Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
INSIDE: Partnership working • Protecting the public purse • News & events • Technology • Student corner
INSIGHT
INSIDE: Scottish Conference report • Collection & enforcement • News & events • Staff welfare • Technology
November 2018 £7.75 www.irrv.net
ISSN
136
1-13
05
The monthly journal of the Institute of Revenues, Rating & Valuation
Insight presents the highlights from this year’s Annual Conference and Performance Awards
Your IRRV Council: FeaturesIN
SIG
HT
NO
VEM
BER
201
8
©IRRV 2018. Reproduction in whole or in part of any article is prohibited without prior written consent. The views expressed in this magazine do not necessarily represent the views of theInstitute. Whilst all due care is taken regarding the accuracy of information, no responsibility can be accepted for errors. Any advice given does not constitute a legal opinion.
2 www.irrv.net • Forums • Conferences • Training Days • News • Online Training • Qualifications • Membership • Jobs • Council • Tel 0207 831 3505
IRRV INSIGHT
Managing Editor
John Roberts
Editorial Director
Lester Dinnie
Designers
Clare Barker
Roddy Clenaghan
Copy Editor
Vicki Chastney
Publisher
WSA
IRRV
Chief Executive
David Magor
OBE IRRV (Hons)
Northumberland House
5th Floor
303-306 High Holborn
London WC1V 7JZ
T 020 7831 3505
W www.irrv.net
Enquiries
Membership020 7691 8996
Conferences020 7691 8987
Subscriptions 020 7691 8996
Advertising
T 020 7691 8979
Editorial
John Roberts IRRV (Hons)
T 07952 659 258
WSA
1D, South House, Bond Ave,
Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK1 1SW
T 01908 371177
W www.wsacommunications.co.uk
IRRV Insight is produced by WSA
on behalf of the IRRV.
Unless otherwise indicated, copyright
in this publication belongs to the IRRV.
November 2018 ISSN 1361-1305
Cover story 19
IRRV Scottish Conference reportJim McCafferty returns to celebrate the success thatis once again the IRRV’s Scottish Conference
Feature 16
IRRV Annual Conference & Performance AwardsInsight presents the highlights from this year’s Annual Conference and Performance Awards
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENTAndrew HethertonMRICS IRRV (Hons)
IRRVPRESIDENTLouise FreethFIRRV
Allan ClarkMSc FIRRV MCMI
Richard HarbordMPhil CPFA FCCA IRRV (Hons) FIDP FBIM FRSA
Carla- Maria HeathBA IRRV (Hons)
Zoe Kent IRRV (Hons)
Paul McDermottIRRV (Hons)
Jim McCaffertyIRRV (Hons)
Nick RoweIRRV (Hons)
Ian FergusonIRRV (Hons)
Simon Green MRICS IRRV (Hons)
Alan BronteFRICSIRRV (Hons)
Roger MessengerBSc (Est Man) FRICS FIRRV MCIArb REV
Kevin StewartFIRRV MAAT MCMI
Bob TrahernIRRV (Hons)
David ChapmanIRRV (Hons)
JUNIOR VICE PRESIDENTAlistair TownsendIRRV (Hons) MCMI
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENTGordon HeathBSc IRRV (Hons)
HONORARY TREASURERAllan TraynorFCCA IRRV (Hons)
Editor’s welcomeContents
John Roberts IRRV (Hons) is Managing Editor of the Institute’s magazines
...and once again it’s where we celebrate the best of the Institute, as our cover feature focuses on the success of more award winners and summarises the latest news and views of our conference presenters.
As the dust settles on another IRRV Annual Conference anderformance Awards event, it’s time to reflect on that success and to take things forward towards another year. If you’re inspired by what you’ve seen and what you read about, then the time is right to start preparing for your 2019 Award submission! “You’ve got to be in it to win it” is still a tried and tested adage, which is worth remembering when you consider checking out the competition and preparing your organisation’s challenge for a future IRRV accolade.
Of course, winning a coveted IRRV Performance Award can bring with it not only well-deserved recognition, but an extended burst of publicity, courtesy of our suite of magazines. Many of the winners are given the opportunity to present their success story in either Insight, Benefit or Valuer, as we ask them to share that success and the best practice that inevitably led to it.
Many of our regular contributors are prominent in this issue, too. Rating and valuation issues are debated by Tim Morris, the Equita team and Geoff Fisher, whilst welfare reform is unpicked by an enticing combination of the Department for Work and Pensions, Kevin Stewart and Geoff Fimister, together with Moira Hepworth’s summary of the work of the Institute’s Benefits Faculty Board.
As ever, our magazine provides the opportunity for the sharing of good practice of interest to readers from all aspects of our portfolio. The digital agenda is covered by Simon Bailey, management and leadership tips are shared by Sean Langley, and solicitors Neves return with more key staff welfare analysis.
That’s only a small sample of what’s on offer this month, though, and the only way you’re going to find out what else is in there is to read on and enjoy!
“ The November issue of Insight is with us...”
Chief Executive’s notes 05
News and events 06
Education and membership 09
From the archives 10
Faculty Board report 12
Benefits bulletin 13
Valuation matters 14
The butcher 15
Welfare reform 18
Viewpoint 25
Credit notes 26
Through fresh eyes 27
Collection & enforcement 28
Data sharing 30The Data Protection Act 2018 comes under themicroscope of our data expert, Ibrahim Hasan
Technology 32
Management 33
Staff welfare 34
3
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
Follow us on Twitter David Magor on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Presidents Blog
• Tim Savill highlights the challenges of managing Birmingham’s revenues and benefits service
• the world of collection and enforcement from Wilkin Chapman and Simon Quilter
• valuation opinion from Roger Messenger is always a ‘must read’.
What’s in the next issue...
Contact the experts on
0845 370 7775www.excelenforcement.co.uk
Highest collection rates Lowest customer complaintsFor award winning civil enforcement and debt recovery nationwide including:
We also provide accredited RQF and level 2 and 3 training and awards as well as workshops on recognising and dealing with vulnerability for revenues and benefits teams.
Council tax
Business rates
Parking and traffic management
Arrest warrants (with and without bail)
BID levy debts
Housing benefit overpayments
Commercial rent arrears
Former tenant arrears
Excel-IRRV-Adverts-2018-A4 portrait.indd 1 18/10/2018 11:16
Chief Executive’s notes
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
David Magor OBE IRRV (Hons) is Chief Executive of the Institute
5
David Magor on Twitter
Contact the experts on
0845 370 7775www.excelenforcement.co.uk
Highest collection rates Lowest customer complaintsFor award winning civil enforcement and debt recovery nationwide including:
We also provide accredited RQF and level 2 and 3 training and awards as well as workshops on recognising and dealing with vulnerability for revenues and benefits teams.
Council tax
Business rates
Parking and traffic management
Arrest warrants (with and without bail)
BID levy debts
Housing benefit overpayments
Commercial rent arrears
Former tenant arrears
Excel-IRRV-Adverts-2018-A4 portrait.indd 1 18/10/2018 11:16
...and produce workable alternatives for the funding of effective sub-national government
The present government is totally blind to the needs of the current property taxes. There has been a complete disregard of the need to carry out a revaluation of domestic properties and a lack of understanding of the damage of the regressive financial ratio between bands A and H. These failings, together with the continued pressure on the council tax reduction scheme, create a sorry picture of the incidence of one of the two primary financing vehicles of local government. The non-domestic rate has also been neglected in both statutory and administrative terms, with a general failure to modernise key elements of the tax and the continuing difficulties being created by the delivery of the technology driving ‘Check, Challenge and Appeal’.
These failings have prompted challenging comments from both opposition parties and in particular the suggestions from the shadow Communities Secretary, who believes local government funding is ‘not fit for purpose’ and the creation of council-run public finance scrutiny bodies are needed. He believes, “The current system of local government finance is not fit for purpose. It is unfair on the poorest parts of the country.” He further stated that a Labour government would deliver a “radical reform of local government finance with the council tax and with a land value tax, which he claimed could raise money to pay for neighbourhood services”.
We now find the country faced with naïve policy initiatives on local government financing from both the Liberal Democrat and the Labour parties, which will herald the destruction of
sub-national government. They both advocate models based on land tax, even though they cannot point to any country that has successfully implemented such a tax, particularly where the proportion of tax against GDP matches that of the United Kingdom. Further, they offer no detail of how these taxes will be delivered, apart from the normal fictional generalities that are voiced by those who support these fiscal approaches.
The Institute is available to offer workable solutions that provide long-term sustainable financial foundations for funding local services.
Each of the political parties are displaying a complete ignorance of the challenges facing local government and the funding mechanisms which are necessary to provide a sustainable financial foundation.
David Magor callson all political parties to ‘get real’
“ We now find the country faced with naïve policy initiatives on local government financing from both the Liberal Democrat and the Labour parties, which will herald the destruction of sub-national government.”
To Advertise in Insight, Benefit or Valuer magazines, call: 0207 691 8979 • email: [email protected] • visit: www.irrv.net/sponsorship
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
News and events
6
Login to IRRV Member Area
www.irrv.net • Forums • Conferences • Training Days • News • Online Training • Qualifications • Membership • Jobs • Council • Tel 0207 831 3505
IRRV Council
The outgoing Institute national Council are photographed following the recent IRRV Annual General Meeting, held at the Annual Conference in October.
The event also welcomed the recently elected members of Council, who were successful following the recent election. Insight congratulates Ian Ferguson, Richard Harbord and Bob Trahern, all re-elected on this occasion, and Simon Green and Zoe Kent, who were elected to the body for the first time. Commiserations to those unsuccessful on this occasion. The full results can be viewed in the membership area of the Institute’s website.
The National Audit Office (NAO) on tackling problem debtSeptember saw the NAO release a report which aims to evaluate and conclude on HM Treasury’s (HMT) overall approach to over-indebtedness, or ‘problem debt’, which is identified as when someone becomes unable to pay their debts or other household bills.
Over-indebtedness also results in costs to the wider economy, for example through lost productivity or increased crime. The Money Advice Service estimates that 8.3 million people in the UK are over-indebted, and that 22% of UK adults have less than £100 in savings, making them highly vulnerable to a financial shock such as job loss or large unexpected bills. The ratio of unsecured debt to household income has been increasing since 2014.
In particular, the report examines:• whether HMT has appropriate mechanisms to identify the scale
and nature of the problem it is seeking to address and organise government’s response
• evidence on the effectiveness and coordination of government actions to prevent problem debt through improving people’s financial capability and regulating consumer credit lending; and
• the extent to which government as a whole adopts best practice in managing its own debtors, and supports over-indebted people more generally through debt advice and other protections.
The report concludes that HMT is taking a thoughtful and well-intentioned approach to excessive indebtedness. It recognises that this has significant damaging effects in terms of public and economic costs, as well as on individuals, although these are not quantified. The effort to provide support across multiple government factors has become more coherent in recent years. The full report can be read on www.nao.org.uk/report/tackling-problem-debt/
Institute news
Other news
Small comfort for business ratepayers?Many readers will be aware that the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) for September sets the base for the inflationary increase for the forthcoming business rate multiplier.
And the good news? The index for this September is 2.4%, which was widely acknowledged as being lower than anticipated.
Scottish success!
The annual clutch of successful Scottish students are photographed displaying their certificates at the Institute’s Scottish Conference, held again at Crieff Hydro in early September.
Timothy Mould QC appointed Deputy High Court JudgeThe name of Tim Mould will ring bells with many readers who have had to familiarise themselves with landmark rating cases over the years.
Following an open competition run by the Judicial Appointments Commission, 32 Deputy High Court judges were appointed this September, and Timothy Mould QC has been appointed to one of the posts. The exercise was open to practitioners with or without previous judicial experience to apply to become a Deputy High Court Judge for England and Wales.
Having started work at the London Borough of Camden, and having studied for a Diploma in Law at Central London Polytechnic, Tim was called to the Bar in 1987. He was a member of the A Panel of Treasury Counsel from 2001 to 2006 and standing junior counsel to the Inland Revenue (Rating and Valuation) from 1997 to 2006. He was appointed as Queen’s Counsel in 2006, called to the Northern Irish Bar in 2013 and elected a Bencher of Gray’s Inn in 2016.
His practice is in planning, environmental and local government law, particularly concerning transport infrastructure, compulsory purchase and business rating. Since 2010, Tim has acted for the government on the HS2 high speed rail project. He is joint editor of the Encyclopedia of Rating and Local Taxation.
7In order to continue receiving your online magazines don’t forget to keep your membership details up-to-date. Log on to www.irrv.net
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
Sickness benefit – the new PPI?Tens of thousands of people on sickness benefits will receive backdated payments averaging £5,000 following government errors.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has revealed it is paying more than £1.5bn due to the mistakes. Some people have already received payouts of more than £10,000. The mistaken calculations were made when people were moved on to the main sickness benefit, the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA).
Assessors wrongly calculated the income of thousands of people during the process that resulted in people moving from incapacity benefit and severe disability allowance onto ESA. Most of the errors occurred between 2011 and 2014.
Your Editor cannot help but reflect on a former life when housing benefit audits identified small (but nevertheless important) ‘subsidy errors’ that were taken seriously and rectified. Is anyone else thinking that local benefit administration may be an effective alternative to the centre?
Late news
IRRV Professional Meetings
E: [email protected] T: 07899 877887W: www.irrv.net
* Bookings must be made at the same time and can be spread over the two courses. At least one of the delegates must be a member of the institute in order to receive this discount or alternatively if the organisation subscribes to the Forum or Benefits Advisory Service then they will also be able to receive the discount.
** Places limited to 25 delegates per course.
Members can book 3places for the price of 2*
Representing the Council at the Magistrates Court**22 November: London • 7 December: ManchesterA one day professional meeting designed for officers looking to attend and / or represent the Council at the Magistrates Court. This meeting will look at the role played by the Council in the Magistrates Court and will be of interest to practitioners working in both council tax and non-domestic rate. It will address both the liability order and means enquiry hearings and cover the action that needs to be taken prior to, during and after a court hearing. In addition to covering the statutory provisions, the course will focus on the specific role of the officer who is representing the council. This will be a practical course with half the day dedicated to running mock liability and means enquiry hearings. The Course will be delivered by Gary Watson, Deputy Director, IRRV.
