The Journal for members of theInstitute of RevenuesRating and Valuation

May 2005ISSN 1361-1305£5.50

● LGA oppose capping ● Decriminalised parking scrutinised ● Targets for benefit managers

Seven of the enforcementindustry’s major players reveal the challenges currently facing their profession

MAGNIFICENT SEVEN

IRRV BENEFIT FRAUD SYMPOSIUM & EXHIBITION7TH - 8TH JULY 2005 HILTON HOTEL, BLACKPOOL

The Institute’s Benefit Fraud symposium is awell established event in the local governmentcalendar; focused on fraud detection and prevention, it is without doubt the biggest andthe best event of it’s kind.

This year our programme reflects the full rangeof issues. The debate scheduled for the secondday looks at whether tough custodial sentencesare the key to reducing Fraud in Benefits andpromises to be an interesting session.

Elsewhere the programme features best practicefrom around the country and looks at:• The implications of identity cards on fraud• Freedom of Information and Data Protection

as barriers to fraud detection• Developing the profession• Asset Recovery• Civil Partnerships Act and it’s implications

for fraud

This year the event in Blackpool has a largerexhibition and gives delegates the opportunity to view the latest developments in technologyand practice. The feedback from our delegatesconfirms the high value they place on being able to discuss new technology with a variety of suppliers under one roof.

The breaks in the programme will offer anopportunity to explore the exhibition and tocatch up with colleagues, as well as to makenew and valuable contacts. In short this is anevent not to be missed and I am sure you willfind the event both stimulating and worth while.

HOW TO BOOKTELEPHONE ENQUIRIES 020 7691 8992

All bookings must be made in writing using oneof the following options:

WEB www.irrv.org.uk/meetings

FAX 020 7404 2183

EMAIL conference@irrv.org.uk

POST IRRV Conference Department,41 Doughty Street, London WC1N 2LF

IRRV CONFERENCE DIARY 2005

COLLECTION & ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE

Hilton Hotel Blackpool 12-13 May

BENEFIT FRAUD SYMPOSIUM

Hilton Hotel Blackpool 7-8 July

SCOTTISH CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION

Crieff Hydro Hotel Crieff 7-8 September

ANNUAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION

MICC Manchester 18-21 October

NEWSCAPPING ACTION CRITICISEDLGA oppose Government plans to capcouncil tax in nine local authorities

6NEW LEGISLATION ROUND–UPThe most recent changes to regulations and ratings

6LETTER TO THE EDITORLaurence Barnes, Chief Executive of the VTS, has his say on businessrates appeal reform

8

REGULARSDIRECTOR’S NOTESPolitical playing with council tax

5FROM HERE AND THERESir Michael Lyons’ report on how his inquiry has progressed so far

16EDUCATIONThe IRRV is making its mark on European local taxation

18

NEW MEMBERSAll the achievers and movers

19BENEFITSWhen Government targets becomehurdles for benefit managers

22

FEATURESCOLLECTIONHow to make decriminalised parkingwork for your local authority

10COVER STORYSeven bailiff companies lay down thelaw about today’s enforcement industry

12LEGAL CORNERSmall business rate relief explained

20

IN THIS ISSUE...

14

8

22

AdvertisingT 01908 306 500 F 01908 306 505Editorial T 01992 505529 E katemiller@globalnet.co.uk

IRRV Insight

Managing editor Kate Miller

Assistant editor Heather Goldstein

Editorial manager Jackie Scully

Publisher Ciaran Jennings

Art editor Luke Faulkner

Designer Behrad Taherparvar

Print Stones the printers

Wrap Communications

Managing director

Roger Wilsher

J108 TBBC

100 Clements Road

London SE16 4DG

T 020 7231 0707

www.wrapcom.com

IRRV

Director David Magor OBE

Subscription enquiries

IRRV Publications Dept.

41 Doughty Street

London WC1N 2LF

T 020 7691 8975

E enquiries@irrv.org.uk

Enquiries

Director’s office 020 7691 8972

Policy & research 020 7691 8977

Membership 020 7691 8980

Accounts 020 7691 8986

Conferences 020 7691 8992

Insight May 2005 3

May 2005 ISSN 1361-1305

© IRRV 2005. Reproduction in whole or in part of any article is prohibited withoutprior written consent. The views expressed in this magazine do not necessarilyrepresent the views of the Institute. Whilst all due care is taken regarding the accuracyof information, no responsibility can be accepted for errors. Any advice given doesnot constitute a legal opinion.

IRRV Insight is producedby Wrap Communicationson behalf of the IRRV.Unless otherwiseindicated, copyright in this publication belongs to the IRRV.

IRRV President John Roberts IRRV; Vice Presidents Suzanne Dean IRRV CPFA, Allan Traynor IRRV; Council: Kate Adams IRRV, Simon D Bailey IRRV, BarbaraCulverhouse IRRV CPFA, Carol Cutler IRRV, Tom Dixon, BSc (Est Man), Pat K DohertyIRRV CPFA, Richard J Guy FRICS (Dip Rating) IRRV MCIArb, Richard L Harbord MPhilCPFA FCCA IRRV FIDP FBIM FRSA, Julie Holden IRRV, Caroline Hopkins IRRV, DianeLeggo Bsc MRICS IRRV, Bill Lovell IRRV, Kerry McDermott IRRV, Roger G Messenger BSc (Est Man), Maureen Neave MBA IRRV (Tech), Jane RatcliffeIRRV, Helen Robertson IRRV (Tech), Eric Rose FRICS IRRV, Peter Scrafton IRRVFCIArb, Angela Storey IRRV (Tech), Alan J Titheridge IRRV CPFA, Bob Trahern IRRV,Gary L Watson IRRV, Nigel Woods FRICS IRRV; Director David Magor OBE IRRV

Insight May 2005 5

DIRECTOR’S NOTES

T he General Election campaign saw local taxation caught up in thepolitical tussle for votes. During the last three years much has been written about council tax and non–domestic rates. We have all read in the national press the wildlyinaccurate analysis of the reasons behind theannual increases in council tax. It is hard tobelieve it is less than two years since a report from the Audit Commission gave perhaps the most accurate explanation for the yearly,disproportionate increases in tax levels. The report clearly explained the ‘gearing effect’,blaming successive governments for inadequatelyfunding local government.

There is a real danger that council tax willbecome engulfed in politicians’ hasty andvote–catching reactions. The handouts topensioners, proposed by both leading parties, are classic examples of short term and ineffectivesolutions. Both proposals are regressive andill–conceived. The award of special help is nottargeted and does nothing to help those in realpoverty. A better solution would have been anincrease in the measurement of need that wouldhave awarded real growth in the incomes of older

people. This approach, together with an increase in (or removal of) the capital limits, and a realistic adjustment of the tariff, could have dramatically increased the take-up ofcouncil tax benefit.

