Agenda item

To update Overview and Scrutiny on performance of the Council's Revenues and Benefits service since it became part of ARP on 1 April 2014.

Members considered the annual review of Anglia Revenues Partnership (ARP), which updated the Panel on the performance of the Council’s Revenues and Benefits Service since it became part of ARP on 1 April 2014.

The Chairman welcomed Councillor Mrs French, Sam Anthony, and Matthew Waite-Wright and Lorraine King from ARP to the meeting.

Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows: 

1.    Councillor Hay said the report mentioned moving to digitalisation for the purpose of enhanced data share with the DWP and HMRC. Although it seemed to be working well with the DWP she noted that HMRC were now declining to release information without National Insurance (NI) numbers being shared and she asked what action was being taken to address this. Matthew Waite-Wright explained that as part of the Digital Economy Act, ARP had taken part in a Cabinet office pilot scheme where local authorities supplied lists of council tax debtors to the DWP and HMRC so ARP could obtain work details and identify vulnerable customers in receipt of benefits. However, HMRC had a change of heart and would not supply the work details of customers unless supplied with their NI numbers. Under Council Tax legislation there is no need for billing authorities to retain NI numbers because these are classed as personal data under general data protection regulations of which ARP would be in breach by collecting and storing this data. The pilot has now ended, and feedback has been given to the Cabinet Office; it is expected that further trials will take place when ARP will again state that work details will be required from HMRC. Matthew Waite-Wright added for context that the idea was that on provision of those work details, ARP would write to the individual customers with an invitation to undertake a payment arrangement, if no arrangement was forthcoming ARP could then use their powers to contact employers with an attachment of earnings order to have the monies deducted from wages. However, at this stage no further progress has been made as no response has been received from central Government.

2.    Councillor Gerstner asked if ARP could provide members with a flowchart setting out their approach to enforcement. Matthew Waite-Wright agreed to send one out but in the meantime had tabled a chart for the meeting and he proceeded to explain the process of billing, recovery, and enforcement. He added that he could not stress enough that removal of goods is a very rare occurrence, and in most cases a payment arrangement is agreed and managed. However, as a last resort if, for any reason, a collection cannot be made, for example in the instance of death or bankruptcy, a debt will be written off but not before all other avenues have been explored. Councillor Gerstner thanked Matthew Waite-Wright for the explanation and asked what the time frame is from billing to enforcement. Matthew Waite-Wright stated this would be April to July.

3.    Councillor Hay asked what is to stop people from continually having council tax debt written off? Matthew Waite-Wright said that there are specific procedures to follow and prior to every debt being submitted for write-off every conceivable action is taken; ARP are bound by legislation but the ultimate decision falls with Fenland District Council.

4.    Councillor Nawaz asked what powers enforcement agents have when there is a case of genuine hardship and what happens with vacant properties that have seemingly been abandoned. Matthew Waite-Wright responded that their powers are limited, enforcement agents have no power to force entry, they can only knock on the door; at most they can take the car on the drive. ARP employ their own enforcement agents which means tighter control than if the work was referred to national enforcement agents. Also, ARP agents are fully certified and trained to pick up on areas of vulnerability. This is not specifically defined but if someone is elderly or disabled, quite often these facts are not known until agents turn up at the door; agents will then use their discretion and return the case to ARP. Empty properties are dealt with by the Council Tax team and for long-term empty properties, ARP will work closely with councils to identify these. The council tax records will show them as empty but there is a financial incentive for councils and ARP in the form of a government scheme called New Homes Bonus and if ARP identifies an empty property and finds that someone is living there, it is the equivalent of a new property being built in the district so ARP go to great lengths to identify empty properties and establish if anyone is actually occupying them.