Representing the Council at the Valuation Tribunal**26 November: Manchester • 11 December: LondonThis one day professional meeting will look at the role played by the Council in the Valuation Tribunal and will be of interest to practitioners working in both council tax and non-domestic rate. It will cover the action that needs to be taken prior to, during and after a tribunal hearing. In addition to covering the statutory provisions, the course will focus on the specific role of the officer who is representing the council. This will be a practical day with half the afternoon dedicated to running mock hearings. The Course will be delivered by Gary Watson, Deputy Director, IRRV.
Fees: IRRV Member (valid for Individual Members) . . . . . . . £175 plus VATBAS/Forum/Organisational Member. . . . . . . . . . . . £205 plus VATNon Member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £235 plus VAT
Universal Credit – from bad to worse?The BBC reports that ministers have bowed to pressure and are planning to further delay the rollout of Universal Credit (UC) .
Leaked documents seen by the BBC reveal plans to spend hundreds of millions of pounds to prevent claimants suffering hardship as they move onto it.
Responding to an urgent question in the House of Commons, Employment Minister Alok Sharma declined to comment on the leaked documents, and said the government would publish plans for the next stage of UC “in due course”. He added that, by December 2018, UC would be available in all jobcentres for new benefits claimants.
Several MPs, including Labour’s shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, Margaret Greenwood, have called for a halt in the rollout of the reform.
October Insight quizThe answers to Gary Watson’ s quiz, on page 13 of October Insight, are as follows:
1) Royal Portrush (Northern Ireland)... the host in 2019;
2) Burj Khalifa, Dubai;
3) Bet Lynch (Bet Gilroy);
4) You know that if you get fired, you still have to come in the next day;
5) Mary Roberts.
Quiz answers
INSI
GH
T D
ATE
201
8
8
The IRRV would like to thank the above organisations
for their sponsorship of the IRRV Annual Conference 2018
®
Security Solut ions to Financial & Corporate World
The IRRV would like to thank the above organisations for their sponsorship of the IRRV Performance Awards 2018
IRRV Training Days 2018/19
Introduction to Council Tax** – Janet Alexander IRRV (Hons)8 January 2019, London
Introduction to Business Rates** – Janet Alexander IRRV (Hons)19 November 2018, London
Council Tax Master Class**– Janet Alexander IRRV (Hons)17 & 18 December, Manchester
Business Rates Master Class** – Janet Alexander IRRV (Hons)27 & 28 November, Manchester
PhoneCoach In House Training – Allan Traynor FCCA IRRV (Hons)For more information (including fees) please visit the IRRV website
Fees: Introduction Master ClassIRRV Member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £155 plus VAT . . £270 plus VATBAS/Forum/Organisational Member. . £185 plus VAT . . £330 plus VATNon Member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £215 plus VAT . . £390 plus VAT
* This special offer will only apply to the introduction and masterclass training days and is available to IRRV Members and Forum, Benefit Advisory or Organisational Members. Delegates must be from the same organisation and bookings must be made at the same time.
** Places limited to 25 delegates per course.
E: [email protected] T: 020 7691 8987W: www.irrv.net/trainingdays
Early Booking Advised!
Members can book 3 places for the price of 2*
9
This month, Insight reports on the success of the IRRV Annual Conference in Telford, which took place from 9th to 11th October 2018. For the Education team, the lead up to conference was a very busy time, as we were preparing for the official launch of the IRRV’s Level 4 Revenues and Welfare Benefits Practitioner Apprenticeship training programme.
During conference, my colleagues and I met with lots of delegates to talk through their Apprenticeship requirements and agree the next steps for delivery of the programme. We will be commencing our training delivery to the first regional cohorts in January 2019.
IRRV Apprentices are enrolled as student members and, if successful, will not only be awarded the Level 4 Apprenticeship but also the industry recognised professional qualification, the Level 3 Certificate (Technician). This allows the Apprentice to use the designation ‘Tech IRRV’ after their name, for as long as they remain a member of the Institute.
We are still registering interest for the groups. The higher the number of Apprentices in a cohort, the lower the cost for the training programme. Please do not hesitate to contact us on 020 7691 8994 or [email protected] if you would like to know more about the programme or if you want to register your Apprentices with the IRRV.
In addition to preparing for the launch of the Apprenticeship scheme, we were very excited about the student reception, which took place immediately prior to the conference’s gala dinner. Successful students from the December 2017 and June 2018 examination sittings were invited, along with their guests, to attend Annual Conference, including the dinner. The student reception was hosted by the Chair of the Qualifications Management Board (QMB), Lee Anderson. It was a very proud moment for all involved.
At the start of the gala dinner, the highest performing students from the two sittings were called up on stage and presented with a certificate and prize to mark their fantastic achievement. This year, the prizes were presented by the Education Liaison Officer for Scotland and member of the QMB, Paula Doherty. One of the prize winners, Karen Bain, from Scotland, was also presented with the Jeanette Proud award from the Scottish Association. This is presented to the highest performing Scottish candidate and is awarded each year in memory of Jeanette, who did so much for students in Scotland over many years.
The recipients of prizes in Telford were: • Maureen Knowles from Walsall MBC
(June 18: L3 Highest Performing Candidate)
• Karen Bain from Dumfries & Galloway Council (June 18: L3 High Performing Candidate)
• Erika Kibuye from Elevate East London (June 18: L3 High Performing Candidate)
• Carys Taylor from Bedford BC (Dec 17: Diploma High Performing Candidate)
• Lorna-Mae Wilson from Harlow DC (Dec 17: L3 High Performing Candidate).
We hope our successful students will remain members of the Institute and go on to study for the full professional qualification – they all have great futures ahead of them!
Education and membership
The Annual Conference student presentations and of course the launch of the IRRV Apprenticeship scheme are on Sue Williams-Lee’s radar this month
Sue Williams-Lee IRRV (Hons) isHead of Education Services with the IRRV
Congratulations to everyone!!
LEVEL 3 RQF REVENUES PATHWAY Shelly Page North Hertfordshire DC
Latest vocational qualification successes
New members
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
STUDENT MEMBERSNAME EMPLOYERRhiannon Doran Wigan CouncilLorraine Fairhurst Wigan CouncilWendy Jane Larty Wigan CouncilLaura Jane Melling Wigan CouncilJames Prescott Wigan CouncilSusan Bush Westminster CCHeather Cartwright Mid Sussex DCJoanne Gray Westminster CCJake Hamilton Folkestone and Hythe DCJamie Henderson Westminster CCAsma Hussain Luton BCLucy Jasper Knight FrankKelly Jeyarajah Redbridge London BCIyzah Khan Luton BCMax Mason Elevate East London LLPJames Peerless Hillingdon London BCMatthew Piggins Luton BCHassan Qayyum Elevate East London LLPWilliam Redrup Redbridge London BCPaula Marie Robinson Mid Sussex DCGraham Stanley Redbridge London BCKevin Stokes Hillingdon London BCKevin Sullivan Mid Sussex DCAlfie Whitehead Tower Hamlets London BCEric Dent Durham CCAndrew Duffell Durham CCPhilip Howard Durham CCStephen Lewis South Tyneside CouncilJoanne Scullion Gateshead CouncilCarol Thompson South Tyneside CouncilChristine Thompson Gateshead CouncilVictoria Williams Durham CCLorraine Campbell Orkney Islands CouncilEilidh Anderson Girvan Argyll and Bute CouncilRobyn Harris North Lanarkshire CouncilStephanie Keith Aberdeenshire CouncilAngela McGuckin Falkirk CouncilSarah Jane McLean North Lanarkshire CouncilRachel Moran Falkirk CouncilColin Reid South Ayrshire CouncilNatasha Reynolds North Lanarkshire CouncilJamie Thomson Angus CouncilJustine Thornton City of Edinburgh CouncilBeverley Ann Wilkinson Dumfries & Galloway CouncilLori Williams Falkirk CouncilAinslie Woods South Ayrshire CouncilLaura Wymes Aberdeenshire CouncilSusan Carol Hill West Berkshire CouncilLee Sibley Aylesbury Vale DCRosie Williams Poole Borough CouncilRebecca Gaffney Dukes Bailiffs Limited
www.irrv.net • Forums • Conferences • Training Days • News • Online Training • Qualifications • Membership • Jobs • Council • Tel 0207 831 3505
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
10
“ In summary, not a lot was discussed and not a lot was agreed… other than to adjourn decisions to the next meeting.”
From the archives
The Rules of the Association and more entertainment issues have attracted the attention of Gary Watson as he traces our history in 1903 (part three)
Following the General Meeting of the Metropolitan Rate Collectors’ Association at Masons’ Hall Tavern, Masons Avenue, Basinghall Street in the City of London on Saturday, 28th March, a Smoking Concert was held. This was an unqualified success and during the three hours, upwards of thirty songs were rendered by members and their friends. Altogether, a most enjoyable evening was spent.
Keep reading for details of a competition..!
The Executive Committee next met at Hemmans Hotel, 64 Cheapside in the City of London on Saturday, 2nd May, with Mr A Sales in the chair. Minutes of the last meeting were read and signed. Committee considered the existing rules of the Association, with a view to making certain alterations therein. The same having been carefully discussed, it was resolved that consideration of the rules, as amended, be postponed until the next meeting of the Committee. A letter from Mr Butcher (Borough of Paddington) was then presented and read, with reference to the London Education Bill. The consideration of the same was postponed until the next meeting of the Committee. The meeting then adjourned.
In summary, not a lot was discussed and not a lot was agreed ...other than to adjourn decisions to the next meeting.
The Executive Committee next met at Hemmans Hotel, 64 Cheapside in the City of London on Saturday, 6th June, with Mr Robert J Ricketts in the chair. Minutes of the last meeting were read and signed. Committee further considered the proposed alterations to the rules of the Association and after a discussion, which resulted in a number of alterations, it was resolved that the rules (as amended) be brought forward at the next meeting of the Committee.
Attention then turned to the London Education Bill and it was resolved that the Secretary do write to Mr Butcher (Borough of Islington), thanking him for his letter and to inform him that the Bill is under consideration by the Committee. Members considered the Summer Outing and it was resolved that reference to this Committee from the General Meeting of 4th April last, with respect to the Summer Outing, be discharged.
It was resolved that the next meeting of the Executive Committee be held during the month of October and that the General Meeting of members be held that evening. Having then resolved that the account of Messrs Henderson and Spalding for printing amounting to 14/- be paid, the Committee adjourned.
The Executive Committee next met at Masons’ Hall Tavern, Masons Avenue, Basinghall Street in the City of London on Saturday, 24th October, with Mr Robert J Ricketts in the chair. Minutes of the last meeting were read and signed. It was resolved that consideration of the London Education Act, so far as it relates to the collection of rate, be postponed for three months.
The Committee then discussed the arrangements for holding an Annual General Meeting and Dinner. In view of the excellent manner in which these previous functions had been carried out at the Trocadero, Piccadilly, Committee expressed a wish that the Dinner next year should be held at the same place. It was resolved that a Sub-Committee be appointed consisting of the Chairman, Vice Chairman, Honorary Treasurer and Secretary, to make arrangements for holding the Annual General Meeting and Dinner on the last Saturday in January next, at the Trocadero, Piccadilly.
Committee then considered a further draft of the Association rules (as amended at the last meeting) and after a lengthy discussion it was resolved on the motion of Mr Stone and seconded by Mr Davis that the foregoing
rules be submitted to the General Meeting of Members, to be held that evening, for their approval.
Having resolved that the account of Messrs Horton and Birch for printing and stationery amounting to £7/13/9 be paid, this concluded the business of the evening and a cordial vote of thanks was passed to the Chairman. The Committee then adjourned.
On the conclusion of the Executive Meeting, the General Meeting of the Metropolitan Rate Collectors’ Association took place with Mr Robert J Ricketts in the chair. There were 21 members in attendance. Minutes of the last meeting were read and signed. The quarterly report of the Executive Committee was presented and read – the same being approved by members. It was reported that the Education Rate, so far as it relates to the collection of same, was discussed, but in so much as no definite action had been put forward as to the levying of such rate, it was thought advisable that consideration of the subject should be adjourned for three months.
Members were also advised that for some time, the Executive Committee had under their consideration, the necessity of bringing the rules of the Association more up-to-date and submitted the latest version to members for approval. Each paragraph was discussed separately, with a number of changes approved. It was then resolved on the motion of Mr Strong and seconded by Mr Kidman, that the rules, as altered, be constituted the rules of this Association. The Rules are reproduced separately in this article.
This having concluded the business portion of the meeting, a cordial vote of thanks was passed to the Chairman and the meeting adjourned. The impromptu Smoking Concert which followed the meeting was again a great success. Upwards of thirty songs were rendered by members and their friends, which brought the gathering to a very enjoyable close.
Members are invited to contribute towards the feature and come forward with their own personal memories of the Institute. The Deputy Chief Executive is also happy to try and answer any questions on the Institute’s history – contact him on [email protected] In addition, copies of previous articles can be provided on request.
Gary L Watson IRRV (Hons) is Deputy Chief Executive of the Institute IN
SIG
HT
NO
VEM
BER
201
8
11
Gary Watson on Twitter
RULES OF THE METROPOLITAN RATE COLLECTORS’ ASSOCIATION
(Approved at a General Meeting of the Rate Collectors Association on 24th October 1903)
1. That this Association shall be called the Metropolitan Rate Collectors’ Association.
2. That Rate Collectors within or adjacent to the boundary of
the Administrative County of London, shall be eligible for election. 2a That applications for membership be made in writing to the
Honorary Secretary, who shall place the same upon the Agenda Paper for the next meeting of the Executive Committee for election.
2b That the Annual Subscription should be 10/-. 2c That members who have retired from office may retain their
membership, on payment of an Annual Subscription of 5/-. 3. That the object of this Association shall be to consider any proposed
legislation that may from time to time be brought forward, to take any steps thereon that may be deemed advisable, and to consult and advise in any matter that may affect the interests, or promote the welfare (whether Local or General), of its members.
4. That the Annual General Meeting shall be held in the month of
January when the reports and balance sheets for the past year shall be presented, and the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Honorary Treasurer, Solicitor, Honorary Secretary and Auditors for the ensuing year shall be elected. That additional General Meetings be also held during the months of April and October for the discussion of any
matters of general interests, or on a requisition in writing addressed to the Honorary Secretary, stating the objects of such meeting, signed by not less than six members.
5. That there shall be an Executive Committee (five to form a quorum)
consisting of one representative from each City or Borough where the subscribing members do not exceed five, and two where the subscribers exceed that number, together with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Honorary Treasurer and Honorary Secretary, if not otherwise members of the Committee. That the Chairman upon his retirement from office, becomes an ex-officio member of the Executive Committee.