As spectators in this political game of football,we are given plenty of opportunities to judge the quality of the players and the game as awhole. The 2007 council tax revaluation is oftenthe cause of controversy. How many times haveyou seen politicians commit the most common of fouls, and heard misleading and ill-informedcomments on the impact of the revaluation? How many times have you heard of the massiveincreases in council tax due to the revaluation? As the Valuation Office Agency prepares for 2007they must ensure clear lines of communication are developed with local government and otherkey stakeholders to respond to themisinformation that proves the old saying there is,‘no news in the truth and no truth in the news’.

Over the next few months much will be writtenand said on the financing of local government. It is our duty in the professions to ensure there is truth in the news. ■

‘‘ The handoutsto pensioners,

proposed by both

leading parties, are

regressive and ill

conceived”

A TAXING GAMEDavid Magor

Director

6 Insight May 2005

NEWS

PLUGGING THE HOLE

Local Government Association (LGA) leadersreacted with bitter frustration to theGovernment’s announcement that nine local authorities (LAs) have been designated to have capping action taken against them.Council tax increases this year are claimed by the Government to be the lowest in morethan a decade, an achievement they claim is the result of LAs heeding warnings againstsetting excessive council tax increases in2005/06. Figures published by the Office ofthe Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) indicatethe average increase for houses in bands Band D, in England, will be 4.1 per cent. Despite this improvement, local governmentminister Nick Raynsford defended theGovernment’s decision to use capping. He said: “There is no excuse for excessivecouncil tax increases, either this year or in years to come. The vast majority of LAshave heeded these warnings. None of theauthorities against which we took cappingaction in 2004/05 have set an excessivebudget in 2005/06. This shows, although we have used it only reluctantly, capping has been effective in restraining council tax increases. However, some LAs have not listened and consequently we are alsoannouncing our intention to take cappingaction against nine authorities this year.”The nine authorities lined up for capping are: Aylesbury Vale; Daventry; Hambleton;Huntingdonshire; Mid Bedfordshire; NorthDorset; Runnymede; Sedgemoor; and SouthCambridgeshire. All have a below averagecouncil tax for housing bands B and D. LGA leaders from across the political groups have argued against Mr Raynsford'sdecision to cap authorities on the basis of their percentage council tax increase or budget increase. They claim it will leave some councils facing the possibility, as they did last year, of re–billing costs in excess of the proposed council tax increase per household.LGA chairman, Sir Sandy Bruce Lockhart,said: “The decision is wholly inappropriateand the LGA is totally opposed to it. Thesecouncils all have below average council tax,but perversely are now facing tens ofthousands of pounds of re–billing costs for increases as little as just over eight pence

per householdper week.“With the additional £1 billion injection from theGovernment last December,local government fought hard to keepcouncil tax below the Government’s five per cent threshold. Councils not onlyachieved that, but delivered a ten year averagelow of 4.1 per cent. But despite keeping our side of the bargain, councils are yet again facing capping.“If government is really concerned aboutcouncil tax payers they would address the£1.5 billion black hole in council budgets for 2006, which will force up council tax next year, rather than acting against ahandful of councils which are low tax, low spend authorities.“Local government does all it can to keep council tax down, but with dozens of new spending pressures as a result ofcentral government policy, councils are facing a huge hole in their budgets for next year, with no idea how this spendinggap is likely to be plugged. The councilscapped today are among our smallestcouncils which have had particular problemsin absorbing new government imposed costs such as licensing.“Today’s decision does nothing to addressthese underlying pressures and is actuallymore likely to compound them by forcingpossible service cuts and potentially addingexpensive re-billing costs.“The outdated and inadequate localgovernment finance system remains at the root of this problem and results in acouncil tax system which unfairly penalisesthose on low incomes such as pensioners. We must avoid the necessity for last minutefixes and one–off payments, for councils and their communities cannot continue tolurch from one financial year to the next.”The nine authorities have a statutory period of 21 days in which to respond. The Government will then consider their responses and either set a maximumbudget for 2005/06, or withdraw thedesignation and nominate them to restrictfuture increases.

The council tax (prescribed classes ofdwellings) (Amendment) (England)Regulations 2005 SI 2005/416If a council tax payer has two homes,where one is work–related, billingauthorities cannot reduce the 50 per centcouncil tax discount on the secondhome in England, whether the mainhome is in England, Wales or Scotland.In most instances it will not matter if itis the main home or the second homewhich is related to work. This applies tothose such as members of the military orreligious ministers, who have a home inEngland, but live in a work–relateddwelling in England, Wales or Scotland.The non–domestic rating(communications and light railways)(England) Regulations 2005 SI 2005/549Occupied properties in England, orunoccupied ones owned by GreaterManchester Metro Ltd, South YorkshireSupertram Ltd, or listed communicationsoperators, which, apart from theseregulations, would be more than onehereditament, should be treated as onehereditament. The occupier and billingauthority for the hereditament is specified.The central rating list (England)Regulations 2005 SI 2005/551Persons to appear on the central ratinglist for England and the description of

GET OUT The Office of the Deputy PrimeMinister (ODPM) has issued advice inthe light of recent judgements from theEuropean Court of Human Rights. Inthe cases of Lloyd and Others v UnitedKingdom and Beet and Others v UnitedKingdom, the Court found variousbreaches of the European Conventionon Human Rights, arising from counciltax and community charge defaultersbeing imprisoned. The cases also relate

NEW

Insight May 2005 7

hereditaments relating to those persons.The non–domestic rating (valuation ofutilities) (Scotland) Order 2005 SI 2005/127A new regime for the valuation of utilitieswhose values were prescribed in ordersmade under section 6 of the LocalGovernment (Scotland) Act 1975.Particular assessors designated to valuelands and heritages for utilities in the Order.The non–domestic rates (levying)(Scotland) Regulations 2005 SI2005/126Applicable to the financial year 2005/06,and dealing with non–domestic subjectswhich become the subject of a merged,split or reorganised entry in the valuationroll, taking effect during the relevant year,and taking account of the effect oftransitional arrangements. Small businessrate relief can be applied to relevantnon–domestic subjects, and a generalincrease in rates for non domestic subjectswith a rateable value greater than £29,000.The non–domestic rating (formeragricultural premises) (Scotland) Order2005 SI2005/104£7,000 is the maximum rateable value oflands and heritages eligible for mandatoryrate relief on former agricultural premises. The valuation (stud farms) (Scotland)Order 2005 SI 2005/105The rateable value of any qualifying studfarms, occupied together with any

agricultural land or building, will be foundby making a deduction of £3,500 fromwhat otherwise is their rateable value. Italso provides for discretionay relief to beapplied where certain conditions apply.The council tax (alteration of lists andappeals) (Amendment) (Wales)Regulations 2005 SI 205/181With four exceptions, proposals foralterating valuation lists cannot be madelater than 31 December 2005. A newregulation is inserted into the 1993regulations. If a dwelling is in a valuationlist the day the list is compiled, and thebilling authority or an interested personclaims the listing officer has determined anincorrect valuation band, proposals foralterating the list must be made by 30September 2006.The council tax (discount for unoccupieddwellings) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 SI2005/51If a dwelling is unoccupied a discount of50 per cent of the amount of council taxpayable is due. LAs have the power tomodify the application of these regulationsin relation to certain classes of dwelling(i.e. empty and second home dwellings)and in relation to different parts of theirareas. Limitations are placed on localauthorities’ power to modify theapplication of the regulations.