5.    Councillor Imafidon asked what the procedure is to bring back into use long abandoned properties that have recently been purchased at auction or reoccupied. He also wanted to know how a property is re-established for the purpose of charging council tax if it has previously been deleted by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) and how ARP determine when a new occupier has moved in to be able to calculate the billing. Matthew Waite-Wright explained that the process of bringing empty derelict properties back into use is not the remit of ARP, but they rely on being informed from various sources that a property may be occupied; mostly people contact ARP to register themselves. Councils will usually know because they tend to receive a request for bins to be emptied and will then pass the information on. For a property to be removed by the VOA, it must be in an extreme state of disrepair to the point that it is uninhabitable, for example missing a roof or walls. Also, ARP have contact with planning and licensing departments so will be informed if a property is brought back into use. 

6.    Councillor Nawaz said that with the number of rented properties being higher these days, often with a quick turnover of tenants, he would like to know how long it takes to reach the stage from first receiving tenancy agreements to sending out demand notices, and what happens if the tenant has already left the property before the council tax bill can be generated. Matthew Waite-Wright explained that if landlords use letting agents, they have a legal obligation to tell ARP who is living in their property. Where there has been a quick turnover, then they would have to launch an investigation. In many circumstances an online automated process begins once notification is received. Lorraine King confirmed that on average this process can take about four weeks depending on what information is needed but work is being done to improve on that.

7.    Councillor Gowler asked how fraud is identified and if figures are available on suspected fraud. Matthew Waite-Wright said that the main fraud identified is that of single person discount, which is a 25% discount on council tax. It is the most widely abused and it is found by employing credit reference agencies to identify these cases. Once ARP receive notification that something is amiss, they launch their own fraud investigation. The people concerned are written to, interviewed where necessary and then relevant adjustments are made. Other frauds identified involve housing tenancy for authorities that still have housing stock, business rates and local council tax support; ARP works closely with the DWP on joint investigations for benefit fraud.

8.    Councillor Davis said she noted that the ongoing review and audit of Small Business Rate Relief (SBRR) is to be completed by October 2023 and asked if this is still on target given that there are shortages in the Finance Team. Matthew Waite-Wright said that internal audits are carried out by member councils own internal audit teams; this pertains to non-domestic rates which are audited by East Suffolk Council whilst Fenland District Council audits ARP’s enforcement team. It is hoped that the SBRR audit will be completed by August or September as there are no staff shortages within the East Suffolk team.

9.    Councillor Davis said she also noted from the report that there has been a steady increase in business hereditaments and asked why this was. Matthew Waite-Wright said there was no overall reason but there are now more buildings than four years ago, more homes and edge of town developments. Another factor is that farms have diversified into providing tea shops or other activities on site, and large properties have often been converted into smaller properties. Another factor is holiday lets; some people have been unscrupulously registering second homes as holiday lets because business rates do not have to be paid on small businesses, but they avoid the second home council tax charge. This will be combatted by a change in legislation that to be registered for a holiday let, the property has to be available for 20 weeks a year and has to actually be let for 70 days in a 12-month period.

10.Councillor Booth said that when ARP last met with the O&S Panel in December 2021 ARP were going to undertake a review of complaint handling. However, he could not see any mention of it within this report and asked what the result of that review was and if ARP could provide that information consistently on an ongoing basis. Lorraine King responded that ARP do monitor complaints and report to a working group across the partnership to see that they look at lessons learned and record the outcomes. Councillor Booth said he noted last time that only two complaints had been reported which he felt was too low given there were 17,000 enforcement cases, which led him to believe that perhaps complaints were not being recorded proactively. He understands that complaints are not always valid but because council tax is an emotive subject, there must be a higher number of complaints than this. Lorraine King said the complaints she mentioned had come via the host authorities, but the enforcement agencies have their own separate complaints process and would have been recording the complaints that they received. Matthew Waite-Wright added that there is some double handling; ARP have their own complaints process for the enforcement team however enforcement complaints do also go through the host authority complaints procedure. A breakdown of enforcement complaints is undertaken quarterly and provided to the Operational Improvement Board, so they are analysed, and ARP have the stats to back that up.