6. That the representatives be elected annually, not later than the
second week of December, the senior representative of each City or Borough to be the Convener of the meeting for this purpose, and within seven days, send to the Honorary Secretary the name and address of each representative elected. All retiring representatives shall be eligible for re-election.
7. That the General Fund of the Association be kept at such Bank as the Executive may from time to time direct, in the names of the Honorary Treasurer and Honorary Secretary, who shall jointly sign all cheques for the payment of accounts, after the same have been passed by the Committee and certified by the Chairman.
8. That a separate fund to be called the ‘Benevolent Fund’,
consisting of Donations and Annual Subscriptions of not less than 5/- each, be raised and administered by those on the Executive Committee as are subscribers thereto, in affording temporary assistance to such of the subscribers or their families as may be deemed to be in need thereof.
It’s competition time...
The current members of the Institute’s National Council can be found on page two of Insight. What songs would you associate with current members of Council? Suggestions should be sent to the Editor, on [email protected] with the most appropriate reported on in a future edition. Can I just reassure members that only if the Institute falls upon hard times will we need to resort to Council members each ‘doing a turn’ at the Gala Dinner. That said, if we do have problems clearing the room at the end of the evening, there may be a change of plan!
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
12
Managing themigration
A key consultation document that occupied the thoughts of Benefits Faculty Board members over the last cycle has been that concerning the moving of claimants to Universal Credit (UC) from other working age benefits. Wide-ranging draft legislation was presented to the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) for scrutiny in June, in which could be seen the government’s detailed proposals. These included requirements for claimants on existing benefits to make a claim for UC (including the deadlines for doing so), arrangements for ending their existing legacy benefit, together with the calculation, award and ongoing treatment of transitional protection.
With around three million claimants in around two million households being required to move from legacy benefits to UC, the SSAC were keen to address important questions about the delivery challenge facing the department and the potential impact on claimants. In order to examine the draft legislation and the impacts that flow from it, the Committee invited evidence from a broad range of organisations and individuals. The Board was happy to provide its views on a number of the proposals, which covered the themes of the overall migration timetable, arrangements for contacting claimants and inviting claims from them, issues associated with making a claim, ending legacy benefit claims and the calculation of transitional protection. Also coming under the SSAC’s scrutiny was the impact on workers, including the self-employed, and whether there will be particular effects for different groups and how these can best be addressed.
The Institute’s response welcomed the Secretary of State’s commitment to listen to stakeholders concerning UC. In introductory remarks, the submission commented on the related concern that there is a lack of logic to the benefit cap, in that it pays no regard to in-work benefits. The government argument is that incomes out-of-work should not exceed incomes in work, but the cap considers only wages, not in-work benefits. Benefits available both in and out
of work – such as UC, Housing Benefit (HB), Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits – should be excluded from the cap. It was noted that the original cap, the ‘wage stop’, was abolished in 1975 in large part because of the emergence of in-work benefits such as Rent and Rate Rebates and Allowances and Family Income Supplement. A generous interpretation of this logical error would be that ministers do not understand in-work benefits. A less generous interpretation would be that it is a political strategy designed to help create a hostile environment for out-of-work claimants.
For avoidance of doubt, the response also drew attention to the fact that it is a policy objective of the Institute to seek the removal of the HB element from UC, with the UC rollout experience to date showing that this complex benefit is ill-suited to being incorporated. The point was made that local authorities remain best placed to retain the administration of this complex and constantly changing benefit.
Simply put, the Institute view was that UC was not ready for managed migration to start as currently planned. It was recommended that managed migration should be halted until the outstanding problems were resolved. ‘Natural migration’ should also be halted whilst the process problems were resolved, in order to ensure that claimants were not disadvantaged by the system changes. Local authorities have no
choice but to take and process an HB claim from a customer even when it was clear that they would be caught by the benefit cap. Due to the data only being picked up by the SHBE extract and notification subsequently being sent to the local authority to apply the reduction, they have in effect been double handling those claims. An advance system like VEP or WURTI would be more beneficial, as it would mean that the local authority is putting the correct amount of HB into payment in the first place, instead of paying an initial sum and then adjusting it. The effective date rules mean that there is no overpayment for the customer but it must still be confusing.
Concern was expressed that the proposed process for managed migration where one has to apply for UC within a certain time period would allow many claimants to either fall through the cracks in the migration system or float away from it due to the complexity of engagement.
Some of the customers migrating to UC may have been on HB for a considerable length of time without any change in circumstances – and to add to this there have not been any HB review cycles for a considerable time. Customers have received their HB either directly or payments have been made to their respective landlords. Many of these customers will not understand in good time that they need to apply for UC. The situation experienced at the end of council tax benefit (CTB) made this very apparent and for that change local authorities started working with those affected customers well in advance of the change to CTB being implemented.
The response stated that there are particular groups losing out under UC who also need additional protection if they move onto UC through natural migration, including severely disabled adults, disabled children and young people and young parents.
“ Concern was expressed that the proposed process for managed migration where one has to apply within a certain time period would allow many claimants to either fall through the cracks in the migration system or float away from it due to the complexity of engagement.”
Moira Hepworth BA Hons IRRV is the Institute’s Head of Law and Research
Faculty Board report
Managed migration to Universal Credit is a big topic for Benefits Faculty Board discussion, Moira Hepworth reports
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
13
Facing thedelivery challenge The Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) recently issued a public consultation on proposals for moving all existing claimants on a working age income-related benefit to Universal Credit (UC). The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) are calling this ‘Managed Migration’.
From next year, DWP will begin the process of moving claimants in receipt of one or more of the following benefits to UC:• Working Tax Credit• Child Tax Credit• income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance• income-related Employment and Support
Allowance• Income Support• Housing Benefit.
The wide-ranging draft legislation is available along with additional information at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/moving-claimants-to-universal-credit-from-other-working-age-benefits and was presented to the SSAC for scrutiny at its meeting on 20th June 2018, setting out the government’s proposals on:1. the requirements for claimants on existing
benefits to make a claim for UC (including the deadlines for doing so) and arrangements for ending their existing benefit
2. the calculation, award and ongoing treatment of transitional protection.
The task of safely moving around three million claimants (in around two million households) from legacy benefits to UC raises important questions about the delivery challenge facing the department, and the potential impact on claimants bearing in mind the pace of the transfer to date (1.1m as opposed to 7.3m by the 31st March 2017). Looking at the proposals, you do have to wonder how they came up with the title ‘Managed Migration’, with claims to legacy benefits being cancelled in a period and the customer invited to claim UC within a set month (with certain possible exceptions) to keep the transition. You also wonder about how
vulnerable people will cope with this, or indeed whether the local Jobcentres will cope if too many apply at one time.
SSAC therefore decided to examine this draft legislation and the impacts that flow from it in more detail. To help inform this work, the Committee asked for evidence from a broad range of organisations (such as the IRRV) and individuals who have good insight into and/or experience of the following aspects of these proposals:• the overall migration timetable• arrangements for contacting claimants and
inviting claims from them• issues associated with making a claim, and
ending legacy benefit claims• the calculation of transitional protection
(including the treatment of earnings and capital)• the impact of proposed transitional protection
(including how easily it will be delivered and the degree to which it will be understood by claimants)
• the impact on workers, including the self-employed
• equality impact (whether there will be particular effects for different groups and how these can best be addressed), for example are there any groups that will not be covered by transitional protection?
• monitoring and evaluation.
The IRRV contributed to this consultation with its response at www.irrv.net/consultations The SSAC will feed back from this consultation to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, so that she is informed on a range of perspectives.
Following this consultation, the SSAC invited a number of local authority representatives to a teleconference. It was clear that there were concerns that the DWP were not, it would appear, treating local authorities as a serious stakeholder. We asked for greater transparency from the DWP, clear timescales as soon as possible, ongoing funding with greater financial support from the Department for Universal Support, more
involvement for local authorities and a rethink on the times to apply for UC to ensure any transitional protection is retained. We also suggested there should be more protection for vulnerable people.
The SSAC thanked us for the input and stated that they were trying to get a response to the Secretary of State at the DWP in early October at the latest. They promised to keep local authorities updated in the process.
As I have stated before, UC is certainly interesting and you may recall that many Chief Financial Officers at local authorities thought it would bring the end to Housing Benefit (HB) administration. You still have older people applying for HB (for the time being) and the rollout of UC is teaching the DWP how complex housing costs have become. Local authorities, especially in this climate of financial austerity, must continue to properly resource their benefits service, as they are getting busier, not quieter. Unfortunately for my colleagues across local government, not all local authorities appear to be heeding this advice.
Finally, a plea to you all again. We need you! As the IRRV Benefits Faculty Board chair, I would like to encourage new members to join the Board. We meet largely by teleconference, with occasional face-to-face meetings, often held at IRRV conferences such as the Annual and Spring Conferences. I know we are all very busy doing more for less these days, but if you are prepared to help us, please let Moira Hepworth at the IRRV know, providing a brief summary of your knowledge and experience. You can email Moira on [email protected] Should you want any more insight into such an opportunity you are welcome to approach me at any event or drop me an email to [email protected]
“ We asked for greater transparency from the DWP, clear timescales as soon as possible, ongoing funding with greater financial support from the Department for Universal Support, more involvement for local authorities and a rethink on the times to apply for UC to ensure any transitional protection is retained.”
Benefits bulletin
The IRRV is at the forefront of comment when it comes to
consultation on Universal Credit, explains Kevin Stewart
Kevin Stewart is a Past President of the Institute and Chair of the IRRV’s Benefits Faculty Board. The views expressed are his own.
Geoff Fisher is backwith another collection of key
events and news items from the world of valuation
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
14 Geoff Fisher FRICS Dip.Rating IRRV (Hons) REV is a Past President of the IRRV and a Rating Diploma Holder and can be contacted via the Editor. His summaries and any views given are personal and should not be taken as legal opinion.
Valuers’ Association Monthly Page
‘Income Generation and Revenue Reduction in the Public Sector’ was the title of the Association of Chief Estates Surveyors (ACES) conference in Cambridge in September, hosted by President Neil McManus. See https://www.aces.org.u k/Conference2018/
The new RICS Red Book UK Supplement is expected to be published in November. This follows consultation and it will replace the 2015 UK Chapter of the Red Book. Go tohttps://www.rics.org/uk/upholding-professional-standards/sector- standards/valuation/red-book/red-book-uk/
GENERAL PRACTICE
RATING
The IRRV Valuers’ Association Boardmeeting on 11th September discussed the recent Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decision in Gardiner Theobald LLP v Jackson VO 2018 (concerning Expert Witness), the Scottish Government Barclay Review, the IRRV Annual Conference Valuer Day on 10th October, and other current issues. See http://landschamber.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk//Aspx/view.aspx?id=1433
2018 RICS Rating Diploma Holders’ ConferenceThe September 2018 RICS Rating Diploma Holders’ Conference at Loughborough University was entitled ‘In a changing world, some things remain the same – the Art of Rating Valuation’, hosted by 2018 Chair Sharon Magee. Rating Diploma Holders gave expert presentations on Hereditaments (Mazars+), Plant and Machinery (Iceland), the Hierarchy of Evidence (Lotus, etc), together with Practical Issues of Pioneering Allowances, Brexit, MCC and the use of ‘Without Prejudice’. The day started with the regular VO/VT/agent debate on CCA etc, and ended with the popular ‘Duncan’s Cases Roundup’. Go to https://www.rics.org/uk/events/conferences... /rating-diploma-holders-conference-2018The Rating Diplomas Annual Lunch AGM is on 30th November at the RAF Club, and the morning Professional Meeting talk will be given by Declan Lavelle, Head of Valuation Services in the Valuation Office, Republic of Ireland.
Continuous Professional Development (CPD) – reminder As December approaches, it’s time to update your IRRV/RICS CPD logs. If you are short of the 20 hours required, there are plenty of CPD meetings, online training, etc. to attend before the end of the year. See (training) http://irrv.net/homenew/item.php?iid=22142&wid=24&did=15 https://www.rics.org/uk/training-events/ and for CPD details, http://irrv.net/homenew/item.php?wid =6&iid=21578&did=17&criteria=CPD https://www.rics.org/uk/search/?search=CPD
NB – the RICS now has a revamped website.
V@MP
Valuation TribunalVT decision - short stay accommodation: Sec. 66 2B LGFA1088. Short lettings are ones for 28 days or less: Bridge Street Ltd v D Jackson VO. See http://info.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/decision_document.asp?Decision=&appeal=%2Fdecision% 5Fdocuments%2Fdocuments%2FNDR% 2F361525202164%2F537N10
Doncaster Office has relocated (17th September) to 3rd Floor, Crossgate House, Wood Street, Doncaster, DN1 3LL. The telephone number and email address will remain unchanged. Mr Kevin Everett, a Senior Member of the VTE, has been appointed by MHLG as a new Board Member of VTS for a three-year term. See https://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk/
Valuation in Practice VIP 50 has now been published on the VT website and includes news, list of stayed appeals, interesting VT decisions and UT(LC) and High Court decisions, including Sabesan v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2018] EWHC 2373 CO/1472, where an application for extension of time to appeal was refused [Ref 21(6) 2009 Regs and VTE Practice Notes applied]. VTE rating decisions are summarised on a biomass power station (R&E method), school overcapacity allowance, and Burlington House (library value). Also, on a Transport Museum, the VTE decided on an R&E basis, not contractors (as in the York Museums cases). See https://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/VIP-Issue-50.pdf
‘Brexit’ Reval 2021 is coming! With the AVD of April 2019, only days after the UK is due to leave the European Union, the VO will be collecting rental evidence which no doubt reflects business uncertainty and the other challenges and changes since the 2017 Reval AVD of April 2015. Whilst some ‘between lists’ changes are physical and MCC appeals made, many changes are economic and are viewed as non-MCCs in rating terms. In a recent EG article, Rating Diploma Holder John Webber has identified the current problems of the hotel trade, with the rise of Airbnb (MCC?), high business rates (appeal?), rising costs, weak sterling, etc. and calls for reform, including rates shifts onto online businesses, where retail has suffered similar losses. See https://www.egi.co.uk/news/time-to-level-the-playing-field/
At the Rating Diploma Conference, Dennis Broughton addressed the question ‘Brexit, an MCC?’ Brexit is also being argued as an ‘unforeseen event’ entitling the lessee to exit a 25-year lease in Canary Wharf! See https://www.thetimes.co.uk/.../cma-lease-battle-puts-canary-wharf-on-brexit-alert-fbswwj...
