insight - the irrv · 2019. 8. 1. · 2 your irrv council: features insight august 2019 ©irrv...

INSIDE: Partnership working • Protecting the public purse • News & events • Technology • Student cornerINSIDE: CONFERENCE REPORTS • SUNDRY DEBT • LEGAL VIEW • IRRV QUIZ • MANAGEMENT

AUGUST 2019 £7.75 www.irrv.net

ISSN

136

1-13

05

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

INSIGHT

MISSION OUTCOME: 100% SUCCESS

To find out more and to book your free place please contact:

[email protected] : 07739 976458 : www.cfh.com

Whether you’re sending a handful of letters or a bulk mailing -

Talk to us and see how we can help.

We’re delighted that yet again we received a 100% clean bill of health for annual billing and our service was pronounced ‘excellent’ by all our clients.

We like to think that we don’t just pull the stops out at annual billing but that we’re delivering a best in class

service all year round. We support councils with daily billing and manage all their regular post to relieve them

of the burden of handling post in house and helping them to drive down costs and maximise efficiencies.

You might also like to attend one of our free ‘best practice’ seminars in September (in partnership with the

IRRV) for some inspiration and to talk to colleagues about how to best meet the increased challenges of

improving communication with reduced budgets.

RABD IRRV A4 Ad July 2019 3.1.pdf 1 12/07/2019 11:18

IPTI Annual ConferenceInternational collaboration comes to the fore once again with the IRRV and the International Property Tax Institute

2

Your IRRV Council: FeaturesIN

SIG

HT

AUG

UST

201

9

©IRRV 2019. 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 the Institute. 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.

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

IRRV INSIGHT

Managing Editor

John Roberts

Editorial Director

Lester Dinnie

Designers

Clare Barker

Roddy Clenaghan

Copy Editor

Vicki Chastney

Publisher

WSA

IRRV

Chief Executive

David Magor

OBE IRRV (Hons)

Northumberland House

5th Floor

303-306 High Holborn

London WC1V 7JZ

T 020 7831 3505

E [email protected]

W www.irrv.net

Enquiries

Membership020 7691 8996

Conferences020 7691 8987

Subscriptions 020 7691 8996

Advertising

T 020 7691 8979

E [email protected]

Editorial

John Roberts IRRV (Hons)

T 07952 659 258

E [email protected]

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.

August 2019 ISSN 1361-1305


Cover story 18SENIOR 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)

2

Conference reportsMoira Hepworth reports from the key presentations recently witnessed by delegates to the Wales Conference, plus coverage of the IRRV Fraud and Investigation Training Workshop and Exhibition.

Feature 20

3

Editor’s welcomeContents

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

As we gather breath for the September Scottish Conference in Crieff and of course our flagship Annual Conference and Performance Awards, to be held in Telford in October, don’t forget to make sure you’ve secured your places, whether you’re booking as a delegate or as an exhibitor or sponsor. Go to www.irrv.net for more details or follow the adverts in the magazine. This month we are pleased to bring you news from our sister organisation, the International Property Tax Institute, as regular contributor Paul Sanderson details news and views from the valuation profession across the globe, in particular where the paths of his body have regularly crossed with those of our Institute. We also provide news and views from a little nearer home in the guise of Patrick Bond’s summary.

The field of local taxation and revenues collection shows no sign of a summer recess, and we reflect this position by incorporating contributions on recent case law from Deborah Davies, together with a ‘double header’ from Blake Morgan and Greenhalgh Kerr. With our regular feature on sundry debt management from DSL and Moira Hepworth’s summary of the work of the IRRV’s Local Taxation and Revenues Faculty Board, this vital stream of our portfolio is well represented.

In addition to the highlights of the recent Investigation and Fraud Workshop, Kevin Stewart provides his bi-monthly view on the world of benefits, which is supplemented as usual by the Department for Work and Pensions and the claimant’s champion and welfare benefit commentator, Geoff Fimister.

The ever-present collection of articles on the more ‘generic’ subjects, including management, wellbeing and of course astute opinion, are complemented by items showcasing the work of the Institute, its staff and its members. But don’t simply take our word for it in this introduction – flick through the pages now and take time to read and enjoy!

“ Welcome to what can hopefully be branded as a clear ‘summer’ edition of our membership magazine, Insight!”

Chief Executive’s notes 05

News and events 06

Letter from the President 07

Running the Institute 08

IRRV quiz 09

Mrs Arbuthnot-Farquharson’s diary 10

From the archives 11

Benefits bulletin 12

Faculty Board report 13

Valuation matters 14

Welfare reform 15

Credit notes 17

A fresh insight 22

Case law update 23

LGO update 24

Sundry debt 25

Employee welfare 26

Legal view 28

Collection & enforcement 30

Management 33

Viewpoint 34

INSI

GH

T AU

GU

ST 2

019

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

• it’s that time of year again, and the Scottish Conference is previewed by Jim McCafferty

• IRRV Council member Simon Green shares his views on running the Institute and more

• newcomer Josh Myerson has some forthright views to share on business rate reform.

What’s in the next issue...

3

IRRV PERFORMANCE AWARDS FINALISTS 2019

Revenues Team of the Year

• Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council and Excel Civil Enforcement Ltd

• Folkestone & Hythe District Council

• Mid Sussex District Council

• Southwark London Borough Council

Benefits & Welfare Reform Team of the Year

• Birmingham City Council

• Colchester Borough Council


• Southend On Sea Borough Council

Most Improved Team of the Year (Revenues and Welfare Benefits)

• Aylesbury Vale District Council

• Believe Housing

• Conwy County Borough Council

• Hoople Ltd

• Salford City Council

Most Improved Team of the Year (Welfare Benefits)



• City of Edinburgh Council

• Great Yarmouth Borough Council


• Walsall Council

Excellence in Counter Fraud


• Durham County Council

• Oxford City Council

• Reigate & Banstead Borough Council

• Veritau

Excellence in Innovation (Collection)


• Dukes Bailiffs Ltd

• Hoople Ltd


Excellence in Innovation (Performance Management)

• Marston Holdings Ltd



• Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

Excellence in Innovation (Service Delivery)

• Basildon Borough Council

• Newcastle City Council

• Valuation Office Ireland

• Westminster City Council

Excellence in Non-Domestic Rate


• Cushman & Wakefield

• Exeter City Council


Excellence in Partnership Working


• Elevate East London and Barking & Dagenham London Borough Council

• Liberata UK and Hounslow London Borough Council


• Peterborough Serco Strategic Partnership

Excellence in Social Inclusion

• Bassetlaw District Council

• Cheshire East Council

• Cheshire West and Chester Council

• Dumfries & Galloway Council

• Falkirk Council

Excellence in Staff Development

• Hoople Ltd



INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

On 22nd November 2018, the Work and Pensions Committee asked the government to delay the vote on the next phase of Universal Credit until both its own Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) and Parliament were given the opportunity to assess the government’s plans. This was because the Committee had come to the conclusion that despite changes announced in the last budget, there were major areas of concern about the continued rollout of the scheme and particularly the proposed ‘managed migration’.

Bearing in mind this warning, together with concern being expressed by the National Audit Office and a further report from the Committee in early May, it is deeply worrying that the Chair of the Committee has seen fit to publish the following comments, which I reproduce in full:

“The government has willfully missed the point, and this is becoming a distressing pattern. We, like so many others, have asked the government not to move to ‘managed migration’ until it demonstrates it is ready to do so safely, without exposing a single claimant or their children to debt, hunger, or homelessness. The government doesn’t seem to understand that this is not the same as showing us how many staff it has trained up, how many stakeholders it has briefed, or that it has managed to get its computers working. What matters, and what the Department should be testing and learning from, is the outcome of all of this for claimants, particularly the most vulnerable claimants – of whom there are disproportionately few in Harrogate.

“To put it bluntly: without looking at outcomes for claimants there is no point, for anyone other than the Department itself, of these tests or what it intends to learn from them. How does the government hope to get the regulations it needs through Parliament when it blithely ignores all this?”

Now is the time to stand back and look at the real impact of this reform. The Institute supports the introduction of an all-embracing simplified benefit which excludes housing costs. A reformed system should be introduced in partnership with local government and the third sector. It is not too late to start again with a truly inclusive system, built around the needs of those in poverty.

5

When is the government going to listen to the words of the experts and the plight of those in poverty?...asks David Magor

CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S NOTES

IRRV PERFORMANCE AWARDS FINALISTS 2019

Revenues Team of the Year





Benefits & Welfare Reform Team of the Year




• Southend On Sea Borough Council

Most Improved Team of the Year (Revenues and Welfare Benefits)

• Aylesbury Vale District Council

• Believe Housing

• Conwy County Borough Council

• Hoople Ltd


Most Improved Team of the Year (Welfare Benefits)



• City of Edinburgh Council

• Great Yarmouth Borough Council


• Walsall Council

Excellence in Counter Fraud


• Durham County Council


• Reigate & Banstead Borough Council

• Veritau

Excellence in Innovation (Collection)


• Dukes Bailiffs Ltd

• Hoople Ltd


Excellence in Innovation (Performance Management)

• Marston Holdings Ltd



• Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

Excellence in Innovation (Service Delivery)

• Basildon Borough Council

• Newcastle City Council


• Westminster City Council

Excellence in Non-Domestic Rate


• Cushman & Wakefield

• Exeter City Council


Excellence in Partnership Working


• Elevate East London and Barking & Dagenham London Borough Council

• Liberata UK and Hounslow London Borough Council


• Peterborough Serco Strategic Partnership

Excellence in Social Inclusion

• Bassetlaw District Council

• Cheshire East Council

• Cheshire West and Chester Council

• Dumfries & Galloway Council

• Falkirk Council

Excellence in Staff Development

• Hoople Ltd



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

IRRV Performance Awards 2019

LEE HURST

www.irrv.net

returns to host the Gala Evening

“ This was because the Committee had come to the conclusion that despite changes announced in the last budget, there were major areas of concern about the continued rollout of the scheme and particularly the proposed ‘managed migration’.”