11. Councillor Imafidon asked if there is a period of time that a partner can live with someone claiming single person discount before the discount ends and what is the situation if that partner has their own property but spends a few nights a week in the property of someone claiming single person discount, does that person have to declare this? Matthew Waite-Wright responded that Section 6 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 refers to solo main residents. Is it that person’s sole residence or main residence if they have more than one property? The practice to discerning somebody’s main residence include: do they own it, are they in a relationship with people who live there, are their doctors and dentists nearby, how many nights a week do they spend there? So, if there is a lodger in the property who has their main residence elsewhere, stays Monday to Friday in the other property but goes home at the weekend, he would say the home address is the main residence and not where they are lodging. However, each case must be decided on its own merits. Under Inland Revenue regulations, when determining someone’s residence they define it by the number of nights spent at a property. For Council Tax it is more determined by the home address, not where someone is lodging if they are working away. However, each case is looked at on merit.

12. Councillor Booth referred to alternative fuel payments and asked if it is correct that only a quarter of eligible people have claimed this. Lorraine King agreed there had been a low take up, but they have been working on publicity to try and increase that. It is a two-stage process, the application goes directly to the Government and following a filtering process and series of checks, eligible applications are referred to ARP. Councillor Booth said he had been contacted by a resident who had been told his claim had been lost in the system and he was asked to complete a second claim. However, that was declared void because it was stated he had made two claims and was therefore trying to claim too much. The scheme has now finished but what lessons can be learned going forward as this resident was penalised for following instructions and that is not right. Lorraine King responded that ARP took part in a pilot, with the entire process set up by Government who check for duplicates before anything reaches the local authorities, but ARP are working closely with Government as they themselves have identified some loopholes, and each time something has been put in place to resolve that. ARP have also instigated a meeting which will take place next week with the Government to go through lessons learned and see what can be done better if they were to do a similar scheme in the future. Councillor Booth thanked Lorraine King.

13. Councillor Hay commented that part of the problem she found was that there was no number with which to contact ARP having heard nothing herself about the fuel payment. As a councillor she was able to get the assistance of Member Services who contacted ARP who then rang her. It transpired that the oil company she uses relies on a delivery note that contains her name and address as well as the price paid but she was told that was not sufficient as an invoice is required. However, the fuel company do not issue invoices because she pays before delivery which acts as an invoice and she was only able to gain resolution through Member Services, without this she may still be waiting and there must be many other people in the same position but without the same recourse to assistance that she received. Lorraine King responded that as this is a government scheme, they have their own national call centre for enquiries hence why ARP do not advertise a number. Regarding delivery notes, invoices and receipts, they had numerous meetings as part of the pilot explaining the types of evidence they were receiving, asking for some discretion as there were five strict criteria to be met. ARP has done a lot of work to try and work through this. If the set of criteria are not met, then the claim must be cancelled and again notifications come from Government, and ARP has no control over this.

14. Council Booth said the experience relayed to him was like that experienced by Councillor Hay. Unfortunately, it was a classic example of the Government setting rules and not seeing how it works practically, with people being sent round the houses trying to speak to someone. Lorraine King said ARP were able to have some influence on shaping the process and raising anomalies and although the scheme has closed, the date for final payment has not been reached yet so she welcomes receiving any examples which she will take forward.

15. Councillor Nawaz asked if ARP get cases of multiple applications which could be considered fraudulent. Lorraine King said they do but there are a lot of checks in place as there are across all benefits that they administer.

16. Councillor Davis said that despite the issues members have heard about regarding fuel payments, generally the team have done a fantastic job of making sure that all the money that could go out does and she would like this to be noted.

17. Councillor Booth requested that for future meetings, regular attendees such as ARP be given a copy of the minutes of the last meeting they attended as a reminder of the discussions that took place previously; this would also be of particular benefit to new members. Councillor Davis agreed and requested this be formally noted.

18. Councillor Davis thanked ARP, Sam Anthony and Councillor Mrs French for their time. 

The annual review of Anglia Revenues Partnership was noted for information.