The Home Information PackOn the ODPM website details are given on the new home information pack, and how the new process will make the home buying and selling process more transparent, certain,consumer friendly and faster. It also providesinformation for prospective home inspectors andincludes standards required to undertake homeinspections, electronic reporting and the route to becoming a home inspector. It can be found at:http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_housing/documents/divisionhomepage/033116.hcsp

Business Rates Information CircularConfirmation of non-domestic rating multipliersfor 2005–06 and additional information. Thiscircular (2/2005) to chief finance officers coversformal notification of the non-domestic ratingmultipliers for 2005-06, appeals regulations,chargeable amount regulations, and more. It can be found at http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/busrats/bri22005.pdf

Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers for 2005/2006 The non–domestic rating multiplier and smallbusiness non–domestic rating multiplier forEngland for 2005/2006 are 42.2p (0.422) and 41.5p (0.415) respectively.

Interest rate for 2005/2006 (England)The the rate of interest to be applied on refunds of overpaid rates, arising from alterationsto the rating list, for 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006 is 3.75 per cent.

Charter Mark AwardsSouth Norfolk council’s revenue service, Wirral’srevenues, benefits and customer services division,and Camden’s revenue service have all beenawarded Charter Marks.South Norfolk revenue service has now receivedthe award three times consecutively. Assessorsdescribed the team as enthusiastic and ready to go the extra mile for residents. The Charter Markassessors said they were impressed by,“ the cultureof excellence that is an intrinsic part of thisservice,” and recommend, “this be notified to the Cabinet Office for possible inclusion in thebenchmarking database.”Wirral council’s award for their revenues, benefitsand customer services division included theirnewly–opened corporate call centre, an ambitiousmove considering it has only been open sinceApril 2004 and its policies, procedures and targetsare still being developed.Camden was given particular praise for a clearcommitment to customer care and makingindividuals feel valued and treated fairly.Assessors found the service flexible enough to meet the needs of people from diverse andmulti-cultural backgrounds, and that it had a strong financial management and deliveredvalue for money.

OF JAIL FREE

NEWS

LEGISLATION ROUND–UP

to imprisonment for non–payment of fines. In relation to the non–paymentof council tax and community charge, the Court held magistrates had failed to conduct a proper means inquiry beforecommitting the taxpayers to prison. As their liberty was at stake, the taxpayersought to have had access to legal aid atcommittal hearings. Legal aid has beenavailable in such circumstances, subject to a means test, since 1 June 1997.

The ODPM has emphasised in guidanceto local authorities that these casesdemonstrate the importance ofmagistrates conducting proper meansenquiries before persons are committed to prison. If proper means inquiries arecarried out, and council tax defaulterseligible for legal aid are represented underthe Legal Aid scheme, there is no reasonwhy committal to prison cannot continuein appropriate cases.

8 Insight May 2005

NEWS

I enjoyed Tom Dixon’s article in the Jan/Feb edition of Insight (‘PowerStruggle – Is the non–domestic rating list safe?’). Business rates appealreform is important and necessary. Tom called the present systemunsatisfactory; its imprecise nature lacks customer focus and choice,and is why the Valuation Tribunal Service (VTS) has proposed, in hiswords, a, ‘radical restructure of the appeals process’. Is it right tribunalsreceive an appeal before the Valuation Office has considered a proposal,or negotiations have assessed the validity of an initial challenge? Is itright the customer or agent make an appeal through the organisationthey are appealing against, or the crossover from an administrativeprocess of negotiation with the VOA to a judicial system of appeal isblurred and lacks choice? Is it right the body hearing the appeal doesnot control its case management for long periods?The VTS is here to provide a fair, coherent, independent, effective andefficient tribunal service. We have no commercial interest in the appealssystem. Appeals Direct can provide a logical and independent process,permitting an informal negotiation period. If negotiations failscustomers can instigate the reliable alternative of judicial redress. In 2003/04 we corresponded with 258,847 automatically generatedappellants. Only 1.7 per cent materialised in a hearing. Is this a gooduse of taxpayer’s money? We want to remove automation, introducechoice, and provide a more focused appeals process. Tom said mystatement that the ODPM should look after ratepayers’ interests wasinsufficient, but Appeals Direct would require regulatory change. TheODPM would have to consult customers, agents and organisations.Nothing is fairer than this – everyone will be able to have their say.

Laurence Barnes, Chief Executive, Valuation Tribunal Service.email: laurence.barnes@vto.gsx.gov.uk

The ODPM claims new arrangements willmake the business rates appeals systemfaster and fairer for ratepayers. Under thenew system, ratepayers will still have theright of appeal against every valuation.However, they will have more time tosubmit evidence–based appeals and anychange in value will be backdated. By reducing the number of rushed,unnecessary and unsubstantiated appealsmade to the Valuation Office Agency, and by improving the quality ofinformation submitted with appeals, thesystem will be streamlined and faster. Under the new system: ■ a ratepayer will be able to appealagainst the rateable value of their businesspremises at any time during the five yearlife of the rating list (1 April 2005 and 31 March 2010)■ any change in the value will bebackdated to when the list was compiledor when alterations to the list were made■ ratepayers will have time to considertheir proposal and find the appropriateinformation before submitting it, without losing any rights to have a changed valuation backdated

■ ratepayers will have one opportunity to submit a proposal against an entry onthe rating list, or to submit one proposalagainst an alteration that has been madeto the rating list■ ratepayers will be able to submitappeals electronically. Local government minister NickRaynsford said: “It is important that, as the 2005 revaluation comes into effect,we have in place a robust appeals system,one that serves the interests of ratepayersfairly. I believe the new appeals systemdoes just that. To continue with anarrangement that allows unlimitedduplicate appeals to be made, places anunnecessary burden on the appeals systemand means appeals take longer to resolve.”The Government consulted in Januaryand February on changes to the system.The ODPM decided to proceed with mostof the proposals in the consultation paper.They have simplified the requirement onratepayers to produce certain rentalinformation when making a proposal.

See the IRRV’s response to theconsultation in this month’s LTR.

