it is all over, I would point them in the

direction of those members who will recall the

changes made all those years ago to remove

the domestic rates system, implement

changes to rate rebates, and the introduction

of a new system called... yes... housing benefits! I seem to recall that there were

some even in those days who thought it was

all over... but not quite.

“ I have long held the belief that our profession has led the way in customer-centric values, behaviours and practices, resulting in many great examples of early intervention policies, which assist our citizens to take responsibility, help themselves and generate positive outcomes.”

...well not quite, says Allen Graham, as he maps out a future for under pressure housing benefit staff

Allen Graham MBA IRRV (Hons) is Chief

Executive of Rushcliffe Borough Council

Organisational membership to the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation will provide your company with a multitude of benefits and business opportunities. This cost-effective and competitive service will ensure that your company achieves excellent exposure to public and private sector organisations.

Your subscription to organisational membership includes the following:

• Use of specially designed IRRV organisational membership logo for all your letterheads, company stationery and promotional literature while a member

• Inclusion in the electronic Find a Member online Directory at www.irrv.net.

• 25% discount on advertising in IRRV magazines

• Free yearly subscription to Insight magazine

• IRRV Organisational membership certificate

There is a one-off joining fee of £250 followed by an annual membership fee, which is dependent on the size of the company. Annual Membership Fee (January to December) is as follows:

Sole trader £500 p.a.; Up to 10 employees £750 p.a.; Over 10 employees £1500 p.a.

If you have any questions, or would like to receive an application form please email membership@irrv.org.uk or call 020 7691 8996.

Organisational Membership

To view the Organisational Member website visit www.irrv.org.uk/membership/organisations

A new pathway available for customer advisersFrom January 2013 the Institute will be adding a new pathway to obtaining its nationally accredited QCF qualification. An “Advice” pathway will be added to the qualification and it is aimed at employees who do not process Benefits or Council Tax but who need local taxation and welfare benefits knowledge to advise customers. It will contain a new unit – “Provide information on welfare benefits to customers”.

The QCF qualification will also be updated from January 2013 to take account of changes to Benefits. New units covering Local Council Support for Council Tax and Universal Credit will be added to the existing QCF pathways. Additionally Council Tax Benefit content will be removed from the knowledge and evidence requirements during 2013.

Completing this NEW qualification will allow the member of staff to have the letters Tech IRRV after their name.

IRRV Vocational Qualifications

Please send your queries to dolores.fergus@irrv.org.uk or call 020 7691 8994

The government is abolishing the national scheme for Council Tax Benefit. In its place local authorities are required to develop a local scheme. This site is the “one stop shop” for the reform.

The LSCT Resource Centre is a database that has been developed by the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation and is designed to assist local government in setting up their local schemes. As an evolving product, it holds numerous resources to help the practitioner through this very difficult period. It also includes a message board and a technical enquiry service together with a register of local schemes.

The database will be updated weekly and will include the latest information on the progress of the new legislation. The system will be accessed through a simple navigation panel and will enable users to download documents and templates. The navigation panel includes the following: Legislation, Circulars, Notice Board, Presentations, Minutes of CLG Meetings, Benefit Magazine, Vulnerable Groups,

Register of Local Schemes, Library, Technical Queries, Impact Assessments, Appeals Process, Local Consultation. The product is now live and you can access the homepage on:

http://lsctirrv.co.uk/index.php

The initial joining fee will be £750.00 (plus VAT) with Benefits Advisory Service subscribers only being charged £250.00 (plus VAT). This subscription will cover the period up to the 31st March 2013 and thereafter will be charged at an annual rate.

You may choose to subscribe to the Benefits Advisory Service on a pro rata basis prior to submitting your application for LSCT to take advantage of the bolt-on rate. To apply online or for more information, please go to:

http://lsctirrv.co.uk/about

Local Support for Council Tax

To apply online or for more information, please go to: http://lsctirrv.co.uk/about