Northern Ireland Reval 2020 – deadline announced for return of rental information (AVD April 2018): see https://www.finance-ni.gov.uk/news/deadline-reval2020-announced
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
15
IRRV Scotland
E: [email protected] T: 07899 877883W: www.irrvscotland.org.uk
Benefits & Welfare Reform Conference 2018Crucial challenges ahead
Wednesday 21st November 2018The Leapark Hotel, Grangemouth
Includes Free Places Special Offer *
* See website for more details
IRRV in Scotland is delighted to announce the return of the Scottish Benefits and Welfare Reform Conference.
This is a major event in the Institute’s calendar and an excellent opportunity for senior benefits practitioners and their staff to hear about the key issues affecting the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction in Scotland. Last year, the event was, at the request of delegates, substantially updated.
The event is now a one-day non- residential event, which means a significant reduction in delegate fees, resulting in this event being one of the most competitive benefits and welfare reform events.
With hugely significant changes to the benefits system being implemented, the IRRV is pleased to advise of a very strong field of speakers and an extremely comprehensive programme of topics at this year’s Scottish Benefits and Welfare Reform Conference.
Fees: The conference represents excellent value for money, with seminar fees starting at only £175 + VAT.
The Butcher... has some family concerns!“Last Tuesday week, I sees The Mighty Inkistrator Body Artist - that’s second cousin
Derek from the tattoo parlour across the High St – starin’ up at the sky with a weird expression on ‘is face; more wrinkles than last year’s party balloons.
Half an hour goes by, I know that because I spends it getting the benefit of Mrs ??’s post-Brexit plan. I was only half listening as I really needed to get on sorting out me giblets but it
seemed to revolve around someone called Jacob becoming Viceroy of India.
Anyway, I keep checking and yep, he’s still there.
It’s half ten by now and Dakota rolls up, courtesy of her new-fang led flexible working hours idea , which means she turns up when she likes and leaves when all decent customers are home boiling
the Brisket. By now I’m getting’s a bit concerned, what with Derek’s catatonic pose an’ all. Now he was never the sharpest knife on the Butcher’s block, I remember he used to gather
up all the jumpers we kids used for footie goalposts and give them back to the owners. Well-meaning but not very helpful if you get my drift.
Eventually I can’t stand it any longer and I legs it across the High St, narrowly avoidin’ getting mown down by ‘Whispering Death’, the mayor’s new hybrid limo. I never trust a chauffeur who
wears ‘is cap back to front and sports Ultimate Fight Club leatherette mittens.
‘Derek old lad’ says I ‘what’s occurring ? You need to take a break’.
‘I’m waiting’ says he,’ for IT to arrive’.
‘Oh my gawd ‘ I says to meself ,’e’s done one too many of them biblical epic tattoos and now he thinks a bit of Cumulo-Nimbus means it’s the Armageddon’.
Just then Monica, his girlfriend and business oppo, known to one and all as the ‘Ink-Monica,’ ,comes out of the shop.
“Don’t mind him” she says, “we’re waiting for our new computer software to turn up and I made the mistake of telling him it’s cloud-based”.
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
16
Another jam-packed Scottish Conference
Lovely to be back in beautiful Crieff at the wonderful Hydro! Well, where do I start? It was another jam-packed Scottish Conference – lots to go and see much to take in and a few things to discuss as well. The Conference itself is really three events rolled into one, with a few other events bookending the breaks in presentations. Even before the Conference starts there is the golf tournament sponsored by Civica. This year’s winner was Jacek Nowak of Angus Council – congratulations to him.
The event is a mixture of plenary sessions together with more specialised revenues and benefits presentations, the valuation stream and a half day student seminar. It was not possible for me to cover all events and so I am indebted to the Institute’s Junior Vice President, Andrew Hetherton, who as well as giving his own presentation to the valuer sector posing the question, ‘Is harmonisation dead?’ also provided the notes for the valuation part of the Conference for this article. Andrew’s notes will be included in the December edition of the Institute’s Valuer magazine.
At 9.45pm prompt on Wednesday 5th September, Kevin Fraser, IRRV Scottish Association President, welcomed delegates to the Conference and thanked the overall sponsor Scott + Co, and a few minutes later the Civic Welcome was made by Provost Dennis Melloy of Perth and Kinross Council. Next up was Institute President Gordon Heath, who outlined eloquently the challenges we all face.
The phrase ‘a week is a long time in politics’ is attributed to Harold Wilson, who in 1964 was Prime Minister. The rapid rate of change continues decades later and those delegates expecting to hear from the advertised speaker Derek Mackay, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution, would, by the end of her speech, not have been in the least bit disappointed by Ms Kate Forbes, the Minister for Public Finance and Digital Economy, who works with the Finance Secretary on managing
the Scottish Government budget and tax policy. Ms Forbes is the first person appointed to a ministerial post in Scotland, England or Wales to be born in the 1990s. Her presentation looked at the challenges being faced in Scotland and some of the possible solutions. In business rates, how will the Barclay recommendations become reality and how can some of the extremes of welfare reform (largely a reserved matter) be adapted to better suit Scotland? And looking to the future beyond the current Parliament, what about council tax, where the base becomes more absurd with each year that passes? These matters have to be addressed against a background of funding cuts, which require things to be done differently in terms both of administration and engagement with the public. A very thought-provoking presentation which covered the full breadth of the Minister’s portfolio.
It was left to IRRV Chief Executive David Magor to follow that, something he did in his usual style, pointing out some of the absurdities of the current business rate taxation situation and indeed the impossibility of pleasing everyone.
It is a fact that the property rates burden is high compared to just about every other country. Perhaps that is offset by Corporation Tax, which for the largest businesses appears to be a minor obstacle that can be overcome.
The real issue is, however, what is the overall aim of reform? – is it to redistribute the burden and indeed ensure that the tax base is maximised, or is to reduce the overall business tax burden? If it is the latter, then other things have to happen to ensure that any gap in public funds is covered from elsewhere. One thing is certain – particularly in the retail sector, we the public have changed our behaviour and the current business rate legislation is lagging behind. I suppose the only thing I would add to the Chief Executive’s views (and this thought was prompted by his comments) is that it does not appear that prime site retail rent levels
are falling in line with the public’s new habits. Not an original thought I know and one that appears to have occurred to Mike Ashley with regard to the flagship House of Fraser building in Edinburgh. I apologise to any Newcastle United and Rangers fans reading this article for mentioning Mr Ashley!
After Universal Credit (UC), where next for social policy? Deven Ghelani, Director, Policy in Practice, addressed this question in his thorough and precise way, using an in-depth analysis of facts. Deven covered a wide range of issues including the Social Security Act in Scotland, UC and the power of household data, impacts on social policy, measuring poverty, effective policy, impact on local delivery, targeting support to households on UC, understanding the impact of homelessness interventions and engaging residents in effective support to build resilience. If these headings have stimulated your interest for further information, please look at Deven’s slides on the IRRV Scotland website.
Then we came to the ‘B’ word – ‘Impacts of Brexit on Scotland’ ! Jeremy Moody, Secretary and Adviser, The Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, gave a surprisingly upbeat presentation and certainly I have a great deal of empathy with Jeremy’s urge to the audience not to be “glum about the future”. Given the divisive nature of the subject, I think I will leave it at that and again urge readers to look at the slides for Jeremy’s presentation.
Adrian Shooter of the DWP’s Housing Delivery Division returned to Crieff to give the Conference a progress report from the Department. This was a statistics laden presentation which was very informative and left me wondering if life would be a lot easier if legislation actually caught up with reality.
‘Revenues and Welfare – a finance director’s perspective’ from Derek Yule, Depute Chief Executive and Director of Corporate Resources with Highland Council pinpointed the need for
“ In business rates, how will the Barclay recommendations become reality and how can some of the extremes of welfare reform (largely a reserved matter) be adapted to better suit Scotland?”
Scottish Conference report
Jim McCafferty returnsto celebrate the success thatis once again the IRRV’sScottish Conference
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
17
Jim McCafferty IRRV (Hons) is a Past President of the Institute
“accounting and revenues to understand each other, and understand processes”. I couldn’t agree more and I was also impressed by Derek’s emphasis on remembering the welfare of our customers and the issues of poverty (staff are our customers too).
Away from both the DWP’s rosy-tinted view of the UC world and the opposite view held by many, lies the reality that those in council front line services address. That reality was spelled out in detail with case studies in UC Full Service – a practitioners’ perspective from Lorna Chisholm, Benefits Manager, and Sally Buchanan, Fairer Falkirk Manager, Falkirk Council. The need for effective support could not have been clearer.
Having been involved in procurement in the past I need little encouragement to believe that there is much that can be done to maximise public sector buying power and I looked forward to the paper on better procurement in revenues and benefits – a Digital Office update from Martyn Wallace, Chief Digital Officer, The Digital Office for Scottish Local Government. I was not disappointed – I think councils are still sometimes seen in some instances as a cash cow for business and the practice of selling under-tested products still remains an unappealing reality.
I also enjoyed the presentation headed ‘Scottish Social Security – challenges ahead’ from Professor John McKendrick, Glasgow School for Business and Society, Glasgow Caledonian University. It would be unfair of me to try to summarise Professor McKendrick’s presentation, which was a very interesting overview of a possible future for Scotland – please have a look at the slides!
After an excellent Conference dinner, on to day two, which started in a lively fashion with ‘Leadership in Scotland’s public services – Challenges for the 2020s’ from Fiona Lees, Chief Executive of East Ayrshire Council. I think
if anyone was wondering about the difference between management and leadership they should ask Fiona.
Another welcome return to the Conference for Robin Haynes, Head of Council Tax Policy, Scottish Government, on Council Tax and Council Tax Reduction topical issues, who led a panel session. I think one of the strengths of the Scottish Government is its willingness to listen to those who are at the sharp end of service delivery. They might not always do what local government wishes but they do listen. Anecdotal evidence from elsewhere suggests this is not all that common.
Robotics – can automation improve your service? Martin Ruane, Programme Director, Engie, left me with the clear view that this is ‘yes’ but... the ‘but’ is very much connected to the processes you wish to operate and the resources you apply both in terms of expertise and quantity in getting them right before you jump on the robotics bandwagon. From what I have seen this is sound advice indeed.
‘Changing the local taxation landscape – a personal perspective’ from Neil Amin Smith, Institute of Fiscal Studies Chair, was a very detailed and learned presentation delivered in a light and engaging manner.
And there we are for another year - have I forgotten anything? Well, we had a very good exhibition thanks to all exhibitors, the Scottish awards village, a wine reception and the award of certificates to students who were successful in the recent examinations. As always, a triumph of organisation where Fraser Macpherson excelled as ever and a special thanks to the staff at the Crieff Hydro.
“ Away from both the DWP’s rosy-tinted view of the UC world and the opposite view held by many lies the reality that those in council front line services address. That reality was spelled out in detail with case studies in UC Full Service.”
Highland Council – winners of the ‘Best in Scotland’ performance award, with the IRRV President
A packed exhibition area
An added attraction in the grounds of the Hydro
The Conference in session
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
18
The DWP Data Matching Team are here to help!
The most recently published statistics for 2017/18 showed that against an expenditure of £22.4bn on Housing Benefit (HB) alone, around £1.46bn had either been paid in error or fraudulently claimed.
Ensuring the accurate payment of welfare benefits is everyone’s business, whether you work in a local authority (LA), the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) or you’re an actual claimant. Every penny misspent is a penny that we, as taxpayers, could see spent on other essential services, whether that be health, education or safeguarding the safety of our citizens.
A key function in DWPs Housing Delivery Division that supports this agenda is their Data Matching team, which works in collaboration with Digital Group’s Data and Analytical colleagues, to provide local authorities, and DWPs Counter Fraud and Compliance Division, with data intelligence (referrals) to support the identification of HB Fraud and Error.
Production and sharing of data intelligence between DWP and LAs is a key plank in the delivery of our joint Fraud and Error detection strategy, with data referrals often acting as a short term stop gap prior to the delivery of more strategic preventive solutions. A good example of this is the delivery of the Real Time Information (RTI ) data, over recent years, prior to the development and delivery of a more real time solution in the form of Verify Earnings and Pensions (VEP) alerts.
What sort of work does the team support?There are three key themes of work:
Funded Fraud and Error Initiatives – developing and delivering the Earnings and Pensions RTI data in support of FERIS, Right Benefit Initiative and VEP, and the most recent self-employment data in support of the earnings review initiative launched in September.
Housing Benefit Matching Service (HBMS) – this provides the architecture by which we develop and issue new data (referrals) to LAs, requiring compliance checking and/or investigation. Referrals are identified where discrepancies are found by matching one set of data with another or alternatively via a risk-based verification approach.
Single Housing Benefit Extract (SHBE) – to most the SHBE is invisible, but in effect the extract captures a number of key data variables, sourced from data input to “front end” LA IT systems. LAs send their SHBE to DWP on a four-weekly cycle. The extract acts as the sole source of HB information utilised by DWP to:• support the current production and future
development of data intelligence (referrals) • provide management information in support
of LA performance management and the evaluation and development of future HB policy.
As the Business Owner of the SHBE, we are responsible for delivering any necessary changes to the extract.
So what’s next?A key approach to the team’s work is not to just develop and implement, but to develop, test, revise and implement. It is important that we pilot, seek and act on LA feedback, to ensure that the data supplied is the best it can be and is fit for purpose – where there are data quality restrictions, then we explain these ‘up front’, so avoiding nugatory issue resolution activity.
The team at present are working on a number of key initiatives – developing new data intelligence (referrals) in support of:
Self-employed earnings Two new rules are currently in testing phase:• no self-employed earnings declared to the
LA, but the self-assessment return to HMRC indicates earnings of up to £10,000 per year (a rule for earnings over £10,000 per year is already generating cases for investigation by DWP fraud investigators)
• self-employed earnings declared to the LA which may differ from that notified to HMRC resulting in under/overpayment of HB. These cases from this new rule are currently being piloted by a number of LAs.
Passported benefit rulesA number of HBMS rules contain referrals where no live claim exists for Job Seekers Allowance (JSA), Income Support ( IS), Employment Support Allowance (ESA) or Pension Credit (PC), but LA systems indicate a live HB passported claim in payment.
At present this rule is designed not to pick up and represent the same case back to LAs for a twelve-month period, once issued. This means that where a case remains unactioned, the LA would not receive a further prompt on that case for at least twelve months. We are therefore looking at redefining the requirement to re-present the case after a three-month time period, where it has remained unactioned.