OILING THE SYSTEM

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Insight May 2005 9

Association Diary

Yorkshire & District Association10 MayLeeds/Bradford Airport, 2.00pm Speakers:Chris Stewart: NVQs Dave Chapman and Mike Chang: Courseprovision and exam techniqueMeeting kindly sponsored by Rossendale

Northern Counties AssociationAnnual General Meeting17 MayLocomotion museum Shildon Co Durham17.30 hrs with refreshments. A visit to themuseum will be available at that time

East Midlands AssociationJoint Meeting with West Midlands Association17 May2pm (buffet provided) IRRV Performance Awards from a judges andbeing judged perspective

Developments in Recovery15 JuneGedling Borough Council

East Anglia AssociationDebt Collection Conference25 MaySouth Norfolk District Council

Sussex and Surrey AssociationHousing and council tax benefit seminar11th May10a.m. - 4p.mHickstead Hotel, Hickstead, Sussex£30.00 per person (whole day) £20.00 (half day).Cost includes refreshments and handouts

Programme includes:Sue Trotter IRRV Chiltern DC: Overpaymentbest practiveMaureen Neave MBA IRRV (Tech) Vice ChairIRRV Benefits Faculty: Recent law and caselawCarol LaRoche IRRV Basildon BC: Benefitmanagement issues

For further information or to book placesemail: colinholden@btinternet.comor send your order to:IRRV Sussex and Surrey Association26 Valebridge DriveBurgess Hill, West SussexRH15 0RW

Please contact us0151 650 4994/5

Simon Jacobs BSc MESADavid Cornes IRRV MESA

4 Europa Boulevard, ConwayPark, Birkenhead, Merseyside

CH41 4PE

Fax 0151 650 4999e-mail info@jacobsbailiffs.co.uk

www.jacobsbailiffs.co.uk

Offices in Wirral and Stockton-on-Tees

Established 1959Full members of ESA & ACEA

Working in

Partnership with

Local Authorities

Maximum Collection

Minimum Fuss

T he introduction of the 1991 Road Traffic Act allowed for the decriminalisation of most non-endorsable on-street parking offences in London. After proving successful in thecapital, local authorities (LAs) throughoutEngland and Wales have been encouraged by the Government to make the move to decriminalised parking.

This allows LAs to apply to the Secretary of State for an Order decriminalising theseparking offences within particular geographicareas. This frees up police time, but has majorresource and cost implications for the LA.

Key ResponsibilitiesWhen a LA moves to decriminalised parkinga number of responsibilities must be fulfilled.Public parking enforcement in the designatedareas is no longer a police responsibility. The LA must introduce a team of parking

attendants (usually outsourced through a specialist company) to issue Penalty ChargeNotices (PCNs). PCNs become civil debtswhich the LA must collect through civil debt recovery processes.The LA retains the proceeds to finance enforcement andadjudication systems.

Once these arrangements are in place, a number of other areas come under the LA’sremit. Excess parking charges are set at theirdiscretion, but endorsable parking offences are still the police and court’s responsibility.All areas outside the decriminalised parkingzones are subject to criminal parking laws.

Outsourcing services In order to operate an effectivedecriminalised parking system, most LAswill outsource the additional services thisrequires. This includes the provision andmanagement of parking attendants, and

wheel clamping and vehicle removal services.All outsourced services are subject to theusual competitive tendering systems.

One of the key operations for a costeffective decriminalised parking system is the collection of outstanding PCNs. This is a massive task for any LA to undertake,as shown by the average 65 per cent PCNwrite-off rate most recently recorded. If this is not tackled, payment rates havebeen shown to decline further as word getsround that PCNs are not being enforced.Compliance then also suffers, and this couldlead to an investigation by district auditors.

In order to encourage enforcement, the appointment of bailiffs for PCN debtrecovery can be done simply through bestvalue practices, especially if the LA choosesto use a bailiff already undertaking otherdebt recovery work for them. OutsourcingPCN debt recovery to a specialist company,such as CCS, can demonstrably improve PCNcollection rates. It enables a LA to ensure theycollect the last 10 to 20 per cent of PCNs thatthey need to make the service viable.

Main Advantages The main advantages for a LA ofimplementing decriminalised parkingenforcement are as follows:1. they can ensure parking policies areimplemented and enforced effectively,leading to better traffic management and flow; reduced accident rates; and fairer distribution of parking spaces2. the integration of parking enforcementand parking policy responsibilities leads to better monitoring of effectiveness andvalue; LAs can use PCN revenue to fundenforcement activities and improve other off-street parking facilities, or for othertransport related purposes.

SummaryDecriminalised parking delivers greaterparking policy control and subsequentfinancial benefits to LAs, if it isimplemented effectively. However, theadditional resource implications for LAs canoutweigh these advantages.

A recognised collection services companywill maintain a thoroughly professionalapproach when dealing with the public. This type of service can optimise collectionlevels. Using the latest database technology,absconding debtors can be traced more easily,and large case loads can be dealt with quicklyand effectively. This will ensure enforcementand compliance levels are maximised. ■

Rob Stevens IRRV, Sales & Marketing Director CCS Enforcement Services LtdEmail: rob.stevens@cces.com

www.ccses.com

10 Insight May 2005

COLLECTION

LAYING DOWN THE LAWRob Stevens explores whatdecriminalised parking offences will mean for local authorities

Illus

trat

ion:

Yun

us A

scot

t

12 Insight May 2005

COVER STORY

As the national debt increases, localauthorities have to review processes in order to achieve and maintain highcollection performance. Among the more obvious challenges is revisiting original policies and codes of practice, many of which have not been amended since the days of poll tax, to ensure theyreflect a more modern approach to recoveryand do not conflict with enforcementobjectives. This can be achieved by localauthorities working in conjunction withenforcement agencies to ensure codes ofpractice are effective and do not impaircollection performance, while maintaining a firm yet fair ethos.

Economists have been predicting the rise in national debt to £1.6 trillion over the next ten years; the number ofpeople failing to meet essential expenditure(i.e. council tax) is seen as an increasingproblem. The approach of local authoritieswill have to change, and as targets increasethe evolution of revenue collection methods is inevitable. The traditional route ofcommittal is, in some cases, giving way

to the more effective option ofinsolvency proceedings.

Local authorities will continue to challenge service providers to work inpartnership and explore ways to be moreinnovative in order to achieve optimumresults, not only through IT but also bydifferent service approaches and procedures.

Andy Rose is Managing Director of Bristow & Sutor Civil Enforcement Agents

I believe the biggest challenge facing the enforcement industry is our history. For many people, the term bailiff hasold–fashioned and extremely negativeconnotations of forced repossession by aggressive collection methods. As those of us working in the enforcement industry know, this is very far from the case for today’sprofessional collection services agencies.

At CCS Enforcement Services Ltd we see our role as helping facilitate, whereverpossible, a positive resolution for people

facing enforcement orders. We takescrupulous care in the recruitment and training of all our staff both inadministration and working in the field, to ensure all of them are aware of (for wantof a better term) their ‘duty of care’ to the person they are dealing with. Whereappropriate, we advise people of the helplocal authorities and other services can givethem. Of course, dealing with serialoffenders for whom enforcement is the onlyoption will always be an element of the job, but we believe our professional, positiveapproach is the way ahead for enforcementin the 21st century.