Becoming an IRRV Member • For details on how to join the IRRV, costs and applications for membership: Log on to www.irrv.net

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

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

6

NEWS AND EVENTS

Be on your guard – the cowboys are changing their style!Andy Cummins of key Institute partners Phoenix Commercial has recently shared the content of a ‘scam email’ regarding a bogus refund due from the Valuation Office Agency – addressed to him!

Members may wish to forewarn colleagues and customers to watch out for a credible document purporting to come from a ‘gov.uk’ source and offering a Council Tax refund, no doubt in exchange for a few personal details!

The Lancashire and Cheshire Association held its AGM at Warrington Town Hall earlier this year.

Catherine Nicholson was elected President, whilst Richard Kerr steps up to be Senior Vice President and Candice Lancaster was elected Junior Vice President. The meeting was well attended, with in excess of 50 people welcoming the new President. Outgoing President Robin Gibbons gave his review of the Association’s year, which included a

number of successful seminars, an excellent annual dinner dance and continued support for all the major IRRV events. He also welcomed national President Louise Freeth, who addressed the meeting and welcomed the new Association President into her role.

The AGM also showed the continued strength of the Association, with no fewer than nine Past Association Presidents in attendance (see photo).

ASSOCIATION NEWS

Obituary - Mike Peterson Members will be saddened to hear that Mike Peterson passed away recently, following a short illness.

For many years, Mike was a stalwart member of the Scottish Association. Having graduated at Heriot Watt University with a degree in Accountancy and Finance, he went on to qualify as a Chartered Accountant and joined Midlothian District Council as a Capital Accountant. However, in his own words, “realising his mistake”, the delight of revenues beckoned and Mike progressed to Assistant Director of Finance Revenues before moving to Lothian Regional Council to head up their rates section. On local government reorganisation in 1996 he took up the post of Head of Revenues and Benefits in the City of Edinburgh Council, from which he subsequently retired in 2012. He took great delight in representing the council at civic events and was very proud of his roots with Edinburgh.

Mike was a member of the Scottish Association Executive for many years and was Association President from 2002 to 2005. His commitment to the Institute was demonstrated by his long stint as Reporter to the highly successful Scottish Revenues and Benefits Forum,

lecturing at the Level 3 Certificate course as well as being a distance learning tutor. He was also a long-standing co-opted member of the IRRV council’s Education and Membership Committee.

However, Mike will be mostly remembered as one whose glass was always at least half-full and for his work hard, play hard mentality. He enjoyed sport and was a member of the triumphant Scottish Association golf team. He had a great fondness of attending the big sporting occasions. He really enjoyed the big horse racing festivals, be it the Grand National Aintree festival, Royal Ascot, L’ Arc de Triomphe, the Derby or probably his favourite, the Cheltenham Festival, where he often attended the full four days. One of his greatest moments was earlier this year when, at Cheltenham, he had a share in a winning horse – well, one of a 3000 syndicate! Mike was jubilant. There are not many who can say they owned a Cheltenham winner!

Mike had a great love of travel, wine, good food, etc. and made the most of his retirement. Indeed, more often than not, he was on holiday somewhere in the world, so it was difficult to get hold of him! In short, Mike was one of the ‘good guys’ who was always optimistic and enthusiastic – he will be sorely missed.

The Editor thanks Institute Council member and long-standing friend of Mike’s, Allan Traynor, for putting this contribution together.

MEMBER NEWS

Login to IRRV Member Area

IRRV Annual Conference & Exhibition 2019This year’s IRRV Annual Conference & Exhibition will take place at Telford International Centre, 08-10 October 2019.

Book your seat now at:

www.irrv.net

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

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

7

Well, I closed my last article with details of my trip to Dubrovnik and I’ll open this one with details of a trip which was somewhat closer to home – Birmingham for the Investigation and Fraud Workshop. Eagle-eyed readers may recall that my last trip to Birmingham ended in literally a trip! However, I’m pleased to say that there were no such accidents this time, despite some weather which was truly reminiscent of the wettest Welsh day. Amid the wonderful setting of the Council House, fraud and investigation practitioners gathered to hear speakers from a wide range of areas discuss some of the most topical issues of the day and to engage with the exhibitors.

It was also my pleasure recently to host the annual Past Presidents and Honorary Members’ lunch in London. It’s fair to say that this select gathering gets together once a year to reminisce and catch up with good friends. There were absences, as a number of IRRV individuals have been drawn to warmer, international climes of late and I’d like you to indulge me a moment while I retell a tale which demonstrates exactly how international the Institute really is.

One of the managers at RBWM, let’s call her Sarah (after all this is

her name!), recently took a break in Cyprus and she and her partner became keen attendees at the afternoon quiz in the hotel. Being the friendly sort, and noticing a gentleman on his own, she and her chap got talking to him and quickly established that ‘Pete’ was originally from the north-west like herself and was not in fact on his own at the hotel but with his wife, who preferred to take some time out of the sun while he went to the quiz. They also quickly established that he now lived in Telford!

A few days later, Pete’s wife, Sue, did however join him and the two couples started talking. This being the first time Sue had met Sarah, the conversation turned to Telford and the fact that Sarah usually attended a conference there in October, so knew the area a little. Hearing this, Sue said something along the lines of “Conference? In Telford? In October? Would that be the IRRV conference?” – which of course it was. It turns out that Sue worked within the Revenues team of Telford and Wrekin Council. So it just goes to prove that when you’re an IRRV associate, it’s a very small world indeed! I look forward to meeting Sue and her colleagues in October.

We’re not quite there yet, of

course. There are still presidential duties to attend and I’m so lucky that the most recent have allowed me to catch up with some more good friends and former colleagues. On 20th June, I attended the Wales Conference in Llandrindod Wells, expertly organised as ever by Executive members led by Islwyn Lewis Jones, currently North and Mid Wales Association president, and Lisa Hayward, South and West Wales president. Just to re-emphasise the ‘international’ theme, Laura Smith, Thames Valley President, was also in attendance. It’s so much more accessible now that we don’t have to pay to get into Wales across the Severn Bridge!

Tomorrow also sees me attend the East Anglian AGM near Thetford. I’ve worked across the breadth of the country, having started in South Wales, then moving across to Ipswich in Suffolk, so I’m looking forward to returning to that area. The coming weeks see yet more travel around the UK as I form an inspection team for the coveted Performance Awards with our esteemed Chief Executive. I look forward to meeting the teams and following their success on the night – in Sue’s home town!Yours, Louise

Dear reader,

Louise Freeth The world of the IRRV gets smaller by the day, as our President finds out in her recent round of travels

Letter from the President

Louise Freeth IRRV (Hons) is President of the Institute

NEW MEMBERS

STUDENT MEMBERSNAME EMPLOYERJulie Ann Owers Basildon DCRhiannon White Broadland DCLucy Barnes Mid Sussex DCLisa Creaghen Mid Sussex DCKate Duckworth Mid Sussex DCNatalie Harris Mid Sussex DCOlasimbo Kuteyi Lewisham London BCElizabeth Grace Marlow Mid Sussex DCDanielle Boniface Lewes DC

APPRENTICE MEMBERS NAME EMPLOYERKaty Neale Northampton BCKelly Ashforth Trafford Metro BCSimona Barlow Manchester CCIan Culman Bolton Metro BCCraig Devlin Manchester CCKevin Greene Manchester CCMichael Holmes Manchester CCOwais Khalid Manchester CCHelen Machin Trafford Metro BCShani Malik Manchester CCHannah Newis Cheshire East CouncilSamantha Oakes Cheshire East CouncilJames Vaughan Manchester CC

APPRENTICE MEMBERS cont.Stacey Wallwork Manchester CCKarl Yates Manchester CCNathan Buchanan Cornwall CouncilJoshua Murch Cornwall CouncilHenry Tanner Cornwall CouncilLorna Dean Doncaster Metro BC

RQF MEMBERS NAME EMPLOYERJennifer Dobbie Kings Lynn & W Norfolk BCCharlotte Fountain Kings Lynn & W Norfolk BC

AFFILIATE MEMBERS NAME EMPLOYERGemma Woodfield Warrington BCLauren Appleby Newlyn PlcClaire Moses Lincoln City CouncilRichard Chambers MUA Property Services LtdHeather Rochford Kingford Partnership Ltd

HONOURS MEMBERS NAME Patrick BondMary Hardman

CORPORATE TRV MEMBER: NAME EMPLOYERStephen McCarron Donnybrook Est Agents

TECHNICIAN MEMBERS NAME EMPLOYERRebecca Patterson Kings Lynn & W Norfolk BCLindsey Jones-Lunn MK Service PartnershipJanine King Cheshire East CouncilJulia Smith Surrey Heath BCClaire Archer Basingstoke & Deane BC

FELLOW MEMBER NAME EMPLOYERNeil Holmes VOAA Centre

LEVEL 3 RQF BENEFITS PATHWAYDan Preston Surrey Heath BC

LATEST VOCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONSUCCESSES

Congratulations!!

RUNNING THE INSTITUTE

In the first of an occasional series of pieces, newcomer to our pages, the IRRV’s Daniel Drane, is keen to explore some new approaches to making your organisation tick

Da

nie

l D

ran

e

8

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

Daniel Drane is Head of Operational Services with the Institute

Mindfulness –a mental state that is designed to increase your ability to deal with the stresses and anxieties of life.