Prisoner ruleThe current HBMS prisoner rule has a gap by which it doesn’t include Scottish prisoners – we are looking at options to close this gap.
HBMS rules guideThe current rule guide is poorly written and out of date – we are therefore working with our data and analytical colleagues to bring it up to date and make it more easily understandable.
The team are always looking at opportunities to continuously improve the current data or identify new opportunities to develop new data intelligence. If you’ve any feedback or bright ideas why not drop us a line at [email protected] We’d be happy to hear from you.
Welfare reform
This month, our special Insight feature throws the spotlight on the DWP Housing Delivery Division’s Data Matching team
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
19
Cover story
IRRVAnnual Conference
& PerformanceAwards 2018
For the eighth year running, Telford International Centre was the centre of the
universe for all engaged in revenues, rating, valuation, welfare reform and fraud
investigation, as the IRRV’s flagship Annual Conference and Performance Awards
event took over the venue once more. Insight presents its customary pictorial
celebration of the highlights of this prestigious event, including full details of the
award winners and sponsors and of course reports from the key presentations.
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
20
Performance Awards 2018 WINNERS
Revenues Team of the Year (District Authority) Sponsored by
Revenues Team of the Year (Unitary Authority) Sponsored by
Most Improved Team of the Year Sponsored by
Benefits & Welfare Reform Team of the Year Sponsored by
2018 IRRV Performance Awards!Log in to http://irrv.net/awards/finalists/ to see all the latest Performance Awards information.
Benefits & Welfare Reform Team of the Year
Most Improved Team of the Year
THE HIGHLAND COUNCIL SOUTHEND ON SEA BOROUGH COUNCIL
Excellence in Counter Fraud
OXFORD CITY COUNCIL
WINNER!WINNER!
WINNER!
TEAM AWARDS
EXCELLENCE AWARDS
Excellence in Counter Fraud Sponsored by
Revenues Team of the Year (District Authority)
CHILTERN DISTRICT COUNCIL and SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCILWINNER!
HIGHLY COMMENDED: Colchester Borough Council
Revenues Team of the Year (Unitary Authority)
TELFORD & WREKIN COUNCILWINNER!
HIGHLY COMMENDED: Peterborough Serco Strategic Partnership
HIGHLY COMMENDED: Hertfordshire Shared Anti-Fraud Service
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
21
Excellence in Innovation Sponsored by
Excellence in Enforcement Sponsored by
Excellence in Social Inclusion Sponsored by
Excellence in Partnership Working Sponsored by
Excellence in Non-Domestic Rate Sponsored by
Excellence in Staff Development Sponsored by
Excellence in Enforcement Excellence in Innovation
Excellence in Non-Domestic Rate
Excellence in Partnership Working
Excellence in Social Inclusion Excellence in Staff Development
JBW GROUP
BROADLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE COUNCIL EXCEL CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED
CITY OF LINCOLN COUNCIL AND NORTH KESTEVEN DISTRICT COUNCIL
‘Ediblelinks’ – A partnership between the Healthy Living Network, Ocado, Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council and North Warwickshire Borough Council
WINNER!WINNER!
WINNER!WINNER!
WINNER!WINNER!
HIGHLY COMMENDED: Westminster City Council
HIGHLY COMMENDED: The Northern Warwickshire Financial Inclusion Partnership – North Warwickshire Borough and Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council
HIGHLY COMMENDED: North Warwickshire Borough Council
HIGHLY COMMENDED: Excel Civil Enforcement Limited Phoenix Commercial Collections
HIGHLY COMMENDED: South Staffordshire Council
Following a warm welcome to delegates from Councillor Raj Mehta, Mayor of the Borough of Telford and Wrekin, the business of the first day began with the customary address from the Institute’s President, the first of a series of plenary sessions held in the main hall. Current incumbent, Gordon Heath, outlined the IRRV’s approach to the major issues facing the profession, giving a flavour of plans the Institute has to enhance its role whilst also looking ahead to the sessions at the event itself.
‘Communities benefit from our commercialism’ was the theme of Rushcliffe
Borough Council Chief Executive Allen Graham’s keynote presentation, as our speaker provided an update as to how, in the current economic climate, his local authority is introducing a
new ‘commercial’ culture. Allen explained why his authority’s approach was recognised, in particular following the Local Government Chronicle awarding it ‘Entrepreneurial Council of the Year’.
Carla-Maria Heath of the IRRV’s Council, and member of the MHCLG Planning Group, reviewed the existing rate retention scheme and in particular progress towards the ‘75% scheme’. Carla-Maria tackled the experiences
faced by the pilots and gave thought to the administrative issues that need to be addressed, as we move forward to 100% retention.
Rolling out Universal Credit (UC) was naturally the brief of Joshua Reddaway, Director, Work and Pensions VFM and Head of Practice with the UK National Audit Office (NAO). Jonathan gave a synopsis of the recently published report, ‘Rolling out Universal Credit’, highlighting areas of concern for the NAO on progress and success of the national rollout by the DWP, together with comment on whether the scheme is on course to deliver value for money.
Long-standing supporter of the IRRV, Mark Davies, Managing Director with 7Futures Ltd, combined forces with Nathan Douglas, Olympic athlete,
to put forward their take on wellbeing in the workplace. The team asserted that the health and wellbeing of staff should be a fundamental concern to local authorities as they respond to the challenges of reduced funding. They identified and commented on the issues affecting staff and provided an effective insight into how they could be managed.
The highly topical issue of influencing customer behaviour was the brief of Professor Michael Sanders, Chief Scientist and Head of Research and Evaluation with the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) and Miranda Jackman,
BIT Associate Project Manager. The organisation is recognised as one of the architects of the ‘nudge theory’, and the combined resources of the two experts provided an insight into the
way customer behaviour can be influenced by subtle changes to service delivery, as they explained how the theory can transform administration in revenues and benefits.
Peter Fleming, Leader of Sevenoaks District Council, reported on the methods his local authority has employed to generate income for the future to reduce reliance on government funding, as the authority strives towards
becoming self-sufficient. Peter referred to future Initiatives the council intends to deliver and what authorities could learn from his own experiences to date.
‘Rate avoidance – a scam or fraud: time for a strategic plan?’ was the task Institute Chief Executive, David Magor set himself, as he provided his own personal take on rate avoidance and his views on why we see increasing levels of it. David considered the impact of recent case law whilst asking the key question, “Do we now require a change in legislation?”
The final main session of the day was handed to Heather Neate, Head of Fraud and Error with The Cabinet Office, who detailed the requirements of the Digital Economy Act 2017 and the impact the legislation
‘Supporting through change: your customer, your staff, your profession’. The theme of the event was crystal clear, as once again, Telford International Centre excelled itself as the IRRV took over the venue for its flagship annual event, the Annual Conference and Performance Awards. With over 800 attendees, a sell-out exhibition and another 600-plus guests for the gala dinner, the venue boasted an action-packed week of presentations on every aspect of the Institute’s diverse portfolio of revenues, rating, benefits, investigation and valuation. This feature includes highlights of the key moments to refresh the memory of delegates and to whet the appetite for those who plan to attend future events in the IRRV calendar.
will have on the way organisations manage and transfer their data. Heather set out how the Act deals with key issues relating to the digital economy.
The first of the ‘breakout’ sessions at this year’s event featured the investigation stream, where Allan Traynor, IRRV Council Member and Institute Past President, together with Debbie Dansey, Investigation and Enforcement Support Manager with Ashford Borough Council, introduced the day and outlined the Institute’s plans for heightening the profile of the investigation profession.
Hemal Mistry, Director with Horsfields, led the fight against fraud and corruption with an exploration of the links to fraud, highlighting the procedures that create the opportunity for tax avoidance and evasion, together with
the potential for fraud. Hemal continued to address the remedies available to counter this growing abuse.
Mapping fraud was the province of Simon Barlow, Executive Director of Consultancy, GeoPlace, who investigated the potential of his organisation, a partnership between the Local Government Association and Ordinance Survey, in the fight against avoidance and fraud. He held the interest of delegates with an analysis of the use of advanced mapping and data processes.
Mike Neuman, Managing Director of ITS Training, detailed the importance of providing appropriate funding to ensure there is an effective investigation profession. Mike outlined the approach to providing a bespoke comprehensive investigation trailblazer and how the apprenticeship levy can be used to fund involvement.
Closing the day for the anti-fraud specialists was Duncan Baxter, Director with Destin Solutions. Duncan investigated the potential for fraud in small business rate relief. He demonstrated the various approaches to identifying this significant misuse of public funds and showed the importance of the intelligent use of publicly available data.
IRRV Annual Conference Report 2018 DAY ONE
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
22
As in previous years, the second day’s events split into different professional streams – revenues and enforcement, welfare benefits, and rating and valuation. More detailed reports covering the rating and valuation stream will feature in the December edition of Valuer magazine, which is available for all members to access.
Revenues and enforcement took pride of place at the start of the second day, and delegates in this arena were joined by the rating and valuation scheme attendees, as a series of presentations of interest to both streams kicked
off the morning. Policy issues in non-domestic rating were on the agenda for Nick Cooper, Valuation and Policy Advisor, Non-Domestic Rates, with the MHCLG. Conference regular
Nick commented on the government agenda for non-domestic rate and what may lie ahead for the rating practitioner.
‘Check, Challenge and Appeal – light at the end of the tunnel?’ was the question posed by Jerry Schurder, Head of Business Rates at Gerald Eve, who shared his own views of the CCA process and its impact on ratepayers. Jerry
also looked ahead, explaining what needs to happen to ensure the interests of ratepayers, their representatives and billing authorities, are all addressed.
Lee Anderson, Director of Operations and Development at the Valuation Tribunal Service, identified recent developments in Tribunal practice, providing information on the ways which the service is responding rapidly to
the ever-changing environment. He referred to the roles played by the taxpayer, their representatives and the billing authority in the appeals process.
Institute Council member and Revenues and Benefits Manager with the London Borough of Barnet Allan Clark’s brief was the case for council tax reform. Allan looked at all aspects of council tax, considering what needs to happen to ensure it is now ‘fit for purpose’, together with the valuation issues, before moving on to liability, reliefs and recovery.
Kevin Stewart, Council member and Business Unit Leader (Revenues and Benefits) with Mid Sussex District Council gave his own interpretation of ‘corporate debt’ and the steps that need to be taken by a billing authority
when setting up a corporate debt unit. He highlighted the complexities that are faced in dealing with different types of debt.
How to use IT to improve revenues administration was the task Alison Blount, Head of Revenues, Benefits, Information, Advice and Guidance at Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council had before her when she took the stage. Alison shared the good practice operated in her local authority, examining the opportunities to integrate new technology into business processes in order to achieve cost efficiencies and improve service delivery.
Chris Boylett, Business Unit Leader (Council Tax and Benefits), Strategic Services with the London Borough of Newham, spoke of the challenges ahead for revenues collection, providing some ideas and suggestions to promote a more responsive service that reflects the customer’s needs, whilst at the same time identifying and accessing vulnerable customers, to ensure they receive the appropriate services.
The views of Carole Kenney, Vice President of the Civil Enforcement Association (CIVEA) were a welcome addition to the programme, as she commented on her experiences in the enforcement sector and focussed on ways to move the profession forward, at the same time presenting a positive image to customers. She set out the priorities for the organisation in the months and years ahead.
‘Local authority collaboration with debt advice agencies: a toolkit for council tax recovery and interactions with advice agencies’ was the session title for Kevin Shaw, Sector Engagement Manager with Money Advice Service (MAS). Kevin shared his experiences in dealing with vulnerable debtors and outlined how the MAS toolkit can be used to help local authorities engage effectively and proactively with its customer base.
The rating and valuation stream continued with Luke Wilcox, a Barrister with Landmark Chambers, who presented a valuable update on the latest rating case law relevant to non-domestic rating. Luke also reviewed the cases that are currently subject to the appeal process.
No IRRV event is complete without the presence of the Valuation Office Agency, and true to form, Alan Colston, the Agency’s Director of the National Valuation Unit, referred to the stated intention of the English government
to introduce three yearly revaluations after 2021 in this key presentation. He continued with details of the principles emerging from this recent decision and the challenges and opportunities facing stakeholders in delivering this change in approach.
Activities in Scotland are always of the utmost importance, too, and the lessons for England and Wales from the Barclay Review were introduced by Kevin Fraser, Assistant Revenues Manager with Perth and Kinross Council. The speaker gave an overview of the proposed changes that stem from the Review, going on to explain why this will be of interest to those working in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The latest from the E-Comms Group was delivered by Howard Neal, Senior Director Business Rates with GVA. Howard provided an update on the approach to the use of API (Advanced Programme Interface) and set out the work of the E-Comms forum, detailing how all stakeholders could benefit from an improved digital interface for the efficient management of appeals.
Alan Bronte, IRRV Council member and Director of Valuation with Northern Ireland’s
Department of Finance, Land and Property Services, updated listeners on the experience of modernising rating and valuation practice, and the ongoing work associated with it. Alan
was keen to point out how other jurisdictions may benefit from the approach adopted and lessons learnt.
The expert witness in valuation matters, followed by an open forum, closed the day, as Institute Past President, Roger Messenger, Partner with Wilks Head and Eve, and Senior Vice President Andrew Hetherton, Director, Andrew Hetherton Consulting Ltd, provided
detail and comment on the issues that stem from the recent decision in Gardiner and Theobald LLP v Jackson (VO) [2018] UKUT 253 (LC). They shared their own views on the
implications this has for practitioners and invited comment from the audience before opening the session up to other subject matters.
DAY TWO
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
23
IRRV Annual Conference Report 2018 DAY TWO
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
24
Reports are compiled by John Roberts. Photography is courtesy of Andrew Mardell of ARM Photography. Andrew can be contacted though www.armphotography.co.uk You can also view photos of all the events at Telford on www.irrv.net
The welfare benefits stream of the conference is also a key feature of the event, and this year was no exception. Another ‘hardy annual’ when it comes to the world of welfare is the inclusion of our friends from the DWP, and in particular the presence of Claire Elliott, the Department’s Head of Housing Delivery Division. This year, Claire set out the latest policy decisions affecting the day-to-day operation of housing benefit. She also provided details of the DWP development of regulations and the progress of UC, together with a view of the state of play for the next five years.
Another familiar figure, John Giblin, Managing Director of John Giblin Management Consultants, shared areas of good practice and identified practices and procedures that could be introduced to improve overpayment recovery and increase income for the local authority. John included details on the progress of the housing benefit debt service project.