Rob Stevens IRRV is Sales and Marketing Directorat CCS Enforcement Services Ltd

MAGNIFICENTSEVENIn advance of the IRRV’s Collection andEnforcement Conference this month,Insight asked the leading players in the enforcement field: “What are the biggest challenges facing the enforcement profession today?”

One of the biggest challenges facing our industry is the misuse of county courtprocedure to reap revenge on enforcementagents. It is becoming commonplace to receive spurious claims from debtors, who have been made to pay their dues by a bailiff doing nothing more than his duty in enforcing a court order.

Claims of brutality and outrageous chargesof illegal and immoral acts, are becomingeveryday phraseology to the debtor who has nothing to lose in making dishonest

allegations about their treatment by bailiffs. The county court invariably allows them

their day(s) in court, no matter what protocolor rules are broken. Remember, a complaintagainst a bailiff is free! We are forced to makea choice; either defend the fallacious claim at a potentially huge cost (far more than the cost of enforcement), or pay the debtor his costs back to retract his claim.

Commercially the only answer is to pay up,and this is exactly what your accuser expects. I believe we have an obligation to ourselves,and to the industry, to defend our right to carry out our lawful duties.

Colin Naylor is Managing Director of Dukes Bailiffs Ltd

www.dukeslimited.co.uk

With the role of the bailiff continuing to extend into the area of decriminalisedparking, the associated press publicity, andinevitable criticism, is reminiscent of the distant days of poll tax collection. The proportionality of action taken is as ever under scrutiny, allied with the continuing demand for improvementwhile maintaining the highest standards.

As the leading firm of bailiffs in the enforcement industry, Equita are at the vanguard of improving quality and challenging traditional recovery models, while ensuring negative publicity is minimised.

Meeting these expectations is the biggestchallenge facing enforcement professionals.With the future of council tax central to political debate, we have a key role toplay in forming trusting and sustainablepartnerships with local authority clients and helping them achieve improvement.

The challenge of doing so while embracingchange, whether it is the much anticipatedCourts and Tribunals Bill or theGovernment’s e-services targets, is not only areal threat but conversely a real opportunity.

Paul Sharpe is Sales and Marketing Director at Equita

www.equita.co.uk

Insight May 2005 13

COVER STORY

14 Insight May 2005

COVER STORY

There is a continual need for localgovernment to improve collectionperformance year-on-year, while achieving the efficiency savings outlined in theGershon report. To play its part, theenforcement industry has to be quicker,smarter, and more cost-effective.

Implementing the Courts and Tribunal Bill is also an imminent challenge. The Bill aims to introduceregulatory controls for enforcement agents, and could be a precursor to the introduction of upfront bailifffees. This should give some indicator of the difficulty of the task ahead!

The challenge is huge, and the market place may change beyond allrecognition. However, this is not within our control. To be at the forefront of themarketplace we will have to continuallywork with our local authority partners to ensure there is effective feedback and communication, comprehensive data capture, and above all transparencybetween us and the client.

In the future, improvements will lead to specific customer profiling techniquesbeing used for early identification

of potential non-payers, a more considered approach to all methods of enforcement (having regard for cost, effectiveness and potential to secure payment), and the continued development of e-services.

Mark Taylor is Business Development Manager and Associate at Incasso

www.Incasso.co.uk

One of the current challenges is the abilityto conform with, and contribute to, localauthorities’ corporate debt policies.

More authorities are treating debt in this way. They recognise there is a role for enforcement agents, who oftencollect several debt types payable by the same debtor. Examples include: council tax, business rates, housing benefit overpayments, housing former tenant arrears, sundry debts anddecriminalised parking enforcement.

The challenge for the industry, whereagencies want to work with more than one debt type, is to develop systems capable of identifying multiple debts across all debt

types for individual debtors, and co-ordinateenforcement and payment plans whereappropriate, so they work within and insupport of, both the council’s corporate debt and social inclusion policies.

Clearly a role also exists for local authoritiesand advice agencies. They are able toidentify citizens who owe multiple debts to the council, and work with enforcementagencies to deliver a co-ordinated approach tocollection and enforcement, to the benefit ofboth debtor and creditor.

Dave Chapman IRRV is Client Services Executive at Rossendales Ltd

www.rossendales.com

The enforcement industry is changing: the bailiff is dead and the civil enforcementofficer has come of age.

Enforcement firms are investing heavily in new technology. Websites allow clients to update cases instantly and pay on-line, via access to desktop and mobile handheldunits. Vehicles are tracked, systemscomputerised, all in an attempt to provide the highest quality of service within a highly competitive industry.

Public awareness of civil enforcement has never been more acute. The BBCtelevision programme ‘Bailiffs’, now in its third series due to colossal viewing figures, is evidence of this. Whyte & Co has made a considerable contribution to this series. We have done much to enlighten the public to the problems faced by the industry andimprove understanding of the work we do in the field. There may be some in theindustry who choose to criticise, but I amsure their criticism fails to extend to the increased postbags and telephone contactsfollowing each broadcast!

With civil enforcement being called on toprovide greater breadth of service in respectof local taxation and parking enforcement,there is work for all. Let’s do justice to thiswork for the sake of client and debtor alike.

Paul Whyte, Whyte and Cowww.whyte.co.uk

16 Insight May 2005

FROM HERE & THERE

S ir Michael Lyons, at a recentmeeting of the Central LocalPartnership, updated the committeeon his inquiry into the balance of funding.

He reported he was undertaking extensiveconsultations, had commissioned someadditional research and was seeking to learn from the Welsh Assembly’s experience of council tax revaluation. He also voiced his assumption that the decision on schools’budgets would not change options for there–localisation of business rates.

The main messages emerging from his regional consultation exercise were:■ strong support existed for simplifying the funding system, and for three year funding streams■ the grant distribution system’s complexitywas regarded as a barrier to accountability■ local government reorganisation was seenas inevitable, therefore the sooner it took place the better■ there were difficulties in balancing local and national level priorities within a limitedfunding allocation■ the views of businesses were less uniformthan might be expected: although the CBI was opposed to change, local business groupswere willing to debate the issues.

Sir Michael identified two main challenges.Firstly, the need for the public to be engagedwith the underlying issues, rather than just the technical ones which were currentlydominating the debate. Secondly, it wasimportant for people to understand a diversityof views rather than just regional ones.

Local government representatives respondedwith the folowing points:■ the review should not raise the issue oflocal government reorganisation as it may take the focus away from financial issues■ Sir Michael’s comments, especially on

business rates, were welcomed■ they were keen to progress theCombination Option, and documents would be prepared on this■ they would like the Government to make a commitment to deal promptly with the outcome of the review■ the possibility of condensing the reviewtimetable should be considered, given itsimportant link with council tax revaluation■ the importance of police authorities’involvement was emphasised.