The dictionary quotes that “mindfulness is a mental state achieved by focusing one’s awareness on the present moment, while calmly acknowledging and accepting one’s feelings, thoughts, and bodily sensations”. It is believed to help us increase our ability to regulate emotions and decreases stress, anxiety and depression. It can be tough in today’s fast paced world to pause and be present in the moment – there are so many things competing for your attention and you forget how to stop and look around at the ‘now’.

In this and future articles you will learn, through exercises, to pause, take a breath and appreciate the little things that are often overlooked in the present.

In this exercise you will work on forgetting about the past, worrying about the future and will for the next several minutes concentrate your mind on the present. This first exercise is the ‘raisin exercise’ ( if you don’t like raisins use a different fruit! ). It is based on Buddhist teachings and requires you to focus your mind on the present moment, using all your senses – what you can see, hear, smell, taste and touch. The idea is that by focusing all your attention on a piece of fruit, you help your mind into the moment and train it on the present.

Before you begin, find a quiet spot where you can sit down and relax. Read and consider each step one at a time. Approach the exercise with an open mind. There is no right or wrong answer.

1. Take the raisin and hold it in the palm of your hand or between your finger and thumb. Focus on it and imagine that you’ve never seen an object like this before.

2. Take a good look, explore every part of it, examining the highlights where the light shines, the darker hollows, the folds and ridges and any asymmetries or unique features.

3. Explore how it feels in your hand, turn the raisin over between your fingers, exploring its texture – maybe with your eyes closed if it enhances your sense of touch.

4. Smell the raisin, holding it beneath your nose, and with each inhalation drink in the smell, aroma or fragrance that may arise, noticing as you do this any sensations that arise in your body.

5. Place the raisin in your mouth without chewing, noticing how the raisin feels. Spend a few moments exploring the sensations of having it in your mouth, sense it on your tongue and notice the feelings of just having the raisin in your mouth without chewing.

6. When you are ready, prepare to chew the raisin, noticing how and where it needs to be for chewing. Then, very consciously take one or two bites into it and notice what happens, experiencing any waves of taste that come from it as you continue chewing. Without swallowing yet, notice the sensations of taste and texture in your mouth and how these may change over time, moment by moment, as well as any changes in the object itself.

7. Swallow the raisin and focus on the sensation. Is there a lingering taste? How do you feel physically and emotionally? Take a little while to consider the experience. Try and take this sense of presence and awareness with you throughout the rest of the day.

If you would like to explore mindfulness further you might consider downloading a popular app called ‘Headspace’ at playstore or Appstore.

Quiz

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

9

3. With membership having dropped in 1950 to only 1,434, the new measures resulted in numbers exceeding 2,000 in 1958, 3,000 in 1963, 4,000 in 1969 and 5,000 in 1972. The reorganisation of local government throughout the 1970s had little impact on membership numbers and a peak was finally reached in the period 1990 to 1993, with the introduction of the Community Charge.

Q. In July 1991, why did Terry Fields,

Labour MP for Liverpool Broadgreen, make the headlines?

4. Today, membership fluctuates around 3,000, with the majority of Institute members having achieved their current status by holding a professional qualification. These grades of membership are Honours, Diploma and Technician; all of which carry designatory letters that identify that the grade of membership has been achieved through a professional qualification.

Q. One grade of membership is ‘Honorary

Life’. This is awarded to those members who have been a member of the Institute for over 50 years. To the nearest ten, how many members hold this grade of membership.

Gary Watson presents the third part of his fascinating quiz on Institute membership issues, in the thirteenth of his series

Ga

ry W

ats

on

5. It is at the AGM each year that fees for the following year are agreed. When proposing fees for the following year, National Council seeks to not only grow membership (both in Great Britain and overseas) but at the same time retain existing members. The profession faces many challenges and never has there been a better time to be a member of this Institute.

Q. The AGM this year will take place in October and later in the month, the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union will cease in accordance with Article 50. However, will the United Kingdom leave on 31st October 2019 and if so, will it be “with or without a deal”?

QuizIRRV QUIZ

The answers to this quiz will appear in the next (September) edition of Insight.

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

1. Once the impact of the Local Government Act 1948 on the Institute had been fully realised, efforts were then made to attract rating valuers in private practice and qualified accountants in local government. At first, only a trickle of distinguished practitioners joined, but with their special talents the status of the Institute had already been enhanced. A further relaxation of the entry requirements was then agreed to ensure the Institute became even more influential, significant and effective.

Q. The start of a large wave of immigration

to Britain had commenced on 22nd June 1948, when a ship brought a large group of Afro-Caribbean immigrants to Tilbury near London. What was that ship?

2. Looking to strengthen and diversify the

membership base, thought was given to changing the name from the Incorporated Association of Rating and Valuation Officers. The title betrayed the historic origins, where conditions of service formed a large proportion of the activities. In changing the name to the Rating and Valuation Association in 1952, the links with bodies active in the conditions of service sphere (apart from those that related to the examinations) were severed. New grades were created and attention given to growing membership in Scotland, Northern Ireland and overseas.

Q. It was in 1952 that Elizabeth II became

Queen, following the death of her father King George VI, on February 6th. Elizabeth II was just 27 years old at the time and was travelling in which county with Prince Phillip, when her father died?

INSI

GH

T AU

GU

ST 2

019

10

MRS ARBUTHNOT-FARQUHARSON’S DIARY MONDAY

IRRV Training Days 2019/20

Introduction to Business Rates** – Janet Alexander IRRV (Hons)18 September 2019, London • 4 February 2020, London

Introduction to Council Tax** – Janet Alexander IRRV (Hons)20 September 2019, London • 18 February 2020, London

Business Rates Master Class** – Janet Alexander IRRV (Hons)21 & 22 January 2020, London

Council Tax Master Class**– Janet Alexander IRRV (Hons)10 & 11 September 2019, London • 25 & 26 February 2020, London

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

Fees: † Introduction Master ClassIRRV Member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £155 plus VAT . . £270 plus VATBAS/Forum/Organisational Member. . £185 plus VAT . . £350 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.† Fees will increase for 2020.

E: [email protected] T: 020 7691 8987W: www.irrv.net/trainingdays

Early Booking Advised!

Members can book 3 places for the price of 2*

“One could not help but notice the veritable conflagration of publicity which has greeted the recent intelligence that Local Authorities are considering how better

to employ the vast portals of our Town Halls for the public good.

One’s own limited experience of such efforts was a distinctly over-ambitious foray from our municipal representatives when they hosted the world stair-boarding championships. This potentially worthy attempt to exploit the natural advantages of our grandiose and sweeping entrance hall stairways met with muted response. The only entries other than our own somewhat inexperienced team, drawn from the Seniors

section of the local Flat Earth Society, were from our twin towns respectively from the Qikiqtani region of Nurravest on Baffin Island and the Capital city of São Tomé and Príncipe in the Gulf of Guinea.

Whilst these latter entrants in national costume conspicuously added to the spectacle, alas they were equally lacking in competitive experience.

Joan, our Senior St John’s Ambulance representative confided to one that her resources were stretched to the very extremities on the day, indeed both stretcher-bearers themselves ended the afternoon in A & E.

However, on one’s regular outing to the churchyard of Saint Erasmus, himself a role-model of inspiration who, despite being beaten, whipped, covered in pitch, set alight and disembowelled, went on to become

revered as the patron saint of stomach ailments, colic and appendicitis, one found re-assurance.

Whilst carrying out anti-pigeon restorative work upon the last resting place of one’s dear departed, including the removal of a plastic windmill and a set of seven dwarves solar mini-lites which had

migrated from an adjacent memorial, one was engaged in conversation by the municipality’s Executive Head of Interment and Last Rites Consultant, Doug Graves.

Despite his somewhat lugubrious appearance, this esteemed gentleman is a veritable repository of aspiration and ambition. Indeed he has gone so far as to submit a number of highly impressive proposals to the appropriate mandarins, including his personal favourite for the establishment of a radical new

enterprise to be located in Municipal HQ, to whit…..

DOUG’S FUNDERTAKERS”

INSI

GH

T AU

GU

ST 2

019

The latest meeting of the Executive Committee in 1905 took place at Hemmans Hotel, 64 Cheapside in the City of London on Saturday 4th March, with Mr A Sales in the chair. Minutes of the last meeting were read and signed.

The Secretary presented the balance sheet of the Annual Dinner held at the Trocadero on 28th January last, which showed a balance in hand of 16/- after paying expenses. It was resolved that the best thanks of this Committee be tendered to the Chairman, Vice Chairman, Treasurer and Secretary, for the excellent arrangements made by them for the carrying out of the Annual Dinner; it proved one of the most successful gatherings the Association had ever held.

Committee then considered the reference from the Annual General Meeting as to the desirability of issuing a circular letter to the members of the Association, appealing to them to support the Benevolent Fund of the Association. The Chairman and Mr Parkhouse, having laid their views before the Committee, expressed a hope that every member would contribute towards the fund in future, and thus strengthen the hands of those who administered such fund in affording temporary assistance to any of their members who may through misfortune, be eligible for assistance. It was thereupon resolved that it be left in the hands of Mr Parkhouse and the Secretary to draw up a suitable letter with regard to the Benevolent Fund and that the same be sent to every member of the Association.

Letters on behalf of the Collectors of the Metropolitan Water Board were presented and read, asking whether this Association would welcome the Collectors of that body as members of this Association. A lengthy discussion took place and the Committee finally decided to call a special meeting for Saturday, 18th March, and to invite one Collector from each of the eight districts under their control, to attend a conference at which they would have the opportunity of ‘laying their views before us’.

The Metropolitan Water Board had been founded in 1903 to bring the nine private water companies supplying water to London under a single public body. The members of the Board were nominated by the various local authorities within its area of supply. A Royal Commission had reported in 1899 on the need for such controls. The board was abolished in 1974 and control transferred to the Thames Water Authority – now Thames Water.