The advantages of a banded council tax reduction (CTR) scheme provided the subject material for Clive Jones, Luton BC’s Revenues and Benefits Manager. The speaker provided details of the variety of CTR schemes being administered by local authorities and looked at the positive and negative outcomes generated by the schemes and how these are changing with cuts in funding.
Jo-Anne Buchan, of UC pioneers Bath and North East Somerset Council, shared the authority’s experience of administering housing benefits in parallel with the UC rollout. She identified the problem areas and explained the measures that can be introduced to assist the customer.
The impact of UC on homelessness gave Deven Ghelani, Director with Policy in Practice, the opportunity to present research on the changing living standards of 600,000 families and reveal what impact factors like UC and other welfare reforms have had. He shared the evidence base, built using the largest collection of anonymised local authority administrative data available and showed how councils are using it to identify and target preventative services to individual households.
Lewis Bourne, Data Protection and Information Governance Manager with Dudley MBC, gave valuable advice and guidance on the practicalities of applying the requirements of GDPR in the workplace and identified areas of potential concern for delegates. He took the audience through the steps a local authority needs to be taking to ensure compliance with the legislation, with a particular focus on the benefits environment.
Supported accommodation has always been a speciality of incoming Institute President, Louise Freeth, Head of Revenues
and Benefits with the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, and once again she didn’t disappoint! Louise reported on the major issues associated with the provision of supported accommodation, reflecting on the recent DWP decision that local authorities should retain responsibility for benefit administration in this arena.
Delivering an effective housing benefit service in a period of change gave Jennifer Wynter, Head of Benefits and Housing Needs, London
Borough of Hackney and Andrew Croucher, Hackney’s Operations Manager, the chance to offer a view on the challenges faced by local authority staff in administering housing
benefit. They also gave an incisive insight into how they have adapted their own service to meet the challenges.
The final presentation of this action-packed stream was down to Asha Vyas, Head of
Enablement and Welfare with the London Borough of Croydon, who drew on her personal experiences of working within a local authority that was recognised in the IRRV Performance
Awards last year. She shared with delegates the reasons her organisation was successful in the ‘Excellence in Innovation’ category’. For those who think that the Performance
Awards gala dinner is the end of the conference, think again! A growing number of delegates check in early on the morning of the third day, to hear up-to-the-minute news and views from our panel of experts. This year, two of the Institute’s stalwarts combined forces to deliver the goods. Alistair Townsend, Chair of the IRRV’s Local Taxation and Revenue faculty and the new Junior Vice President of the IRRV, together with Past President and Chair of the Benefits and Welfare Reform faculty, Kevin Stewart, hosted the workshop-style event, addressing all the major issues facing the profession today. As usual, the interactive workshop was the place where delegates had the opportunity to raise questions that may have raised their heads during the course of the main event and beyond.
And, of course, the all-important verdict as delegates, exhibitors and indeed anyone involved in the event departed was another resounding success from start to finish!
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
25
Moving deckchairs around the Titanic
I have just completed a number of Performance Awards visits and I have seen at first hand how well local authorities, and in these cases particularly Institute members, are doing in these very troubled times. If there needed to be any justification for the Institute’s Performance Awards, it is that someone needs to showcase the excellence there is around.
This all contrasts dramatically with the current world around us – where all seems doom and gloom. Following Northamptonshire, there are good odds to be had on there being another or perhaps several Section 114 notices. I am firmly on record as believing the issue of such a notice is very much a last resort and indicates that relationships in that authority have broken down. It is also a lesson that in the case of Northamptonshire everything they do has been closely analysed, even where they are doing the same things as many other authorities.
The point is being made that when authorities do issue such a notice, they need to clearly state that the reason for it is the lack of resources being made available to produce a statutory level of services. However, the chair of the Public Accounts Committee has made the point that whilst she fully understands that, the sad fact is that no-one is listening!
The Institute of Fiscal Studies has made the point that the Chancellor has very little room for manoeuvre in the forthcoming Public Expenditure Review. Interestingly, the Chancellor is due to announce the spending envelope for the review in his budget. It is also interesting to note that the budget was originally fixed for the end of October, but it has all gone very quiet and the expectation is the budget will be delayed.
The situation is dire. It is no longer possible for authorities to carry out realistic medium-term planning and most are back to single year budgets which can be relied upon with certainty.
Clearly much of this can be blamed on Brexit. Since the referendum, normal business of government has virtually been suspended. Capable civil servants who understood their services have been moved to the Brexit Department and there is no time for legislation for local government.
The Steering Group on Business Rates still meets but is making slow progress. The Fair Funding Review is being worked on but no-one yet knows what the outcome will be. A Review which will receive a welcome of sorts from the ‘winners’ but a muted welcome, because there is no extra money and this is merely an exercise in moving deckchairs around the Titanic as local government sinks.
After the General Election, we were promised a swift Green Paper on social care, which clearly is a local authority spending problem which surpasses everything else except children’s services. There is still no sign of that, although there are vague promises about ‘the end of the year’. It is however expected to be a very ‘Green’ Paper which will not move us forward very far.
The chickens are all coming home to roost and the failure is the total lack of forward planning by central government and the fact that all decisions are short term, to coincide with the election cycle.
In a grown-up world, Income Tax would have been raised and the worst effects of austerity ameliorated. No-one can pretend the growth in demand for elderly services was not foreseen 20 years ago, so why leave planning for it until it is too late?
As I write this, the Prime Minister’s trip to Austria has not gone well. There is a feeling in the air that a further General Election might be forced upon us. That will of course be an even greater disaster for forward planning in local government finance, as the world will stop for the election period.
If we do get to a Public Expenditure Review, the difficulties facing a fair settlement for local government are exacerbated by the promises already made to the NHS, prisons, schools, etc which mean any additional resources have already been spoken for.
Meanwhile, local authorities have to cut corners and take risks to try and reach a balanced budget, against a chorus of disapproval and legal action around the cuts being made. I do hope my glimpse of the sunny uplands to come has cheered you up!
“ A Review which will receive a welcome of sorts from the ‘winners’ but a muted welcome, because there is no extra money and this is merely an exercise in moving deckchairs around the Titanic as local government sinks.”
Richard Harbord MPhil CPFA FCCA IRRV (Hons) FIDP FBIM FRSA is a member of the IRRV Council and a Past President of the IRRV. The views contained in this article are his own.
Viewpoint
Richard Harbord looks forward to the sunny uplands of local government, but sadly finds they’re not visible!
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
26
Sink or swim?
“Will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest?” 1 Esther McVey might well be saying, or at least thinking, as I write. Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has just told the Trades Union Congress conference in Manchester that the rollout of Universal Credit (UC) should be stopped:
“ It was supposed to make it simpler and more efficient. It has not done that. It has left too many people worse off, putting them at risk of hunger, debt, rent arrears and food banks. When Universal Credit comes into a local area the number of people going to food banks goes up. What is clear is, if they cannot get it right they need to stop rolling it out.” 2
Such observations invariably elicit an upbeat response from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and this was no exception:
“ Evidence shows people are moving into and staying in work longer than under the old system.” 3
The DWP spokesperson did not seek to dispute the association with food banks, or indeed rent arrears and the rest.
MigrationAll of which followed closely on the Social Security Advisory Committee consultation on the UC ‘managed migration’ regulations.
I drafted the Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC)’s submission to this4. The DBC is a national coalition of over 80 different organisations committed to working towards a fair benefits system for disabled people. I am Policy Co-Chair and represent the Institute in its deliberations. Some member organisations sent me copies of their own submissions and some sent separate comments and evidence.
UC is of course of major significance to disabled people. This is partly because it replaces benefits, or aspects of benefits, that specifically concern disability or long-term health conditions; and partly because,
as a means-tested benefit, it focuses on low incomes, which disproportionately affect disabled people.
A key concern is that ‘managed migration’ – the transfer from ‘legacy benefits’ to UC – will entail simply stopping the current benefits received by the two million claimants concerned and telling them to take their chances with a demanding claims process for a new one. It is difficult to see how this is any kind of orderly migration:
“ We are concerned that the proposed process for managed migration will allow many claimants to either fall through the cracks in the migration system or float away from the welfare system due to the complexity of engagement. The current proposals do not provide the managed process that the title implies and which claimants, vulnerable or otherwise, require.” ( IRRV)
“ In what sense is this migration “managed”? It seems to be a case of, “cut off existing funds and hope for the best”. We shall do our best, along with other organisations in the visual impairment field, to prepare and support blind and partially sighted people through the change, but it seems inevitable that many will be left without money.” (Thomas Pocklington Trust)
There are at least three reasons to be concerned: Firstly, people who are disabled or have
long-term health conditions may well be disadvantaged in seeking to navigate a challenging claims process heavily dependent on information technology.
Secondly, there is already a worryingly high level of failure to complete a claim. In a recent parliamentary answer by the Minister of State for Employment, to a question from Marsha de Cordova MP, it was stated that:
“ Our latest analysis, from management information for Universal Credit Full Service claims made (declared) in November 2017, shows that 29% were closed and not paid, of
which the majority were accounted for under the following categories:
• failure to attend an initial interview (10%)• Claimant Commitment not accepted (6%)• the claim was withdrawn (4%)• failure to attend a subsequent interview (4%).” 5
So only 4% of these claims were actually withdrawn. What is the story behind the rest? What are the factors explaining non-attendance at interviews and claimant commitments not being accepted? There seems to be a lack of official knowledge or indeed interest in this crucial matter.
‘Managed migration’ may fare better or worse than this, but if the 25% proportion of discontinued claims not withdrawn by the claimant were to be repeated, we would be talking about half a million claimants and their families.
Thirdly, even if all goes as intended, the stop-and-start approach to ‘migration’ means that claimants will have a five-week wait for a payment – and in practice, it could be much more. Advance payments are not a solution to this, but an alternative problem, as they are in effect loans that will reduce claimants’ incomes to very low levels as they are repaid.
ProposalsSome key proposals by the DBC are therefore that:• ‘Managed migration’ should not proceed
until the many outstanding problems have been analysed and addressed
• while this problem-solving exercise is taking place, there should be no further ‘natural migration’ – as has already been conceded for recipients of the Severe Disability Premium
• as and when ‘managed migration’ takes place, there should be no termination of existing benefits until an award of UC has been determined.
I shall explore these matters further in the next issue.
“ So only 4% of these claims were actually withdrawn. What is the story behind the rest? What are the factors explaining non-attendance at interviews and claimant commitments not being accepted? There seems to be a lack of official knowledge or indeed interest in this crucial matter.”
Geoff Fimister is a writer and consultant on social security and related issues and a member of the Institute’s Benefits Faculty Board
Credit notes
Geoff Fimister looks at some of the issues around Universal Credit ‘managed migration’
1 Attributed to King Henry II, prior to the demise of Thomas Becket, one of Mr. Welby’s predecessors, in 1170.
2 Quoted in the Guardian, 13/9/18.3 Quoted in the Metro, 13/9/18.4 https://disabilitybenefitsconsortium.wordpress.
com/2018/09/03/dbc-responds-to-consultation-on-universal-credit-draft-regulations/
5 Alok Sharma MP, written answer to WPQ 166515, 30/7/18.
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
27
Are we doingenough to promote entitlement?As I write this article, I am six weeks into a new job as Revenues Team Leader at Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. When finding yourself in a new role, I believe it is important to reflect on the fundamentals of what you do and use your knowledge and experience to plug any potential gaps. Luckily for me, I have moved to a Borough which is a recent IRRV Revenues Team of the Year winner, so the fundamentals are largely (without being complacent) taken care of!
Reflecting on fundamentals has however led me to think about common themes and common queries, one of which is entitlement to discounts and exemptions. Periodically, as I am sure you have all experienced, public figures such as the Money Saving Expert will promote discounts and exemptions for Severe Mental Impairment (SMI) in national press and on national television and radio. Following this, Billing Authorities receive an increase in customer contact asking for further information, and ultimately, receive a large number of applications. This makes me think, are we doing enough to promote entitlement, not only to discounts and exemptions for SMI, but all discounts and exemptions? Clearly local authorities do not have the same reach or influence as the Money Saving Expert, but we certainly do have access to an audience.
As we all know, local authorities up and down the country are facing financial pressures. However, whilst this is the case, it is still our duty to ‘take reasonable steps’ to identify any entitlement which may reduce the taxpayers’ bill. You will often find on the websites of local authorities a brief description of each exemption class, and a brief description of each type of disregard, for example “property occupied only by people who are severely mentally impaired”.
Whilst I agree this description does give a gist of what the exemption is for, can we really say this is enough to make a person who may be entitled aware of their entitlement, considering
the extent of the criteria in the Regulations? I certainly doubt it would be enough to encourage an application in many cases, as very few would make an application for something which they do not understand.
Our websites, social media platforms and other printed literature are key to putting across the information we need residents to be aware of, including making them aware of ways to reduce their bill. Times may be tight for local government, but times are also tight for residents. Therefore, the least we can do for our residents is ensure we are providing accurate and sufficient information, and make it easy for them to apply.
We also need to be creative in how we get that information across, whether it be by providing more information on our websites, sending mailshots to groups of people who are potentially entitled (e.g. those in care homes), or providing information and literature to the likes of Welfare Rights Advisers and Citizens Advice. However we choose to get the information across, it is important that we do it.
This issue makes me reflect back to my previous articles in Insight on training and documenting. Staff should be trained to be aware of discounts and exemptions, understand the criteria, and be
able to identify any potential entitlement during verbal conversations, email exchanges or written correspondence with residents.
Residents will rarely bring up situations such as “my partner has been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s”, “my property has been repossessed” or “my wife has moved into a care home” purely for the sake of conversation. These situations are brought up because it is something the person is dealing with. Whilst there is often little we can do to help, we should at least be able to advise them of their entitlement, help with the application process and award the discount or exemption at the first point we are able to do so.
As always, different authorities take different approaches and some perhaps provide too much information to the point where it will not be read. Regardless, we can all do more to ensure our residents are aware of their entitlement. Whilst authorities need to ensure they are generating income, it is important to remember that we should be seeking to collect every penny of council tax which is due, not every penny we can.
“ Our websites, social media platforms and other printed literature are key to putting across the information we need residents to be aware of, including making them aware of ways to reduce their bill. Times may be tight for local government, but times are also tight for residents.”
Through fresh eyes
Tim Morris is back to stress the need to ensure maximum
publicity for council tax discounts and exemptions
Tim Morris is Revenues Team Leader with Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
???
????