Sir Michael confirmed police authorities hadbeen involved, and he was aware of the linkbetween his review and council taxrevaluation. He said he would be happy todiscuss the tension between central and localpriorities, though he felt this was a question ofprioritisation and not a fundamentaldisagreement over local authorities’ (LAs) role.

The review rolls on and the IRRV‘scommittee of inquiry is working hard behindthe scenes to produce its full response to theLyons Inquiry, having published its emergingfindings last October.

Extended fraud powersThe Department for Work and Pensions(DWP) issued a consultation paper in March2005 entitled: ‘A consultation document onproposed changes to the powers of LAs toinvestigate and prosecute benefit fraud’. It contains proposals to remove presentrestrictions whereby a LA can only investigateand prosecute offences relating to localbenefits such as council tax (CTB) andhousing benefit (HB).

Legal opinions, such as Cavanagh andHowell, have cast doubt on the powers of LAsto investigate and prosecute offences against

LYONS’ TALESir Michael Lyons used a meeting of the Central LocalPartnership to tell of the progress of his inquiry so far,reports Pat Doherty

Insight May 2005 17

FROM HERE & THERE

DWP administered benefits. However, theGovernment’s proposals give LAs statutorypowers to investigate and prosecute offencesrelating to DWP administered benefits paidalongside HB and CTB. Currently, around 70 per cent of local benefit recipients are also in receipt of a national benefit.

LA practitioners will welcome this change. Itwill hopefully remove doubts inspired by theHowell and Cavanagh opinions. In recentyears LAs have been successful in the detectionand prosecution of fraud, and Chris Pondrecognised this in his proposal. Other changesproposed in the consultation paper are:■ a change in legislation so LAs can obtain information from third parties while investigating national benefit fraud ■ allow the Secretary of State to discloseinformation to LAs relating to offencesagainst national benefits■ permit the exchange of information aboutnational benefit offences between LAs.

The proposals will also introduce safeguardsto maintain protections for members of thepublic. They allow the Secretary of State towithdraw the new powers from a LA when it is considered a misuse of powers has orcould occur. LAs who prosecute offencesagainst national benefits will be required toapply the evidential and public interest tests

contained in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.The DWP aims to publish a summary of theresponses made to the consultation paper bythe summer of 2005.

Rationalising inspectionFollowing the report from the CabinetSub–Committee established to overseeGovernment inspection policy, and Gordon

Brown’s announcement in the budget, a timetable has been agreed for establishing a single local services inspectorate. In effectthe Audit Commission will take over theBenefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI). It will be responsible for ensuring a co–ordinatedapproach to the regulation of localgovernment services. The total cost and

amount of inspections will be reduced. This news should be welcomed. We have

all suffered from uncoordinated inspections,particularly best value ones. But the progressmade by the BFI in its approach to LAs mustnot be lost by the merger.

Benefits claimants growingThe latest DWP statistics (HB and CT BenefitQuarterly Summary Statistics November2004) show HB recipients increased during the quarter to May 2004 by 1.6 per cent, a yearly rise of 2.1 per cent, to 3.9 million.

The number of tenants in Registered SocialLandlord (RSL) accommodation claiming rent allowance increased by 3.5 per cent in the quarter, an yearly increase of 6.3 per cent,to stand at 1.3 million. The number of LAtenants claiming a rent rebate increased by 0.4 per cent over the quarter, and decreased by 1.6 per cent in the year, to 1.8 million. The main reason for the increase in RSLtenants and decrease of LA tenants is thecontinuation of Large Stock VoluntaryTransfers. CTB recipients, excluding secondadult rebates, increased in the quarter by over 2.4 per cent to 4.8 million. ■

Pat Doherty IRRV CPFA is a consultant and trainer and Past IRRV President

Email: pkdconsultancy.co.uk

‘‘This news should bewelcomed. We have allsuffered from

unco–ordinated inspections, particularly

best value ones’’

18 Insight May 2005

EDUCATION

EUROPEAN UNION

T he IRRV has been awarded a contract as project promoter by the European Commission’sLeonardo da Vinci Programme, to establisha trans–European training programme for people working in local level taxation administration.

The ProjectLocal taxation is a major issue for all EU countries, but especially for the countries of central and eastern Europe. Not so very long ago, local taxation wassubject to irregularities and inconsistencies.More recently it has been universallyacknowledged that local taxation has a vitalrole to play in developing and deliveringservices at a local level. The challenge now is to find the right balance between centralgovernment and local taxation, and find themost appropriate means of raising the levelof local taxation.

The speed with which new and Accessioncountries can be assimilated into the EU will depend on the management of theireconomies. Management of local taxationwill form a very important aspect of thiseconomic management. Crucially, local staff need to be trained to administer aneffective and efficient local taxation system,and to deal with a variety of legal andpolitical pressures. The IRRV and severalpartner organisations are working on a

project to develop a trans–European trainingprogramme, which will deliver the necessaryskills to administer a framework localtaxation regime in each of the participatingcountries. The deadline for completion of the project is March 2007.

The PartnersThe IRRV’s partners in the project are: 1. Suma Gestion Tributaria, Spain 2. University of Wales, Newport 3. Warrington Borough Council 4. Ceska Danova Sprava, the local taxationarm of the Ministry of Finance in CzechRepublic 5. Nelson Croom, a UK-based company thatdevelops and delivers total training solutions6. Bulgarian National Association of Municipalities7. Ovidius University, Faculty of Law and Public Administration, Romania

Project OutcomesThe project will result in a series oftraining modules, which will be producedjointly by the partners in the project. The modules will cover:■ National property market/Europeanproperty market■ relations between local and nationaltaxation systems and their role in financing local authorities■ alternative methods of local

taxation/European (EU) model■ basic technical knowledge■ land and property registration■ mathematics/statistics■ systems of the major local tax offices,training used (national and trans-European)■ relevant legal framework■ professional ethics, to include,discretion/confidence, objectivity,impartiality/independence and technical competence and respectability.

These modules will be designed, approved and tested by the partners,working together with the aim ofestablishing a transferable core oftraining, which can be adapted by addingsupplementary modules to meet therequirements of the participating country.

It is expected the training itselfwill be a flexible mix of locationindependent coursework, face to faceteaching and experience gained in aprofessional environment. There will be a strong element of information andcommunication technologies (ICT) in the project. The programme will enablepeople to work on modules at remotelocations, thereby increasing access to and availability of training. ■

Richard Taylor is a consultant at Community Intelligence Europe

DISTANCE LEARNING DISPATCHI am pleased to report, although there were only subject prize winners at theDecember 2004 exams, all were awarded to distance learners. Congratulations go to Paul Jackson of Mansfield DistrictCouncil who claimed two prizes– Housingand Council Tax Benefits Administrationand Housing and Council Tax BenefitsLaw, and to Sophie Lane of Telford &Wrekin council – Level 3 Management.Very well done to you both!I hope that by the time you read this you

will all have received the updates that have been prepared. If you have any doubts as to whether you should havereceived documents for your subject, call or e-mail and we can let you know.We are moving ahead rapidly with theonline material. Some of you who were at the Keele revision course will have hadan opportunity to see what it looks like andreceive an overview of how it works. We hope it will be successful and becomemore sophisticated as time goes by. Please

let us know any views or comments on this. We will also do our best to answer any questions you may have.Finally, l would like to wish you all goodluck for the June exams. I know I say thisbefore every exam session, but if you haveany last minute worries or need a bit ofadvice then please get in touch. We’ll bepleased to do whatever we can to help.