It was then resolved that the quarterly General Meeting be held on Saturday, 1st April and that the usual Smoking Concert do take place after consideration of the business.

Having resolved that the account of Henderson and Spalding (printing, 8s.6d) be paid, this concluded the business of the evening. A cordial vote of thanks was passed to the Chairman and the Committee adjourned.

The Executive Committee met again at Masons Hall Tavern, Basinghall Street, London on Saturday, 1st April, with Mr A Sales in the chair. Minutes of the last meeting were read and signed.

It was reported by the Secretary that he had received a communication from the Acting Honorary Secretary to the Collectors of the Metropolitan Water Board, in reply to the Committee’s invitation to meet delegates from that body, stating that matters were not sufficiently advanced to take action as proposed and thanking the Committee for their kind consideration.

The Secretary presented a draft of the quarterly report for submission to the General Meeting of members to be held that evening, and the same having been approved, it was resolved that the quarterly report, as read, be adopted as the report of this Committee and presented to the General Meeting.

This having concluded the business, a cordial vote of thanks was passed to the Chairman and the Committee adjourned. The General Meeting of the Metropolitan Collectors Association then took place that evening with Mr A Sales in the chair. Minutes of the last meeting were read and signed. The Secretary presented the quarterly report of the Executive Committee, which was approved – a copy whereof is as follows:

“Gentlemen,Your Committee has much pleasure in presenting their first quarterly report for this year.

In the latter part of last year, communications

FROM THE ARCHIVES

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

11

The second part of Gary Watson’s research into pre-IRRV activity in 1905 proves no less busy than the first

Ga

ry W

ats

on

were received from the Municipal Officers Association, with reference to the suggested National Organisation of Municipal Officers. The letters in question were very carefully considered by your Committee on the 7th January last and decided in the interests of the Association, that the same should simply be acknowledged with thanks.

Your Committee has also received letters on behalf of the Collectors of the Metropolitan Water Board, asking whether this Association would welcome them as members. In order that they might have an opportunity of laying their views before the Committee, we arranged that a Conference should be held on March 18th and that one Collector from each of the Districts under the control of the Water Board, should be invited to attend.

The conference in question has, however, not been held in consequence of the subject being left in abeyance for the present, as will be seen by the letter received from them. We feel, however, that as this is a most important matter, an expression of opinion should be given by the General Meeting, in order that the Committee may be guided, should the matter be brought forward at some future date.

The question of the Benevolent Fund, which was so ably laid before the General Meeting in January last by your Chairman and referred to this Committee as to the desirability of issuing a circular letter to all the members of this Association, appealing to them to subscribe thereto, has been referred to Mr Parkhouse and the Secretary to draft the same and which will be sent out in due course.

Since the commencement of the year, the following Collectors have been admitted to this Association; viz. Messrs C Abbotts, F Brady, W Cheeseman, R Merrifield and A Osborne.”

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

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.

Metropolitan Water Board HQ

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

I am using this month’s article to give you an update on the benefit and pension changes for mixed aged couples. This was an announcement slipped out quietly by the government the night before a major Brexit vote, but the implications are big, with some couples potentially losing £7,320 a year from the change.

From 15th May 2019, pensioners were no longer able to apply for Pension Credit if their partner is of working age. They will need to apply for and claim Universal Credit (UC) instead, until their younger partner reaches State Pension age. Before 15th May 2019 a couple could choose to move from working age benefits to Pension Credit as soon as the older partner is of State Pension age. A couple can usually receive, at the moment, £255.25 a week on Pension Credit.

In comparison, this will only be £114.81 a week on UC. Over a year, this amounts to a potential loss of £7,320, which could have a massive impact on low-income couples.

There is, though, a temporary exception to this rule. Because Pension Credit can be backdated, if the older partner had already reached pension age on 14th May 2019, a mixed aged couple have got until 14th August 2019 to get their backdated claim for Pension Credit in to the Pension Service for the new rules not to apply to them. Anyone can check what date they will reach pension age on the gov.uk website at https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-age If a couple are not already getting Housing Benefit (HB), they can make a new claim once they are getting Pension Credit. If they are already getting HB, they should tell their council they have started claiming Pension Credit.

Any couples where the oldest partner reaches State Pension age who have an income below £248.80 a week will be affected. Mixed age couples with a partner under State Pension age already getting Pension Credit or pension age HB will not be affected while they remain

entitled to either benefit.It is strongly advisable that any couples

eligible for Pension Credit where only one partner has reached State Pension age before 14th May 2019 should apply for backdating of the benefit now, before the backdating provision runs out on 15th August 2019. They will be able to remain on Pension Credit unless they have a change in circumstances affecting their claim.

Anyone currently in receipt of Pension Credit that has a change of circumstances that cancels this will have then to reapply through UC if one of the partner couple is under State Pension age. There are very few exceptions to this. This is a government policy intention to make work pay and reduce the benefit bill on the state. So in effect the government are doing natural migration of these claims to UC.

More information on mixed aged couples is available with DWP HB Circular A3/2019 at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/housing-benefit-adjudication-circulars-2019/a32018-mixed-age-couples-changes-to-entitlement-conditions-from-15-may-2019 and DWP HB Circular A9/2019 at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/housing-benefit-adjudication-circulars-2019/a92019-mixed-age-couples-further-guidance

The MHCLG have also written to local authorities advising them that they can treat mixed aged couples where one is of State Pension age and one is not when calculating Council Tax Support (CTS) as an older couple until 31st March 2019. How you explain that to customers will be interesting – we would welcome thoughts on this! However, from 1st April 2019 the MHCLG are intending to change the Council Tax prescribed scheme to follow the DWP rules, so for CTS purposes we will then treat such a couple as a working age couple.

Finally, a plea to you all yet again. We need you! As IRRV Benefits Faculty Board chair, I would like to encourage new members to join the Board. We have had some success with getting new members, but we need more. The current board members are shown at http://www.irrv.net/homenew/item.php?wid=46&iid=22275&did=22 We meet largely by teleconference, with occasional face-to-face meetings, often held at IRRV events 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 me know, providing a brief summary of your knowledge and experience. You can email me on [email protected] Should you want any more insight into such an opportunity, you are welcome to approach me at any conference or meeting,

The Editor is also looking for articles for Benefit and Insight magazines, particularly from new faces. There is much happening in the benefits world out there and we would love to hear from you about it. Please contact John Roberts at [email protected] if you have a story and you feel we can turn it into an article for the magazine.

Kevin Stewart is a Past President of the Institute and Chair of the IRRV’s Benefits Faculty Board. The views expressed are his own.

12

The plight of mixed age couples is taxing the welfare system

Ke

vin

Ste

wa

rt

BENEFITS BULLETIN

“ It is strongly advisable that any couples eligible for Pension Credit where only one partner has reached State Pension age before 14th May 2019 should apply for backdating of the benefit now, before the backdating provision runs out on 15th August 2019.”

Potential pension losses for mixed age couples

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

The Local Taxation and Revenues Faculty Board met in May to discuss a varied agenda during the Institute’s Spring Conference in Leeds.

The consequence of the Breathing Space consultation and statutory repayment plan was considered. The Institute’s original response had highlighted the difficulties the Debt Repayment Plan proposals will cause for council tax recovery and it was understood that the recommendation that Council Tax (CT) should sit outside the Debt Repayment Plan mechanism would not be taken up by the government. The IRRV Law and Research Committee commented in its April meeting that any plan to highlight the problems the Breathing Space and the Statutory Debt Repayment Plan created in CT recovery and collection rates should be evidence based. The Board has flagged a watching brief on this matter, until the changes start to take effect. The case for new burdens funding was marked for further examination.

The Board noted the Citizens Advice report, The Costs of Collection: The high price of council tax debt collection. It was noted that an article in open response, written by the Board Chairman, Alistair Townsend, would be included in the July edition of Insight. General points covered in the meeting included the concern that many in the advice sector do not fully understand that CT is a tax and as with all taxes it is an imposition that pays for vital services. It is undeniable that CT liability orders have increased in recent years and it is undeniable that CT is being collected from more vulnerable citizens than previously. This is a direct result of government having removed Council Tax Benefit (CTB) and leaving councils to adopt Council Tax Reduction Schemes (CTRS) without the necessary funding. When CTB was abolished, CTRS was created as a replacement

in 2013. CTRS is a discount, which is either directly funded by the billing authority, or is funded as part of the overall CT burden, but due to reduced funding generally and limits on increasing CT, it has resulted in CTRS schemes which do not provide full relief to financially vulnerable groups.

The CAB recommendations have attempted to treat a symptom of underfunded local government, rather than the cause. Should the government wish to reduce enforcement action against vulnerable groups, this could be achieved far more successfully by fully funding CTRS so that 100% relief can be given to those in the most financial need.

Consultation on the Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Bill featured on the Board’s agenda. This Bill brings in some of the key recommendations of the recent Barclay Review of non-domestic rates in Scotland. The Board expressed thanks to Kevin Fraser, Scottish Association member, for supplying an early draft response on behalf of the Association. The Board gave its support to the points made in the draft. With regard to the Scottish Government’s overall programme of non-domestic rates reform, and the Bill’s role in the reform, the view expressed was that changes were moving in the right direction and addressing long-held concerns such as appeal timescales and volumes, frequency of revaluation, rates avoidance and fairness of relief schemes.

The Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Bill will move forward by one year the next revaluation for non-domestic rates to 1st April 2021 and move the cycle of new rating lists thereafter in England from every five years to every three years. The Welsh Government announced in July 2018 that the date for the next revaluation in relation to Wales would also be brought

FACULTY BOARD REPORT

Moira Hepworth BA Hons IRRV is the Institute’s Head of Law and Research

13

There’s never a dull moment with life in the Institute’s Local Taxation and Revenues Faculty Board

Mo

ira

He

pw

ort

h

There’s nevera dull moment

“ Early views include a concern about the issues this will create for local government financing. Of course, in order to achieve a balanced budget that is voted through by full council around end of February/early March, the work starts informally around July and formally in September/October.”

forward to 1st April 2021 in line with its English counterpart. The Bill also moves the latest date by which draft rateable values must be published from 30th September preceding the new rating list to 31st December preceding in relation to both England and Wales.

Early views include a concern about the issues this will create for local government financing. Of course, in order to achieve a balanced budget that is voted through by full council around end of February/early March, the work starts informally around July and formally in September/October. It has to proceed through various scrutiny meetings, which all require advanced publication on a council’s forward plan and it is a legislative requirement to consult with ratepayers specifically with regard to the budget (capital and revenue). All this requires notice and publication of the information. In addition to this, the date for completion of the NNDR1 is normally the first week in January. Even if it is later, because it is a government return, it normally requires some democratic or executive process before issue, meaning a minimum of a month’s lead-in time.

A new rating list always causes some difficulties (particularly since rates retention), but this is overcome by using the draft list. It is quite a stretch to expect local authorities to produce a budget, publish it, consult on it and then have a full council vote on it in such a short space of time.

At a previous meeting with government, the timeline for the new list was discussed and it was indicated that it would be completed earlier – and it was suggested that it would be published earlier to assist authorities with budgets. Instead of that, it appears that it will be pushed back, with potentially significant consequences.

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

Upper TribunalDisrepair and Rating – Jackson (VO) v. Canary Wharf 2019 RA/33/2018. See http://landschamber.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk//judgmentfiles/j1502/RA-33-2018.pdf

The Monk decision of the Supreme Court left a number of questions needing answering so that rating valuers can deal with cases of both simple disrepair and when hereditaments are in the course of reconstruction or works. The recent case at Canary Wharf concerned two floors in the tower block, where, as was its normal practice on a tenant vacating, the owner had stripped out and left the vacant space in a shell state, with a view to it being fitted out at a later date to a new tenant’s requirements. The parties agreed the premises were incapable of beneficial occupation but the VO did not consider this meant an automatic nominal assessment; rather that it could not be said the premises were actually in course of reconstruction as it was not clear what would be the eventual fit out. In effect the premises were simply in disrepair having been damaged by the owner.

The Upper Tribunal strongly disagreed with the VO’s analysis. It did not agree that the Supreme Court had differentiated simple disrepair from where there was “a building under reconstruction”. The Tribunal said the import of Lord Hodge’s judgment was that “if premises are not capable of beneficial occupation they are not a hereditament”. The VO’s acceptance that the premises were incapable of beneficial occupation was, therefore, “the beginning and end of the appeal”.

It seems, therefore, that unless a valuation officer challenges this interpretation in the higher courts in this or another case, then if premises are incapable of beneficial occupation for whatever reason, including excessive disrepair or deliberate damage (perhaps even by removing some essential part of the property) the assessment should be reduced to nil or deleted.

The Tribunal did go on to consider whether the state of the premises constituted a programme of works and decided it did. This alone would have been sufficient to have confirmed the Valuation Tribunal decision.

Financial reporting in the public sectorThe IFRS Foundation is a not-for-profit, public interest organisation established to develop a single set of high-quality, understandable, enforceable and globally accepted accounting standards – IFRS Standards – and to promote and facilitate adoption of the standards.

IFRS 16 Leases is a new accounting standard from IFRS Foundation that sets out the principles for the recognition, measurement, presentation and disclosure of leases. It replaces IAS 17. The objective of IFRS 16 is to report information that (a) faithfully represents lease transactions and (b) provides a basis for users of financial statements to assess the amount, timing and uncertainty of cash flows arising from leases. To meet that objective, a lessee should recognise assets and liabilities arising from a lease.

IFRS 16 is effective from 1st January 2019. However, UK public sector bodies which use IFRS accounting standards have deferred adoption of the standard until the financial year beginning 1st April 2020. This includes central government bodies, local authorities and the NHS. Two central government bodies – the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and Department for Transport – are taking an early adoption of IFRS 16 from 1st April 2019, as may some public corporations and other organisations.

HM Treasury’s Financial Reporting Manual (FReM), CIPFA/LASAAC’s Code of Practice and the NHS Group Accounting Manual will be updated in due course to reflect the introduction of IFRS 16. These sets of guidance will include adaptations and interpretations to IFRS 16 to make it suitable for implementation in the

public sector. HM Treasury has also published Application Guidance to aid implementation in the public sector. This guidance is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-financial-reporting-manual-application-guidance

The guidance explains that under IFRS 16, for lessees, a single accounting model replaces the current finance/operating lease model. Property leases with a term of more than 12 months will be captured by the lessee on its balance sheet. The lessee will recognise its right to use the underlying leased asset and an obligation to make lease payments. There are public sector-specific adaptations to IFRS 16 to ensure that intra-UK government arrangements and peppercorn leases are included in the scope of IFRS 16.

Lease term is defined as the non-cancellable period for which a lessee has the right to use an underlying asset, together with both i) periods covered by an option to extend the lease if the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise that option and ii) periods covered by an option to terminate the lease if the lessee is reasonably certain not to exercise that option.

The application guide explains that, in most cases, entities will find that the IFRS 16 cost model is an appropriate proxy for current value in existing use (or fair value), negating the need to instruct a valuer to apply the alternative revaluation model.

As regards lessors, the application guidance states that IFRS 16 substantially carries forward the existing lessor accounting requirements in IAS 17 with lessors continuing to classify their leases as either operating leases or finance leases.

Compilation of new rating listsAs expected, the government has introduced a bill (The Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Bill ) to require valuation officers in England and Wales to compile new rating lists on 1st April 2021 and then every three years thereafter. The

14

Patrick Bond continues with our popular valuation briefing page, bringing you more of the latest news and views

Pa

tric

k B

on

d

VALUATION MATTERS

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

Patrick Bond BSc (EM) FRICS Dip, Rating IRRV (Hons) is an Honorary member of the Institute, a Rating Diploma Holder and a past president of the Rating Surveyors’ Association. He can be contacted via the Editor. His summaries and views are personal and should not be taken as legal opinion.

The Department’s Universal Credit (UC) team rolled out a new third party deduction process to all creditors between January and March 2019.

What is it?The new application process applies to UC claimants with Council Tax (CT) arrears, court fines, water and utility arrears only. Local authorities (LAs) can apply for CT deductions via this new process. Once the LA has a deduction of benefit order from the courts, arrears of CT can be collected directly from a claimant’s UC. This process is called a ‘third party deduction’.

What are the key changes?A streamlined form - a single form that LAs will email to a single national UC inbox. This shorter form will allow the LA to request a new third party deduction, change an existing deduction, stop an ongoing deduction and, in response to feedback, allows the authority to submit up to 15 requests at one time.

Electronic responses: when the request is received and actioned by UC, the LA will receive a reply email notification to tell them whether or not their request has been accepted. The claimant will also be notified through their online account.

Automation: system improvements have

date draft lists need to be submitted to billing authorities is also advanced to 31st December from 30th September before the new rating lists (actually returning it to the original 1988 Act date) come into effect.

IPMSThe International Property Measurement Standards already provide a standard for most classes of property. Offices and residential were covered in the June and July issues and now it is the turn of Industrial. Retail has not yet been published though a draft document was circulating last year.

IPMS 1 and 2 for industrial are very much the same as for residential and offices and are common across all property types. The differences come with IPMS 3 where for industrial this is divided into two – 3A Industrial and 3B Industrial. Whereas IPMS 1 and 2 are for measuring whole buildings, IPMS 3 Industrial

been made to improve the accuracy and speed of processing a deduction.

Clearer information: UC Case Managers now have access to more information on deductions to be able to better help claimants with their queries. Claimants can also see more information about their deductions on their statement.

What are the benefits?The new form and process has been designed based on creditor and colleague feedback and robustly tested with a group of creditors.

The design of the forms and process will help to prevent error and speed up response times, allowing authorities to recover their funds and aiming to prevent claimants from incurring further debt or penalties.

What do I need to know?All creditors have been provided with a new form and detailed creditor pack to aid them with the application process. The new form and email should be used for all future applications of council tax third party deductions (including water deductions where applicable in Scotland). Any applications received by post, other methods or using other forms will be rejected. The application process for rent

deals with the more precise situation where it is necessary to measure a part (or indeed whole) of a building in exclusive use. It is not simply an internal area but allows for two bases:• IPMS3A Industrial: an external measurement

of the area in exclusive occupation – similar to GEA

• IPMS3B Industrial: an internal measurement including internal walls etc. – similar to GIA.

3B has the important difference to the old GIA, and common to all IPMS internal measurements, in that measurements are taken to the Internal Dominant Face ( IDA), not necessarily the plaster finish. The IDA is taken for each section of the wall and may be the window glass where, in the window section of a wall, the window is over 50% of the height and therefore the dominant face. See the actual standard for full details at https://ipmsc.org/standards/industrial/

WELFARE REFORM

Brooke Ahmed is a DWP Universal Credit Business Partner

15

Changes to Universal Credit Council Tax deductions are highlighted by the DWP

DW

P

arrears, Managed Payments to Landlords or other deductions has not changed. Deductions for other benefits are not covered by this change.