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
28
It cannot have escaped your notice that enforcement agents or, to use the popular term, bailiffs, have been making the headlines recently. In some ways this is surprising because the most recent changes to enforcement practice were implemented over four years ago. Since then, the industry has continued to drive improvements and the procedure for recovering debt on behalf of local authorities is more standardised.
This has not convinced the debt advice sector to reconsider its campaign for an independent regulator. Others have joined the call but none have offered any views on what the regulator would do on a daily basis. In theory, the regulator would monitor the 2,500 agents that are certificated to enforce court orders. But in reality, only a proportion of these agents are active.
So, what are the opportunities for an industry regulator? There may be a role for a regulator to administer a licensing process for enforcement agents, although a certification process already exists, involving the courts and approval by a judge.
A regulator could monitor enforcement agents’ compliance with the prevailing regulations. Enforcement agents and their employers are legally bound to comply with the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act, along with all other associated regulations. There are additional requirements set by individual local authorities in service level agreements and performance targets that agents are contractually bound to meet.
Arguably, the highly competitive market is the most effective way of ensuring agents and enforcement agencies uphold standards. With firms competing fiercely for local authority contracts, it would be foolish for any company to jeopardise its relationship with the council that awards its contract.
Perhaps the regulator could adjudicate on complaints cases. There are various complaints
handling processes covering the different elements of enforcement but there is a requirement for a higher level of independence. However, it is more effective for this to be industry driven and the regulator would not necessarily make a good adjudicator. There may be a conflict of interest where the regulator is setting policy and at the same time judging the implementation of the policy. In some circumstances the enforcement firm may not have a choice because enforcement firms’ activity is subject to the requirements of their clients.
For example, those who are calling for an independent regulator often cite examples of people in debt who are unable to set up payment plans and claim that agents are acting aggressively rather than working with debtors. Often enforcement agents are not empowered to agree repayment arrangements and their clients require them to enforce warrants with payment in full immediately.
The common practice of moving to an enforcement visit without further notice as soon as a debtor breaks a payment agreement generates criticism from debt advisers. In all cases where a payment arrangement is in place, there is no requirement to issue a final warning
or make any other attempt at communication if a payment is missed. Perhaps we should explore whether agents could be afforded more flexibility by their clients to negotiate with debtors?
Linked to this issue is affordability. There is no standard assessment on ability to pay or of what forms a reasonable instalment payment plan. This is not a straightforward matter because local authorities must collect from everyone and cannot assess against the risk of non-payment. Therefore, enforcement agents are required to collect outstanding debt against a standard set of procedures applied equally and fairly, but without the option to defer or reduce payments.
With the advent of a new regulatory framework, the compliance stage is now the most significant part of the collection process and firms are developing technology to improve the amount of debt collected without moving to the enforcement stage.
The main work in verifying, tracing and collecting is carried out at the compliance stage over a period of weeks. This is after council staff have endeavoured to recover the debt themselves. Much of this work takes place behind the scenes and, therefore, gets misunderstood. This leads to spurious complaints. How many times have we heard that an enforcement agency has charged £75 just to send out a Notice of Enforcement?
This kind of misunderstanding often stems from complaints from debtors who have reported their experiences to debt advice agencies. These reports give the impression that agents act aggressively, are inflexible and are quick to charge for an enforcement visit. But, as system records and video footage shows, the reports from debtors are often selective and omit important details, for example the number of letters, calls, emails and texts debtors receive from enforcement firms attempting to make contact to discuss repayment options.
“ Enforcement agencies are highly experienced at tracing people and use a range of technology to verify details and track down people who owe money to their councils and courts. The important point is that agents follow a standard procedure set out in regulations and under instruction of the local authority.”
A solution looking for a problem
Collection and enforcement
Civil Enforcement Association CEO, Russell Hamblin-Boone, explores what is behind the call for an independent industry regulator
??
?
?Enforcement agencies are highly experienced at tracing people and use a range of technology to verify details and track down people who owe money to their councils and courts. The
important point is that agents follow a standard procedure set out in regulations and under instruction of the local authority.
So, while calls for an independent regulator appear reasonable and desirable, the questions remain as to how the regulator would operate, what added value it would bring and what powers it could have to override local authority instructions to enforcement agents.
The campaign for an independent regulator is a solution looking for a problem, which requires a great deal more thought and evidence-based
policy. We welcome the Ministry of Justice’s evidence gathering exercise.
IRRV members hold unique and essential information about enforcement activity by local authorities. As much as enforcement agents, you know the reality of the frontline and I urge you to submit evidence to the Ministry’s call for evidence when it is published.
Russell Hamblin-Boone is Chief Executive Officer of the Civil Enforcement Association
?
IRRV Qualifications
IRRV Certificate Level 3
This course is designed for those who wish to gain a professional qualification and further their careers. Streams available:• Revenues and Welfare Benefits• Non-Domestic Rate• Valuation Tribunal
IRRV Professional Diploma
This course is designed for those who wish to progress to senior positions. The Professional Diploma leads to the highest level qualification, IRRV Honours.
Fees• IRRV Certificate Level 3: £1260.00 plus VAT• Diploma: £1380.00 plus VAT• Individual Subjects: on request
Students can enrol for Distance Learning at any time throughout the year.
* This offer is valid on multiple bookings with a minimum of 3 candidates.
E: [email protected] T: 020 7691 8984W: www.irrvdistancelearning.org.uk
IRRV Distance Learning
3 places for the price of 2 on multiple enrolments*
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
29
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
30
Those pesky GDPR consent e-mails!
The much-publicised Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) came into force on 25th May 2018, alongside the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Its purpose is nicely summarised by the Information Commissioner in her recent blog:
“The new Act updates data protection laws in the UK, and sits alongside the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)... The Act implements the EU Law Enforcement Directive, as well as extending domestic data protection laws to areas which are not covered by the GDPR.”
Part 2 of the Act supplements the GDPR, i.e. it fills in some of the gaps by enacting ‘derogations’; where Member States are allowed to make their own rules, e.g. about exemptions. This part has to be read alongside the GDPR.
Exemptions Articles 6(3) and 23(1) of GDPR allow Member States to introduce exemptions from various GDPR obligations, e.g. transparency and individuals’ rights. All of the familiar exemptions from the old Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998) (see S.29-35 and Schedule 7) are set out in Schedules 2-4 of the new Act, e.g. crime and taxation, legal proceedings, management forecasts, public functions, negotiations etc. There are some new exemptions and others have been changed which are worth noting:
Immigration: Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 of the Act introduces a new exemption for personal data processed for the purposes of effective immigration control. This removes most of the Data Subjects’ rights (incl. subject access) where they would prejudice such matters. Campaigners have argued that this exemption means that immigrants, including the three million EU citizens in the EU (and those affected by the Windrush scandal) will not have access to data and information regarding how the
government decides on their fate, including their potential deportation. This makes any defence and legal action against unlawful deportation extremely difficult. Open Rights Group and campaigners for EU citizens’ rights (the three million) are preparing to challenge this exemption in court.
References: The DPA 1998 contained an exemption from the right of subject access for confidential references about a Data Subject given by, amongst others, an employer. However, no such exemption applied to a request made for the same reference to a prospective employer. Thus employees could still have sight of what their employer had written about them and challenge it if Paragraph 24 of Schedule 2 of the new Act contains the same exemption for references. It was originally the same as under the DPA. However, the government changed it during the passage of the Bill through Parliament. It now allows confidential references to be kept secret in all circumstances – not just in the hands of the Data Controller, i.e. the employer/giver of the reference. It also gives an exemption from the right to be informed under Article 13 and 14 of GDPR, i.e. the need to mention it in a privacy notice.
This new blanket exemption (which now incudes volunteering) takes away important rights of employees and volunteers. It should
concern everyone, not just the unions, especially as it was passed without any debate or discussion.
Legal Professional Privilege: Paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 of the Act contains an exemption for personal data that consists of legally privileged information (LPP). It is similar to the one contained in the DPA 1998, but slightly broader, in that it also covers personal data which is subject to a duty of confidentially owed by a professional legal adviser – not just that information covered by LPP. The latter will apply to a much narrower range of information than the former. This exemption allows lawyers to refuse subject access requests and disregard the duty to inform (Article 13 and 14 of GDPR).
Journalism: Part 5 of Schedule 2 of the Act contains an exemption from some of the GDPR provisions for, amongst other things, data being processed for the purposes of journalism. This is similar to S.32 of the DPA 1998 and seeks to balance the competing human rights of privacy and freedom of expression. The Information Commissioner’s Office ( ICO) will though have wider powers than previously to take enforcement action in media cases. This part has been hotly debated due to its implications for press freedom.
Research: Part 6 of Schedule 2 of the Act also allows research organisations and archiving services to decline subject access requests and other Data Subject rights when this would seriously impair or prevent them from fulfilling their purposes, provided that appropriate organisational safeguards are in place to keep the data secure.
Public authoritiesGDPR mentions public authorities in a number of places, e.g. when stipulating who needs to appoint a Data Protection Officer in Article 37.
“ However, no such exemption applied to a request made for the same reference to a prospective employer. Thus employees could still have sight of what their employer had written about them and challenge it.”
Data sharing
The Data Protection Act 2018 comes under the microscope of our data expert, Ibrahim Hasan
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
31
Ibrahim Hasan is a solicitor and director of Act Now Training – see www.actnow.org.uk
Furthermore the ‘legitimate interests’ condition (Article 6(1)(f ) ) cannot be relied upon to justify data processing by public authorities in the performance of their public tasks. Section 7 of the Act defines ‘public authority’ as any organisation that is covered by the Freedom of Information Act (FOI ), or its equivalent in Scotland, as well as bodies specified by the Secretary of State. Certain bodies, despite being subject to FOI, will not be deemed public authorities for GDPR purposes (section 7(3)). Most notably this includes parish councils. Consequently parish councils do not need to appoint a DPO and can rely on the legitimate interests condition without restriction.
Freedom of information Part 1 of Schedule 19 of the Act amends the personal data exemption/exception under section 40 of FOI and Regulation 13 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (as well as the equivalent Scottish legislation). These are consequential amendments designed to ensure that the correct provisions of the GDPR and the new Act are referenced instead of the now repealed DPA 1998. They will not fundamentally impact when personal data can, and cannot, be disclosed in response to an FOI or EIR request.
Other parts of the ActChapter 3 of Part 2 applies a broadly equivalent regime to certain types of processing to which the GDPR does not apply, for example, where personal data processing is related to immigration and to manual unstructured data (held by a public authority covered by FOI ). The Act applies GDPR standards to such data whilst adjusting those that would not work in the national context.
Part 3 of the Act regulates the processing of personal data for law enforcement purposes implementing the Law Enforcement Directive (EU) 2016/680. The provisions here are a cut
down version of GDPR. This part will only apply to competent authorities, i.e. those that process personal data for the purposes of criminal offences or threats to public security, e.g. the police, trading standards departments, etc.
Part 4 of the Act makes provisions about the processing of personal data by the Intelligence Services. National security is also outside the scope of EU law. The government has though decided that it is important that the Intelligence Services are required to comply with internationally recognised data protection standards as set out in GDPR. Parts 5 and 6 of the Act make provisions about the Information Commissioner and the enforcement of the data protection legislation.
Notification and feesUnder the DPA 1998 most Data Controllers had an obligation to register with the ICO and pay
a fee (known as Notification). There is no such requirement in GDPR. However the government has introduced a new charging structure for Data Controllers to ensure the continued funding of the ICO. The Data Protection (Charges and Information) Regulations 2018 also came into force on 25th May 2018 and imposes different levels of fees depending on the size of the Data Controller.
The new regulations are made under a power contained in the Digital Economy Act 2017. The ICO website has more details to help Data Controllers work out what fee is payable. Data Processors do not have to pay any fee to the ICO but then many will be Data Controllers in their own right.
Section 137 of the new Act goes further, in that it allows regulations to be made which require Data Controllers to pay further charges regardless of whether the Commissioner has provided, or proposes to provide, a service to Controllers.
It’s never too late to put steps in place to comply with the DPA 2018 and GDPR. We are of course talking about positive steps, not sending out those pesky GDPR consent e-mails!
“ These are consequential amendments designed to ensure that the correct provisions of the GDPR and the new Act are referenced instead of the now repealed DPA 1998. They will not fundamentally impact when personal data can, and cannot, be disclosed in response to an FOI or EIR request.”
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
32
Fixing theplumbing
£75 million is to be given to local authorities to help them be smarter in achieving digital transformation. Sounds too good to be true but it is all part of a joint initiative between the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and the Government Digital Service (GDS). The money will be available in an innovation fund, which councils can bid for to help fund ‘common solutions to their shared challenges’.
A share of the £75 million is available if an authority makes a ‘digital pledge’. The pledge has a collective ambition and commits authorities to working on public services in the internet age. Participants must agree to the five principles in the initiative which include: • redesigning services around the needs
of the people using them. This means continuing to prioritise citizen and user needs above professional, organisational and technological silos
• ‘fixing the plumbing’, which means to break the dependence on inflexible and expensive technology that doesn’t join up effectively
• designing safe, secure and useful ways of sharing information to build trust among partners and citizens, to better support the most vulnerable members of our communities and to target resources more effectively
• demonstrating digital leadership, creating the conditions for genuine organisational transformation to happen and challenging all those to embrace the Local Digital Declaration
• having an open culture that values, incentivises and expects digital ways ofworking from every member of the workforce.
This means working in the open wherever possible and sharing plans and experiences. This will include working collaboratively with other organisations and reusing good practice.
I personally found the principles to be a bit wordy but nonetheless they do try to change the silo approach that authorities sometimes
operate in. The term ‘fixing the plumbing’ is an interesting one and the systems used for revenues and benefits have been mentioned as examples where the ‘plumbing’ may need to be fixed. It was pointed out that there were some common elements being used, such as workflow, case management and payment systems, which are duplicated in other packages, for example social care. It has been claimed that there is a case for paying for just one system for the common components.
Getting local authorities to work together is no mean feat. Authorities quite rightly have differing priorities and they vary significantly in size, political make up and available funding. In my opinion, an umbrella organisation or team is required to coordinate the work and commitments from each authority. The MHCLG have identified this and have established a delivery team to support all the declaration co-signatories. The delivery support team will play a leadership role within central government, advocating the approach set out in the declaration. It will work with councils as an equal partner to create the tools and conditions for reform.
The GDS, as part of its commitment to the declaration, will make the Gov.uk Notify and Pay applications available to local authorities and create a register of open standards. GDS will also make the GDS Training Academy programme available to the signatories of the declaration and provide officers, etc with the digital skills needed to transform public services. I have covered the Pay and Notify initiatives in previous articles and it will be interesting to see if their take-up improves as part of the digital pledge.