Les Tuckwell is Manager of theIRRV Distance Learning Centre

The IRRV is central to a trans–European training programme for local taxation, Richard Taylor explains

Insight May 2005 19

NEW MEMBERS

STUDENT MEMBERS

Jacqueline Abbott Senior Revenue Officer Capita Business Services Ltd

Amanda Adams Benefits Officer London Borough ofHackney

William Anderson Revenues and Benefits Officer City of Edinburgh Council

Emma Bradley Revenues and Benefits Officer Rochdale MBC Kate Hopkinson Benefit Assessor Wigan Met BCBryan Pye Benefits Investigation Officer North Kesteven DCClaire Riley Revenues and Benefits Officer City of Edinburgh

CouncilJulia Wood Trainee Benefits Officer Isle of Wight CouncilLindsey Harvey Revenues Officer North Cornwall DCLisa Thurbon Revenues Officer North Cornwall DC

TECHNICIAN MEMBERS

Jacqueline Adams Unit Manager Waltham Forest LBCJayne Hanson Training Officer Exeter City CouncilElizabeth Jarrett Revenues Officer East Devon DCCandice Wall Revenues Officer Mole Valley DCStephen Weakley Team Leader Shepway DCBarbara Martin Customer Enquiry Supervisor Isle of Wight Council

CORPORATE MEMBERS

Susan Brookes Training Consultant VOA, West Midlands Alexander Lewis Director Tuckerman Chartered

SurveyorsAndrew Hetherton Associate Director G L HearnRichard Jones Minerals and Ratings Surveyor RMC (UK) LtdGraham McLeod Senior Surveyor Donaldsons

Croydon CouncilProvision of Bailiff Services

Croydon Council is looking to enter into contract with ProfessionalBailiff Companies to assist them, in the collection of:

■ Council Tax and Business Rates to improve collection.■ Recover outstanding monies from Penalty Charge Notices issued in accordance with the Road Traffic Act 1991 and the London LocalAuthorities Acts.

Companies can apply for either or both lots.

The Council has a base of nearly 139,000 domestic properties and8,600 Business Premises. Opportunities may occur to collect for otherLocal Authorities or Croydon Council Services.

The Council issues around 23,000 Warrants of Execution from PenaltyCharge Notices.

The initial contract will be for a period of 3 years with a possible extension of up to 2 years and will be based on a no cost to the council basis.

Bonds/Guarantees will be required from the successful applicants.

Tenderers are advised that TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings Protectionof Employment) may apply

Interested companies are invited to request an application pack from:

Richard Holman, Collection Manager, Room 3:03 Fell RoadCroydon CR9 1BQ. Telephone 020-8667-8379. or E-Mail Richard.Holman@Croydon.Gov.UK

The closing date for the return of the completed application will be 17th June 2005 at 10:00 hours.

20 Insight May 2005

LEGAL CORNER

QUESTION OF IDENTITYPaul Russell explains why the identity of the ratepayeris key to applications for small business rate relief

R ecently, I have had a few queriesregarding whether or not refundsarising from the issue oftransitional certificates should give rise to apayment of interest. Regulation 3(1) to theNon-Domestic Rating (Payment of Interest)Regulations 1990 states: “(1)Where, inconsequence of the alteration of a rating list compiled under Part III of the Act, aperson is entitled to a repayment, the billing authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall, subject toparagraphs (2) and (2A), pay or credit(according to whether the repayment is to be repaid or credited) an additionalamount by way of interest on the repaymentin accordance with this regulation”.

The paying or crediting of interest isdependent only upon an alteration to therating list, and not the issue of a transitionalcertificate. The ODPM agrees with this viewof the payment of interest regulations. Ifratepayers or their agents wish for interest tobe paid on refunds or credits arising other

than from alterations to the rating list, theymust lobby the politicians for a change to theregulations. At the time of writing this articlepoliticians seem to be seeking votes, so agenerous gesture in this area may be possible!

Small business rate relief (SBR) also appearsto have been causing difficulties. Questionsaround such matters as different businesseswith common partners; landlords paying rates;applications from ratepayers owning severalproperties and section 44A, have caused much

concern with regard to the new relief.Despite this article being publishedafter SBR has been implemented,I thought it may be useful toclear up a few of the confusionswhich seem to exist.

Most issues with SBR seem toderive from ascertaining who is the‘ratepayer’, due to the intention ofthe regulations that the ratepayershould only receive SBR with regard toone hereditament. Article 3(2) to the Non-Domestic Rating (Small Business Rate Relief)(England) Order 2004 (the Order) states:“…on the chargeable day the ratepayer…occupies only one hereditament in England”.So, the ‘ratepayer’ must be properly identifiedin any situation where an application forSBR is made.

For the purposes of section 43 to the LocalGovernment Finance Act 1988, the ratepayeris the ‘occupier’. The Non-Domestic Rating(Collection and Enforcement) (MiscellaneousProvisions) Regulations 1990 at regulations 3to 5, make it clear that partnerships (or firms)can exist differently from joint occupiers.

Where the ratepayer is, say, a sole trader (or principal etc) there are no problems withregard to SBR. The same is true even though asole trader goes under different trading names.Paul Russell trading as Paul’s Florist or TheRussell Butchery, is the same ratepayer for SBRpurposes. However, if I were Paul Russell Ltdtrading as Paul’s Florist and Paul Russelltrading as The Russell Butchery, two distinctand different legal entities exist as ratepayers,for the purposes of SBR.

Similarly, if Paul Russell is a partner with hiswife Jenny Russell, trading as Paul’s Florist,and also a partner with his brother JohnRussell, trading as The Russell Butchery, theseparate firms or partnerships should beregarded as being different ratepayers.

Autonomous trading entities of companies

fall under the overall umbrella of the owningcompany, which should appear on the ratedemands as the sole ratepayer. Howcompanies organise themselves is immaterialto the billing authority. If one companyoccupies the hereditament, but allows variousparts of the same company to operate fromthose premises and keep separate accountswhich are then consolidated, the companyremains the ratepayer. Each Tesco store is aseparate trading entity, with its own accounts.However, Tesco Stores Ltd may well be theactual owner of the supermarket and will bethe ratepayer, because each store occupiesunder the authority of Tesco Stores Ltd andstaff are employed by that company.