If you have not yet received your pack, please contact your local UC Partnership Manager for more information or access the information on https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/universal-credit-information-for-stakeholders-and-partners/

IRRV Conferences

IRRV Annual Conference and Exhibition 2019

The 2019 Annual Conference (and Exhibition) will take place in Telford from the 8 to 10 October. The first day will consist entirely of plenary sessions whilst four separate streams (Local Taxation & Revenues, Welfare Benefits, Investigation and Valuation) will be run on the second day. The final morning will provide delegates with a general update on everything that is happening within the Profession.

The Performance Awards Gala Dinner 2019 will take place on the Wednesday evening where the winners will be announced. There will be range of packages to suit individual needs. A limited number of bedrooms will also be held in the local area for delegates attending the conference.

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

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

For Booking and programme information, please visit:

www.irrv.net/annualconference

E: [email protected] T: 020 7691 8987W: www.irrv.net/annualconference

IRRV Annual Conference and Exhibition 20198 – 10 OctoberInternational Centre Telford

Members can book 3 places for the price of 2*

IRRV Qualifi cations

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 for both IRRV London Day Release and IRRV Distance Learning• IRRV Certificate Level 3: £1260.00 plus VAT• Diploma: £1380.00 plus VAT• Individual Subjects: on request

(Day release courses start in October 2019)

* This offer is valid on multiple bookings with a minimum of 3 candidates and can be applied to bookings for day release and / or distance learning.

DISTANCE LEARNING:E: [email protected] T: 020 7691 8984W: www.irrvdistancelearning.org.uk

LONDON DAY RELEASEE: [email protected] T: 020 7691 8974W: www.irrv.net/dayrelease

IRRV Professional Qualifi cation

3 places for the price of 2 on multiple enrolments*

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

Every month seems to bring a new analysis of the impact on claimants and their families of Universal Credit (UC). The analytical waters are muddied by those who will eventually receive transitional protection, but generally there is a pattern of gainers and losers, with some of the losses worrying indeed.

The fact that there are gainers, too, may seem to confer some balance, but the fact is that most people on low incomes cannot afford to lose.

As I write, the Observer has just reported on research conducted by Policy in Practice for the Children’s Commissioner for England. This looked at UC losses, the two-child policy and the benefit cap. It found that:

“Almost half of low-income households examined were affected, losing on average £3,441 a year”1.

Gainers (56%) outnumbered losers (40%) in this study, but crucially – as noted above – losers cannot afford to lose.

I have written in these pages before about all three of the hazards examined by this research, noting that the benefit cap and two-child limit have logical as well as policy problems. The benefit cap ignores the availability of in-work benefits in calculating its thresholds (otherwise, hardly anyone would be caught by it). The two-child policy assumes that parents are in a position to predict their financial circumstances for the next 18 years or so, which is obviously nonsense except for the very wealthy.

Quoted in the Observer piece, Children’s Commissioner Anne Longfield is forceful in her comments on the two-child policy:

“The two-child cap penalises children who can’t choose their birth order or the number of siblings their parents are having. Putting children in a position where they are worse off through no fault of their own is morally wrong and risks damaging the life chances of already vulnerable children”.

SanctionsIn the June issue of Insight, I looked at some of the issues around benefit sanctions, pointing out

their many problems in terms of administrative justice and counter-productive effects as regards stimulating claimants’ enthusiasm for welfare-to-work programmes2.

I also noted that sanctions could last between four weeks and three years.

On 9th May (after we went to press) Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd, speaking to the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (and admittedly probably not because of my article) announced that the more severe sanction durations would be substantially reduced:

“Such sanctions were rarely used, but I believe they were counter-productive and ultimately undermine our goal of supporting people into work.

“In the future, the longest length of a sanction will be six months.

“And I am undertaking an evaluation of the effectiveness of Universal Credit sanctions, to consider whether other improvements can be made”3.

This is very welcome, but as Ms. Rudd herself points out, this affects the ‘rarely used’ end of the scale, leaving the generality of sanctions still in play. Let us hope that the promised evaluation heralds further progress towards a more constructive approach.

Tower HamletsIn writing this column each month, I am much dependent on feedback from local authorities – benefit practitioners and advice workers – around the country. So thank you once more, Tower Hamlets.

Early in May, the Guardian ran a story of interest to those involved in benefit matters or simply concerned with the sensible use of public money. Essentially, benefit practitioners at Tower Hamlets were struggling to get the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to act when notified of incorrect payments:

“A report by Tower Hamlets council’s benefits team said it had uncovered 539 DWP administrative mistakes in less than a year, which led to hundreds of claimants being underpaid by up to £8,000 or

CREDIT NOTES

Geoff Fimister is a writer and consultant on social security and related issues.

17

All the latest on progress and problems in the world of Universal Credit

Ge

off

Fim

iste

r

Ups and downs!

overpaid by up to £25,000”.Some instances were indeed downright bizarre:“In one case, the DWP reportedly insisted on

paying a claim despite a warning that not only was the claimant most likely ineligible for benefits, as they had been living abroad for ten months, but that police had recently raided their address and closed down a brothel” 4.

I asked contacts at Tower Hamlets about this, and Steve Hill, Head of Benefits Services at Tower Hamlets Council, commented:

“The report produced by the council identified a number of cases of both under- and overpayments of benefits. This led to a significant impact on council resources, but more importantly the impact was felt by residents on low incomes who were left either short of benefits they were entitled to, or facing repayments requests.

“In a number of cases, the council alerted the department to errors being made, including information on claimants who were ineligible for payments. Unfortunately, these concerns were not always acted on in a timely way.”

Clearly, there is work to be done by the DWP on communications – and I doubt just in Tower Hamlets.

Myths and factsFinally, readers cannot help but be aware of the DWP’s controversial publicity campaign, launched in May and designed to counteract ‘myths’ about UC by presenting ‘facts’. This is a fascinating tale and I do not have space to do it justice here.

However, readers discerning enough to read both Insight and its sister Benefit journal, will find my observations in the current (August) issue of the latter.

1. “Welfare shake-up will double number of children in poverty”, Observer, 12/5/19.

2. “Credit Notes”, Insight, June 2019.3. “Rudd announces Universal Credit sanction changes”, 24

Housing, 9/5/19.4. “Slow response to Universal Credit errors “bizarre”, says

council”, Guardian, 7/5/19.

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

I am writing this article having just returned from IPTI’s Annual Conference (our Mass Appraisal Valuation Symposium) which was held in a hotel overlooking Lake Bled in Slovenia. It was not only a very enjoyable and successful event but, among the 30 countries represented at the conference, I am pleased to say that two senior members of the IRRV were in attendance – Andrew Hetherton, Senior Vice President and Geoff Fisher, Past President of the Institute.

It would be unfair to pick out any individual presentations from the 45 speakers we had at the conference but it may be helpful to highlight a few of the wide range of topics that were covered. Obviously, we had a significant input from local speakers about the issues concerning the property tax system in Slovenia, which continues to face pressure from politicians and others, who seem to be less than supportive of bringing the system up to date.

We had a number of very interesting presentations covering issues in various European countries, including the property tax reforms in Germany, the latest developments in property tax systems in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Moldova, the Netherlands, Romania and, of course, the United Kingdom. Speakers from further afield brought us up to date with what is happening in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, South Africa and Vietnam.

Inevitably, we spent some time looking at the technology which supports property tax systems, including automated valuation models, along with big data, machine-learning and the use of artificial intelligence. In this connection, we had a very lively presentation from colleagues working at the Property Valuation Services Corporation in Nova Scotia, highlighting their experiences in working with artificial intelligence, which is clearly the direction of travel for the mass appraisal industry.

Whilst we were in Slovenia, we held a meeting of IPTI’s Board of Advisors, which among

other matters discussed the Council on State Taxation (COST)/IPTI International Property Tax Scorecard which is now available on IPTI’s website at www.ipti.org The Scorecard is titled ‘The Best (and Worst) of International Property Tax Administration’ and contains the outcome of research carried out by COST into the 50 US States – along with Washington DC and Puerto Rico – and IPTI’s research into a total of 27 jurisdictions from around the world including Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

We are very grateful to all who kindly contributed the factual information and opinions that enabled us to put this report together. Wherever possible, we sought the views of property taxpayers, practitioners, assessors and municipalities in order that we could obtain a variety of perspectives about the particular property tax system we were studying. COST and IPTI carried out careful analysis of the information provided, along with further independent research to check the factual position; we then graded the results in accordance with our findings. We also carried out a series of moderation meetings between the two organisations to ensure we were carrying out the final scoring on a consistent basis.

For those who may not be aware of the previous international scorecard we published in 2014, that is also still available on our website. The temptation may be to compare the results of the previous scorecard with the latest one to see what changes there may have been. However, although some of the questions we asked this time were the same or similar to the previous exercise, many have changed, so it is not possible to compare like with like.

It is also important to emphasise that the scorecard looks primarily at objective, factual information to avoid subjective judgements about, for example, the quality of property tax valuations.

The information we have graded falls into three main categories, each having three sections as indicated below:• transparency: centralised information;

valuation notices; valuation practice• consistency: central agency oversight; equal

assessment practices; assessor/appraiser training and outreach

• procedural fairness: adequate appeal period and initial hearing; fair independent tribunal review; other procedural fairness issues.

Within each section there are three sub-sections, meaning that there is a total of 27 questions covering the various aspects of the property tax system we were studying. There are too many questions to include them all in this article but, to give a flavour of the type of questions we asked, here are a few examples: is there a centralised website; how often are properties revalued; are there standardised forms; is there a single tax rate for all properties; how long do taxpayers have to appeal valuations; is there an independent tribunal for appeals; is there a fee required to make an appeal?