Launching the declaration, Local Government Minister Rishi Sunak said that many local authorities are already “at the forefront of digital innovation”, but encouraged everyone who hasn’t already signed up to the declaration to do so.
“But there’s much more to do,” he said. “Digital doesn’t belong in the basement, it belongs in the boardroom. I want councils and partners across the country to sign up to this declaration. By supporting each other and building on each other’s work we can revolutionise services for our residents.”
Importantly, Rishi Sunak specifically mentioned the collection of council tax. He said, “Whether it’s an app to report fly-tipping, or slick online services to pay your council tax, many local authorities are at the forefront of digital innovation.”
Has, or is, your local authority signing up to the declaration and what projects or changes are being investigated for revenues and benefits services? I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
As part of the commitment in the declaration, those who sign up to it must promise to have visible, accessible leaders throughout the organisation. The authorities must publish blogs, tweet and actively participate in communities of practice. Organisations have also to commit to publish their plans and lessons learnt and to talk publicly about things that could have gone better.
It should be noted that this is not the first digital initiative that has included financial assistance to public sector organisations to help them develop digital solutions. However, this is perhaps the first one that requires a commitment for authorities to work together to achieve the ambitions of the Local Digital Declaration. It will be interesting to see what the £75 million funding achieves over the next two years. I will keep a watching brief on this initiative and will hopefully report back as progress or otherwise is made.
“ Has, or is, your local authority signing up to the declaration and what projects or changes are being investigated for revenues and benefits services? I would be interested to hear your thoughts.”
Simon Bailey IRRV (Hons) is a Director of ISCAS – contact him on [email protected] (www.iscas.co.uk)
Technology
Government ‘digital pledge’ ambitions can be embedded in revenues and benefits services. Are you playing your part, questions Simon Bailey
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
33
“I quote”, says Sean Langley,quite often...
man on the moon, then what else could we achieve if we, firstly, worked together rather than fighting and, secondly, allowed creativity to flourish? They may not realise it, but those ‘bad managers’, often characterised by micro-management, are stifling creativity.
It’s often epitomised by a drive to get everyone to conform rigidly, rather than fostering mavericks and encouraging difference, permitting creative ideas to surface.
In a previous article1 in the IRRV’s sister publication, Benefit, I stated that “sweating the small stuff can be counter-productive if we lose sight of the bigger picture”. This recognised that over-bearing, controlling, managers who seek to watch over employees’ every move, are losing the opportunity to achieve greater goals... the bigger picture.
It’s said – more quotes, I’m afraid – one third of executives in Fortune 500 companies don’t make it past three years, because they drive away key personnel. They do this by being too controlling, as most people leaving jobs do so because they feel under-valued. So, another common quote: “It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and then tell them what to do. We hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.” – Steve Jobs
Employees will stay loyal if they’re appreciated, trusted and empowered. All three need to be present. Micro-managing is the opposite of empowerment and can suck the life out of employees. It breeds resentment and disloyalty and, in such an unhealthy environment, employees won’t be prepared to go that extra mile. I’ve written before that what you’ll get is acquiescence, not endeavour.
How often have you heard colleagues discussing how to present things to ensure the boss is kept happy or, perhaps, hiding truths or adjusting presentations, to paint a better picture and avoid recriminations. Imagine how powerful teams could be if they knew they had support and appreciation, regardless of how successful
the outcome. I was reading recently about how Croatia’s
president, Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic’s behaviour from the start of the recent football World Cup was, and I quote again, a “masterclass of emotionally literate modern leadership behaviours”.
Time doesn’t permit me to go into great depth here but, what she did was demonstrate a real affection for her country, allied to a willingness to show humility and share emotion. This had the effect of bringing a closeness and engagement rarely seen around world leaders. “If we don’t have a heart, we don’t deserve to be leaders.”
By ensuring people remain at the heart of everything you do, enabling and empowering them to take initiative and hone their skills in a controlled, yet liberating environment, you’ll grow the teams you lead and develop a rich pool of talent.
To put a man on the moon needs talent, yes, but it also needs imaginative collaboration, mutual support and respect from and for peers, and the trust to be able to confront and question without reproach. The challenge is to generate that environment. It’s not easy – it’s hard!
I’ll leave you with one more quote, from Steve Mole, the managing partner of my employers: “We seek to ensure that our people are in awe of their peers”. How cool is that?
1 Don’t Lose Sight of the Bigger Picture, Benefit, February 2016.
“ Returning to my moon-gazing, the wonderment is, if we’re capable of putting man on the moon, then what else could we achieve if we, firstly, worked together rather than fighting and, secondly, allowed creativity to flourish? They may not realise it, but those “bad managers”, often characterised by micro-management, are stifling creativity.”
Management
...but when looking for effective leadership, it reaps
benefits if you pay attention to key quotes
Sean Langley FIRRV is a consultant with CPC Project Services, and author of ©The phat Controller (A Leadership Handbook). Go to www.seanlangley.co.uk
I don’t know about you, but I frequently find myself gazing at the moon and reflecting on mankind’s staggering achievement to send some of our own up there and, more significantly, get them safely back again. Of course, my generation was brought up with regular television updates of the USA’s Apollo missions in the 1960s. So, news the United States may be about to re-invigorate its space missions is music to my ears.
“We choose to go to the moon..., not because... (it’s)... easy, but because... (it’s)... hard.” President Kennedy’s often quoted message to the world, delivered in Texas in September 1962, is also transferrable to management. Management is often not easy, it’s frequently hard, but richly rewarding if you get it right.
And I get frustrated when hearing people moaning about managers that get it wrong. According to Harvard Business Review, treating employees like commodities is more common now than ever before. So, I guess my frustration is borne out of surprise as to why many haven’t learnt the harsh lessons of others.
There’s a risk this article will descend into a litany of quotes, but here’s another:
“People don’t leave bad jobs. They leave bad managers.”
I’m not going to attribute that to anyone, because it’s now often used, but pertinent. Do those ‘bad managers’ not read and recognise themselves? Or, are they so stubborn not to change, or do they just enjoy inflicting discomfort on others? Whichever, they’re the eventual losers. For as long as we treat employees as a means to an end, we’ll never get their loyalty. Do those micro-managers not realise? Everyone needs loyal employees, but not everyone is willing to do what it takes to earn their loyalty.
Returning to my moon-gazing, the wonderment is, if we’re capable of putting
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
34
Discriminate at your peril!
For anyone working in the public sector, it makes very good sense to understand both your rights and obligations under disability discrimination law. For those whose job involves dealing with benefits claimants such an understanding may be extremely helpful, not just in understanding the legislation but in the actual processes of dealing with claimants.
This is an area where combining existing legislation into one overarching act – The Equality Act 2010 – has gathered a number of related matters such as age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership and pregnancy and maternity together. Inevitably, therefore, the Act is far-reaching in its scope and impact on the workplace.
Its importance for those working in the revenues and benefits community can hardly be over-stated, given the huge irony and potential reputational damage that would ensue if staff working within local government offices were themselves not treated fairly in accordance with the law.
Such cases, regrettably do exist. A part-time residential care worker at sheltered accommodation run by Richmondshire District Council was suspended from duty after an allegation of theft which was unsupported by any evidence. A lengthy and complicated 16-month process ensued which caused the unfortunate employee to suffer from severe depression; she resigned claiming constructive dismissal and was subsequently awarded over £550,000 at an employment tribunal. At the heart of the case was the local authority’s failure to acknowledge her innocence and to apologise to her.
In 2014, the London Borough of Southwark failed in its duty to consider a disability that prevented attendance for a dismissed claimant at some administrative meetings, including redeployment interviews. It was judged that
no attempt was made to justify the differential treatment involved.
Such a lack of understanding is not uncommon but experience of working on ‘both sides’ of the issue, in other words with both employers and employees, enables solicitors such as Neves Solicitors LLP to help in establishing what constitutes fair and reasonable behaviour by both parties as well as accurate interpretations of the law. It is often failure to communicate which causes and exacerbates issues surrounding disability discrimination. Recourse to the law is a backstop which provides everyone with the ultimate determination about what has transpired but it should be as a last resort. The good news is that informed mediation and Acas conciliation are available.
So, discrimination arising from disability is a relatively new concept but it has become increasingly visible in claims at employment tribunal. Its far-reaching nature can be seen by reference to the disparate nature of cases in which it has been applied. These include dismissing an employee for disability-related absence, failure to consider alternative posts for a police officer who was unable to carry out frontline duties because of a disability, providing a negative reference for someone who had a disability-related history of absence from work and refusing to pay a bonus to an employee who had received a formal warning for disability-related sickness absence.
An important distinction is to be made between sickness and disability. Interpretations may be open for discussion but essentially sickness is short-term and sufferers often fully recover.
When it comes to mental illness, as distinct from a physical condition, things can become far less transparent. No-one gets the equivalent of a blue badge for the debilitating effects of bi-polar disorder, for example. Under the Equality Act 2010 and as quoted on the ACAS
website, a person is disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment which has a substantially adverse and long-term effect on their ability to carry out normal day to day activities.
It’s a neat succinct statement but carries any number of subjective criteria – who is to define ‘substantially adverse’, ‘normal activities’, or even what constitutes ‘long term’?
Advice from those with experience of actual cases in addition to knowledge of the law makes good sense, especially when you consider that the Act covers all manner of things, including using a telephone or computer, interacting with colleagues, following instructions, driving and carrying everyday objects.
There are four main types of disability discrimination. In simple terms, these are:
DIRECTSomeone is treated differently than other employees because of disability
INDIRECTFor example, where there are company rules or procedures that are applied to everyone but disadvantage only the disabled
HARRASSMENTWhere a disabled person is subjected to a humiliating, distressing or offensive working environment
VICTIMISATIONThis would involve the mis-treatment of someone who had made a complaint about disability discrimination.
However, there are also grounds for action where someone is treated unfairly because of matters arising from a disability, rather than the disability itself, or when employers fail to make reasonable adjustments to the working environment and/or practices to enable a
“ Recourse to the law is a backstop which provides everyone with the ultimate determination about what has transpired but it should be as a last resort.”
Staff welfare
Neves Solicitors are on the case when it comes to the law surrounding disability discrimination
INSI
GH
T N
OVE
MB
ER 2
018
35
The IRRV Level 4 Revenues and Welfare Benefits Practitioner Apprenticeship
From May 2017, employers with a pay bill of over £3m are required to contribute to an Apprenticeship Levy Account. The Government set targets for the number of apprentices each organisation must employ each year by 2020. If the funding in the levy account is not used within 2 years, the funds are automatically removed from the account. So now is the time for employers, with restricted training budgets, to engage the IRRV to deliver a separately funded apprenticeship. The IRRV apprenticeship not only leads to the award of the level 4 qualification, but also awards the apprentice with the Revenues and Benefits nationally recognised professional qualification, the IRRV Level 3 Certificate (Technician).
How it worksThe IRRV will deliver the following training products and services as part of our apprenticeship training programme:• Legislation / Administration Training• Conferences and Professional Meetings
• Forum Meetings• Training Courses• Webinars• On-line Learning• Off-site Work and Research• Face-to-face• Support TrainingIn addition to the above, as the apprenticeship training fee includes IRRV membership, the apprentice will receive the following membership benefits:• An area of the IRRV Web Site reserved for Apprentices• The IRRV’s prestigious monthly journal, Insight• Membership of their local IRRV association• Subject to agreement with their employer, the
apprentice could also attend the IRRV’s flagship Annual Conference and the Spring Conference
• The IRRV’s monthly newsletter, containing the latest legislative changes, government announcements and current developments within the profession
EnquiriesFor all enquiries on Apprenticeships, please contact Sue Williams-Lee, Head of Educational Services [email protected] or on 020 7691 8978
E: [email protected] T: 020 7691 8978W: www.irrv.net/apprenticeships
IRRV Apprenticeships
disabled employee to properly do their job.These many, various and often inter-related
grounds for action show that in seeking to create an ‘umbrella’ solution, itself an entirely worthy objective, we have ended up with a somewhat elephantine piece of legislation. Often the availability of what we might call ‘semi informed’ advice, from the internet, Wikipedia and even social media, sets either claimants or employers off down a blind alley or the wrong road altogether.
In England, Scotland and Wales there is also the public sector equality duty to consider, which is intended to lead to services that are more appropriate to the user and are more cost-effective. A link to a useful PowerPoint presentation which spells out the intentions and fundamentals of this can be found at equalityhumanrights.com
This bring us neatly to the question of “What happens post-Brexit?” Everyone else in whatever walk of life is addressing this question, and why should solicitors be any different?
The short and reassuring answer is that whatever outcome we get, the position is unlikely to change. The law relating to disability discrimination has been enacted by the British Parliament, not as part of pan European Legislation such as the Human Rights Act, but in its own right. Employers should, therefore, be relaxed about the continuity of the legislation while remaining vigilant on its impact.
Employees too have some duties – you can’t reasonably expect an employer to create the right environment for conditions, either mental or physical, that they are unaware of. As previously stated, communication is key.
It’s not always an easy matter to resolve. There is still stigma attached to mental illness. Discussion and assessment of medical conditions may require limited access to doctor’s notes or medical history and some conditions are, of themselves, embarrassing and difficult to discuss. Self-certification and Fitness to Work statements help if they are honestly recorded.
In the larger organisation, such as the DWP, the NHS and local authorities, employers do not generally have recourse to excuses based on lack of resources and impracticality. No-one expects a sole trader to install a lift to accommodate a disabled assistant but LAs are among those who will be expected to apply the working conditions and fairness processes equally to all staff, not just across departments but across all sites.
As in many aspects of the law, the old adage about reasonableness (the person on the Clapham Omnibus test) should be accompanied by consistency of application, openness in communications and above all, the willingness to discuss individual needs within the corporate environment. Disabilities can be multiple,
causes can be complex, solutions must be informed by the facts.
As in many other aspects of the employer/employee relationship, reference to an experienced third party will help to confirm where the law stands on any points of dispute. It may not provide the complete answer, but it’s a very good place to start looking for it.
This article is provided by employment law specialists, Neves Solicitors LLP
INSIDE: Partnership working • Protecting the public purse • News & events • Technology • Student corner
SAVE THE DATE....Annual billing briefing 2018hosted by david magor, ceo, irrv
slough - November 14th 2018
to book your free place, please contact:[email protected] 07739 976458
DIRECTIVE 1834A