Companies which are wholly ownedsubsidiaries of other companies will still be theratepayer of properties which they own andoccupy, or have a lease and occupy under theterms of the lease. Tesco Stores Ltd is not thesame legal entity (or ratepayer) as Tesco Plc.Landlords often let properties under leaseswhich indicate the tenant’s rent includes therates. Authorities should always bill thetenant (in accordance with rating law) and letthe tenant secure payment of the rates via thelandlord. If the landlord fails to pay, theauthority can recover against the tenant, whowill then sue the landlord to recover the rateor withhold the equivalent payment in rent.As a separate ratepayer, each tenant can apply

‘‘Most issues with SBR seem to derivefrom ascertaining whothe ‘ratepayer’ is.”

LANDMARK CASE

Insight May 2005 21

for and be entitled to SBR. It is for the tenant toensure the landlord reduces the rent accordingly.

Section 44A to the 1988 Act (partly occupiedhereditaments) does not affect the rateable value(RV) limits for SBR. If the RV in the rating list is£15,000 or above (outside London) then SBRcannot be awarded, even though the s.44Acertificate may give the occupied apportionment asbeing say £1,500. Provided a hereditament RV isbelow the maximum prescribed, and otherwisequalifies for SBR, the calculation will be on thebasis of application of the s.44A calculation andthen the SBR calculation, using the actual RV inthe rating list to calculate the value of E.

An issue which is in grave need of rectificationis the flaw in the Order at article 3(4) causes anyhereditaments occupied by the ratepayer with anRV below £2,200 to be ignored. In my consideredview, if a ratepayer makes separate applicationsfor SBR with respect to all of their properties;the RV of each such property is below £2,200,and the total of all that ratepayer’s RVs is below£15,000 (or £22,500 in London) then thatratepayer is entitled to SBR with respect to eachand every such hereditament.

If the ratepayer is a shopkeeper owning sevensmall shops, each with an RV of £2,000, andthey make seven applications (whether to the onebilling authority or to seven different ones), theyare currently entitled to SBR with respect to eachproperty. The calculation of E in article 6 to theOrder is based upon the RV in the list. In thiscase, the full 50 per cent relief would be applied.

The ODPM intends for one award of relief tobe made in such circumstances. However, if theODPM wishes the Order to comply with thatintention, it should have been amended before1st April 2005. Now it will have to wait until 1st April 2006! ■

Paul Russell LLB, IRRV is an independent law consultant andtrainer and can be contacted at paul-russell@btconnect.com

The views in this column are personal views and should not be construed as a legal opinion

Ealing London Borough Council has won a landmark legal case, which could encourage other localauthorities to challenge the decisions of the Audit Commission. The case exposes the deficiencies of thecomprehensive performance assessmentprogramme (CPA), introduced by theAudit Commission in 2002. Aimed athelping councils improve their services,the CPA places councils in one of fourcategories: ‘excellent’; ‘good’; ‘fair’;and ‘weak’. Ealing challenged thelegality of the CPA rule that limits anauthority’s overall rating on the basis of its social services. The rule resultedin Ealing being downgraded two levelsfrom ‘good’ to ‘weak’ overall, due to a ‘no star’ social services ratingawarded by the Commission for SocialCare Inspection (CSCI). Represented by Eversheds LLP, Ealinghad their case upheld in February ofthis year. Mr Justice Walker said: “This claim for judicial review succeedsbecause the Audit Commission’s

downgrading of Ealing was anautomatic consequence of someoneelse’s decision. In this case the someone else was CSCI, a body with specialist expertise in this area,but it was unlawful for the AuditCommission to refuse to considerwhether there were circumstanceswhich made an automaticdowngrading inappropriate.”Stephen Cirell, head of Evershed’s local government group, said: “Thedoor for similar actions by the otherlocal authorities downgraded or heldback by the Audit Commission underthe rules is now well and truly open.However, we hope that the AuditCommission will now act and removethe rules so that councils can be re-categorised and thereafter get on withthe business of delivering services[…]A poor rating can be bad for staffmorale, it can affect staff recruitmentand retention rates, and will affect the political reputation of the authorityand dominate local elections.”

LEGAL CORNER

22 Insight May 2005

BENEFITS

MOVING TARGETSGovernment targets can both help and hinder benefitsmanagers, writes Sharon Jones

W e all agree performance withinrevenues, and specificallyhousing benefits, has improvedsteadily over the last two to three years.Targets set by the Government, and the oldperformance framework, have been effective.

Government targets ascertain the number of days taken to assess or pay a claim fromthe time the customer either makes the claim or reports a change of circumstances.Most benefit officers accept this is what thecustomer would want. However, some targetshave negative results and as benefit managers,we have to be aware of this.

If our targets are poor we may harm theperformance we are hoping to improve. An example of this is monitoring thenumber of documents dealt with byassessors per day or week. Documentmanagement systems allow us to understandhow many documents or cases eachindividual deals with daily. If staff performbadly we can speak to them and find ways,such as further training, to help themimprove. Staff are therefore encouraged todeal with more cases. When an assessor hasrun out of options for handling a case, thisapproach may only encourage them to writemore letters requesting more information.This can be quicker than assessing and the case will be cleared faster.

Perhaps we should not look at the number of documents or cases on thedocument imaging system, but the number

of assessments dealt with. Claimants want their benefit as quickly as possible, notunnecessary letters. Such targets are relevant,but managers (and staff) have to understandofficers have other work which may impacton the number of cases dealt with.

Processing cases through the systemquickly is productive, but we need to ensure they are properly checked and speed is not achieved at the expense of accuracy.Accuracy from stats 128 results in accuracy

in payment. Benefit managers need to be better informed about the accuracy level of their staff. They will want to know about factors such as unnecessarydelays on staff’s desks, the non–completionof notebook details, or relevant statisticalinformation incorrectly input.

I undertake to notify individual assessors oferrors so they can learn from their mistakes.Some assessors correct their work but do not

suppress the statistics. It looks like they havedone twice as many assessments, though half of them should have been unnecessaryand are of no value to the customer.

Delays caused by customers not producingdocuments on time can affect your council’stargets. Developing ways to encouragecustomers to bring in all the informationrelevant to their claim early, will bebeneficial for both customers and thecouncil. Staff who have contact with thecustomers must understand this. A customerservice officer informing a member ofthe public that they must produce all theinformation within 28 days to prevent themlosing benefit does not work. The customerneeds to know the sooner they get theinformation to the council the faster benefitwill be assessed and paid.

When information is provided by the Job Centre Plus customer system the effect on our statistics can be dramatic. If all relevant information is not provided, if delays occur as a result of not gettingtenancy agreements, or the two claim forms required for housing benefit (HB) are not received at this stage, delays occurthe authority cannot control. HB is eithernot paid promptly, or if a payment onaccount, the benefit needs to be recalculatedat a later date, which is not very efficient! ■

Sharon Jones is Benefits Manager atAnglia Revenues and Benefits Partnership

‘‘Managers and staffhave to understand officers have other work

to do and this mayimpact on the number of cases dealt with’’