The intention of preparing and publishing the scorecard is to draw the attention of policy-makers to areas for improvement in the administration of their property tax system. Perhaps inevitably, the focus is likely to be on the actual scores, but the comments and background information contained in the report are also important. Every jurisdiction wants to be favourably regarded and not find itself at the lower end of the scale, but this is not an exercise in ‘winners and losers’; it is primarily about the

18

COVER STORY


The author and IRRV President, Louise Freeth

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

search for best practice and experience-sharing.As already indicated, it is important to read the

entire report to obtain the full picture, but here is a brief indication of the top (A) and bottom (F) of the overall scores for the jurisdictions concerned:Top U.S. ranked jurisdictions

Georgia B+Kansas B+Florida BTexas B

Bottom U.S. ranked jurisdictionsHawaii D-Massachusetts D-New York D-Puerto Rico D-West Virginia D-Mississippi FPennsylvania F

Top non-U.S. ranked jurisdictionsBritish Columbia B+Hong Kong B+New South Wales B+New Brunswick BOntario BQueensland BSingapore B

Bottom non-U.S. ranked jurisdictionsQuebec C-New Zealand C-South Africa C-

I hope people will take the time to read the full report, as it contains lots of useful information in both the main scorecard and the separate ‘addendum’, which is also available on IPTI’s website. Whilst we are aware that some may disagree with the scores allocated, I hope readers will accept that they reflect an impartial, independent analysis.

I should add that there are several more IRRV links in connection with my international work. The first is that I am currently working with David Magor, Chief Executive of the IRRV, and Moira Hepworth, Head of Law and Research

with the Institute, in connection with a project focussed on providing consultancy advice to the Irish Valuation Office (VO). Although this is a new contract, won against bids from other international organisations, in many ways it is a follow-up to the work that IPTI and IRRV completed in 2016 in relation to a process review of the Irish VO which resulted in a report entitled ‘Delivering a World Class Valuation Service: A Roadmap for the Future’. We have been holding meetings with colleagues from the Irish VO and their stakeholders on a monthly basis and we will be travelling with some of them to the IAAO’s Annual Conference which is being held in Niagara Falls, Canada, where in addition to making presentations we will be looking closely at the latest technology available to support valuation agencies.

Another recent event that involved the IRRV was the CBI-IPTI business rates conference, which was held in London. This high-level conference was held at a time when, as IRRV members will be aware, the business rates system is both topical and controversial. We had a senior minister from the UK Treasury speaking at the event, along with a member of the Parliamentary Treasury Committee, which is currently reviewing the impact of business rates on businesses. The CBI provided input from businesses and IPTI provided input from international property tax experts. I am pleased

Paul Sanderson is President with the International Property Tax Institute

19

to say that one of the key speakers at the event was David Magor.

Another recent international conference we held took place in Miami, Florida, USA. This was on the subject of ‘Property Tax Transformation: Unifying Process and Technology’. Last year, IPTI provided an independent report for a major software supplier on the way in which large corporations manage their property tax liabilities. This conference gave us an opportunity to discuss the key issues with representatives of a number of US-based corporations. All agreed that the efficient management of property tax liabilities, particularly across many different jurisdictions, is a major challenge for large corporations, and there can be expensive penalties incurred if this task is not carried out effectively.

And finally, I should add that the current IRRV President, Louise Freeth, kindly invited me to the annual President’s Lunch, held at the Goring Hotel in London. This is a very pleasant, relaxed affair where the heads of various kindred organisations gather round the table to discuss matters of common interest in an informal atmosphere. I am looking forward to more IRRV interactions over the coming months.

Lake Bled IPTI’s Annual Conference, Bled, Slovenia

The President’s lunch gang!

The CBI-IPTI Conference

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

IRRV President Louise Freeth formally opened this year’s Wales Conference, which was held once again in Llandrindod Wells. She thanked the event sponsors, TELsolutions, for their generous support, both the Welsh Associations for their input and Islwyn Lewis Jones in particular for once more organising a varied and interesting programme. Louise pointed out that there were numerous challenges to be faced in the sector, and the question facing all “was not about doing more for less, but rather how we can continue to do the same for less”.

Rebecca Evans, Minister for Finance and Trefnydd National Assembly for Wales, delivered the keynote speech. It was clear that the Minister was fully aware of the key issues of concern to the audience and her first message extended gratitude to practitioners for their work in tackling issues in Council Tax (CT), Universal Credit and debt avoidance. Rebecca referenced a recent UN report that stated the austerity programme was having a corrosive effect, a view shared by the Welsh Government. “It is outrageous that a devolved government should be having to spend so much time and money mitigating the effects of austerity created by the UK government”, she stated. In response, a personalised and proactive system of multi-agency support for those in need was better than a ‘one size fits all’ solution. The Minister highlighted initiatives regarding the new care leaver exemption category for CT, removal of committal for CT debt, the citizen-centric approach in the Council Tax Protocol and the government’s continued financial support through the Council Tax Reduction (CTR) scheme.

Andrew Shipsides, Chief Executive of the Valuation Tribunal Wales, provided a thorough exploration of the VT service in Wales, covering how the service has modernised over the years. Future possible changes affecting the work of the service included handling appeals linked to the work of the Welsh Revenues Authority. The Law Commission was to commence with a review of tribunals later in the year, but it remained to be

seen whether the VT would be included in the review, as it was formed on a different basis to those other tribunals, which were serviced by civil servants.

Gary Bovan, Director Client Care with High Court Enforcement Group, provided a humorous presentation which gave practical advice on the use of High Court enforcement proceedings. He covered the office structure of the High Court and explained the duties, powers, rights, privileges and liabilities that were vested in the authorised officer in relation to a writ, which were the same as a sheriff of a county would have had. He was liable for the acts and misconduct of any enforcement agent to whom he delegated his personal powers and obligations under the writ. The toughest part of the job was getting debtors to engage in the process, but when that happened successful outcomes were often achieved. Gary observed that starting an enforcement process through the High Court could cost a local authority an additional £31 compared to using the County Court, but the High Court enforcement officer had a wider and more far-reaching range of powers than that of the County Court officer, so it was a route worth considering for certain difficult cases.

Rebecca Woolley, Director with Citizens Advice Wales (CA), spoke on the topic of ‘working together in difficult times’. The CA gives people the knowledge and confidence they need to find their way forward – whoever they are, and whatever their problem – by offering good quality, independent advice. Their network of 19 local bureaux provides support in 375 locations across Wales, with nearly 800 volunteers and paid staff. The organisation is a rich source of data, and they utilise that data to make a difference through their policy aims. “With the right evidence, we show companies and the government how they can make things better for people”, observed Rebecca. She said that local authorities and all partners, including the third sector and health services, should be working towards building clearer communications, developing respectful interactions, encouraging

contact by service users and enabling an investigative approach.

The top issue of concern for clients was benefits and tax credits, and people with mental health issues – 10% had a problem relating to housing benefits, and 8.5% had a query relating to CTR.

Darren Baker is Lead for Change, Communication, Fraud, Error and Debt in the Housing Delivery Division of DWP. He delivered an interesting and informative paper on ‘Housing Benefit and beyond’. Darren acknowledged to the benefits officers and managers in the audience that “it’s a very complicated world that you now have to deliver in”. He echoed Louise Freeth’s opening comments about delivering the same for less, and said that the DWP was trying to assist local authorities in this task and it is thinking about the ways it could help by allocating funding smarter. He estimated that by 2021 they would be looking at demand-led methodologies. Putting schedules with lines of funding was currently proving a challenge but the hope was to issue information by the end of the year. Various initiatives and trials were highlighted from across the areas of fraud, continuous improvement, change impacting and communications, that were showing encouraging results.

David West, Owner of Smile Motivation, spoke on the topic of ‘Keys to Staff Performance’. In an engaging session, David stressed the importance of positivity in the business environment, and explored ways to engender it in both staff and in their dealings with others.

David Magor, IRRV Chief Executive, rounded up the day with a high-octane critique of the principles underpinning land value taxation (LVT). David held that “Anyone thinking that LVT is a realistic alternative to the rating system in the UK should think again. You cannot develop a land tax and apply it in a developed society, unless you make provision for an ‘improved land’ tax element, which takes account of built property – and which fundamentally weakens the whole LVT argument.”

20

A viewfrom WalesMoira Hepworth reports from the key presentations recently witnessed by delegates to the Wales Conference

CONFERENCE REPORT

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

Early June saw a recent addition to the Institute’s conference and event portfolio, as delegates and exhibitors gathered together at The Council House, Birmingham for the IRRV Fraud and Investigation Training Workshop and Exhibition. Training organisations, government representatives and established IRRV professionals combined forces to offer detailed information on how fraud and corruption can be eliminated.

Institute Junior Vice President Alistair Townsend led the charge with the statutory duties in place to fight fraud. He illustrated how they translated into the ‘real world’ – committing support and resource to tackling fraud, enhancing processes, using resources effectively and the power of collaboration with others. Making better use of information and technology to tackle fraud and corruption are key too, as is effective punishment and recovering losses, he said. This involved enhancing executive duties in policy setting (if the policy says ‘zero tolerance’, then officers should proceed on that basis), the Statutory Officer duty, including the Monitoring Officer role and the Chief Finance Officer’s duties to ensure controls and investigate and recommend on prosecution.

Kevin Stewart, chair of the IRRV’s Benefits Faculty Board and Past President, had the brief of ‘Eliminating fraud in rating reliefs’. Kevin highlighted the potential way forward, with legislation to tackle rates avoidance, MHCLG guidance, greater powers in the courts, the need for businesses to be given a duty to report changes, financial penalties for failure, and the overall sharing of best practice.

The Cabinet Office were represented through Laura Eshelby, Head of Professionalisation with the Counter Fraud Centre of Expertise. Laura explained the history of the organisation’s involvement in the anti-fraud agenda, in particular the

Local Government Working Group, launched this year, when Cabinet Office Minister Chloe Smith MP announced support for local government organisations joining the profession. The working group will drive this process, reporting to the government’s Counter Fraud Profession Board.

No IRRV event is complete without winners from the Performance Awards, and on this occasion, ‘Providing a Value for Money Investigation Service’ was the subject matter for Oxford City Council’s Investigation Manager, Scott Warner and Mick Hopkins, Senior Investigation Officer.

Presentations covering the tricky subject areas of tenancy and insurance fraud followed, with Rachel Tiffin adding in the role of CIFAS and the local fight against fraud. Rachel illustrated the work on the new Board’s initiatives, new counter fraud standards, the consultation with 197 fraud practitioners in 2017 and the workshop’s input into a draft standards document and much more.

How to get the best out of internet searches was the challenge for Steve Morris, while Matthew Whyatt looked into recent case law and the use of bankruptcy and liquidation proceedings. Institute Chief Executive, David Magor, illustrated his customary versatility with a presentation covering procurement fraud – leading to the conclusion of another resounding success for an IRRV event!

21

FEATURE STORY

IRRV Fraud and Investigation Training Workshop and Exhibition

Moira Hepworth BA Hons IRRV is the Institute’s Head of Law and Research

David took the audience through the complexities of valuation and collection that LVT in Wales would entail. He stressed that UK business rates is one of the most efficient local taxes in terms of collection rates and costs compared to yield but it suffered (along with CT) due to lack of modernisation. It would be much more beneficial, David argued, to bite the bullet politically and update the business rate and domestic property tax systems.

CONFERENCE REPORT

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

With advancing technology comes broader opportunity. I have been told by more experienced colleagues of the horrors of paper-based calculations and the old filing systems in the ‘old days’. Having joined revenues and benefits in 2013, I do feel slightly privileged to have had the tools available to do most of the leg work for me (the youth of today, eh?!). As I’m sure I have mentioned in previous articles, nothing stays still in our sector and it can sometimes feel like a workplace rollercoaster. That being said, I wanted to step away from welfare reform and reflect on the administration practice and the work methods deployed by local authorities (LAs) – specifically the location of these methods.

I currently work predominantly from home, with a past of solely working from an office in large teams, with a short spell of locality working (at residents’ homes – visits). It would appear that more and more LAs are making working away from the central office available to vacancy candidates. From the point of view of somebody who has done both, I wanted to touch on some of the pros and cons which I have personally experienced and identified to highlight the difference in practice.

If your department offers a flexi-time policy, then I believe this goes hand in hand with remote working. It has certainly allowed me to improve my work/life balance and has also allowed me to work for an organisation which would normally fall outside of my commute radius. In addition, I would say that working from home makes the duties of my job more accessible, which could suggest a benefit for my employer in terms of supply and demand. I’m sure many LAs have peaks and troughs in their workload – an example of a peak in the benefits sector could be relevant benefit uprates, changing tax brackets and other increases (such as minimum/living wage, occupational pensions and self-employed income), which are often subject to change

every April. If the work influx is volatile, then having a flexible workforce is definitely a benefit to cope with this.

One question I often get asked is whether I get lonely working alone – a friend of mine compared it to solitary confinement, which is slightly extreme. From my perspective, I still have the same exposure to customers and still interact with my colleagues on a daily basis. Therefore, there is no impact on morale or motivation. In fact, I personally believe working from home has a positive impact on morale and motivation. Further to this, I have weekly trips into the office to partake in team meetings and see the rest of the team. I must admit that one down side is when an email circular is sent to advise that somebody has brought in cake/biscuits – perhaps I should put a request in for these to be posted to my address!

Another important element to the home working web is to have effective IT support. System downtime can obviously be detrimental to an employee’s productivity. Therefore it is paramount that hardware and software systems are in full working order. I have encountered minor problems in the past whilst working from home but fortunately these have been rectified promptly by the in-house IT department. There have been no errors, no discrepancies and no problems recently, with the exception of me

recently leaving my laptop charger at the central office (which is 50 miles away from my home!).

From an employer’s perspective, having staff working from home results in reduced overheads. As well as this, staff are able to work with less distraction and additional office space becomes available to be utilised. This, along with the positive impact detailed above, is why this working option is being made readily available by a number of LAs.

All in all, it is clear that there is no right or wrong or set formula for productive working. Each member of each LA is an individual, so what works for me may not work for other local government officers dotted around the United Kingdom. However, if we continue to progress our sector and allow said individuals to make effective choices, then this can only be a good thing.

Harrison Waine is a Benefits Officer with South Lakeland District Council

22

The case for working from home is becoming more and more important as flexible working and accommodation costs loom

Ha

rris

on

Wa

ine

A FRESH INSIGHT

“ It has certainly allowed me to improve my work/life balance and has also allowed me to work for an organisation which would normally fall outside of my commute radius.”

I often get asked whether I get lonely working alone

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

The Court of Appeal has ruled that there is no legal duty that requires a resident to tell a council that they are living at a particular property for Council Tax (CT) purposes. The finding arose out of a case in which an anonymised defendant told Hertsmere Council that she had moved out of a property that she owned and had previously claimed a single person discount for. It was subsequently discovered that she was still living there, with others (and was believed to have been for some seven years or more). The council prosecuted her on various counts under the Fraud Act 2006, but this case relates only to count six on the indictment.

Sections 1 and 3 of this Act create an offence of fraud by dishonestly failing to disclose information which the defendant is under ‘a legal duty’ to disclose. The issue was whether the defendant was, for CT purposes, under a legal duty to disclose the fact of her continued residence at a particular address.

During the fraud trial, the prosecution had been unable to identify any provision of the 1992 Act or any supporting statutory instruments which impose on residents an obligation to notify councils of the fact of their residency. The Crown Court Judge expressed surprise that there was no such duty and gave the prosecution more time to research the matter. Still no provision was identified and the prosecution maintained the position that the obligation of notification should be statutorily implied: “Every household... has an obligation to tell the local authority if they are residing in a property otherwise how would any local authority have the necessary information to collect council tax?” Whilst not unsympathetic to the council’s point of view, the judge found that as there was no legal duty to inform, then count six of the

indictment was unsustainable. The prosecution argued that the judge

was wrong in law and the Court of Appeal took up the case. That Court clarified that s6 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 details the people who are liable to pay CT and highlights that liability for payment of CT is primarily based on residence. On that basis, the Judge agreed that the defendant, as the freehold owner and resident at the property, should probably have been the primarily liable party for CT with regard to that property. However, the question the Court was being asked to consider was whether she was under a legal duty to notify the council of the fact of her own continued residence. The Judge said, “It is quite wrong to equate a liability to pay with a liability to notify... such a provision simply is not there, either within the primary legislation or in subordinate legislation”. He went on to state that although there might be times when duties or obligations could be implied within legislation, this was not an approach that is available in this scenario.

The Judge went on to say that not only could he not see any obligation of notification set out in the statutory scheme but that it could be that the opposite is the case: “There is no reason in principle why a local authority, if Parliament saw fit, itself should not be required to ascertain the

CASE LAW UPDATE

Deborah Davies is Head of Revenues and Benefit with Craven District Council

23

The legal obligation to notify of occupation details is not evident when it comes to Council Tax liability

De

bo

rah

Da

vie

s

Court of Appeal ruling

relevant information which would reveal the person or persons liable to pay CT. Indeed, that the relevant obligations are on the local authority in this regard seems to us to be confirmed by various aspects of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.”

These Regulations detail what information may be gathered from whom and for what purpose. Crucially, the obligation is placed upon the authority to make such a request before the person concerned is required to supply the information sought. The Court of Appeal referred specifically to Regulation 3, which states that a person who appears to a billing authority to be a resident, owner or managing agent of a particular dwelling shall supply to the authority such information as ...the authority requests (by notice given in writing).

The Court of Appeal further notes that Regulation 16 explicitly places a duty on a person who has been given a discount to advise the local authority if his entitlement to the discount ends or changes and takes from this the fact that there is no reason to search out implied obligations as such explicit ones as are necessary are already in place.

The appeal judge concluded by offering this consolatory thought – despite the absence of any duty to notify, councils still have a number of remedies available to them to assist in the collection of taxes, such as civil recovery, enforcement and criminal sanctions where fraud has been identified.

“ However, the question the Court was being asked to consider was whether she was under a legal duty to notify the council of the fact of her own continued residence.”

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

Changes in legislation can have unexpected and unplanned effects. Sometimes these become clear quickly; sometimes, as with Council Tax Reduction (CTR) reversals, it takes some time to realise there is an issue – especially when the issue slightly straddles the fence between benefits and Council Tax (CT).

BackgroundReaders may already be puzzled and asking, “What is a CTR reversal?” It is the shorthand term we now use to describe backdated changes to CTR that lead to an increased Council Tax (CT) bill. Some councils and people use the term ‘overpayment’ and ‘official error’ when talking about these adjustments but the law does not recognise these concepts. So we now use the term ‘CTR reversal’ to avoid confusion with housing benefit overpayments.

You may recall that before 2013, Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit overpayments were treated in the same way. If they were caused by official error, and the council accepted the claimant could not have reasonably known they were being overpaid, then they were not recoverable. And any appeal against a decision that an overpayment was recoverable was to the same tribunal.

What we foundAfter 2013, for HB overpayments, nothing essentially changed. But for CTR there were no overpayments or official error, and appeals started going to the Valuation Tribunal. It was from looking at some complaints about the way councils had treated a HB overpayment and a CTR reversal that alerted us to the issue. Councils were adjusting claims, based on the same information, and creating HB overpayments and reversals. Sometimes they decided the HB overpayment was caused by official error, and was not recoverable, but the CTR reversal was added to the CT bill and the

customer was told to pay it – which seemed to us to be wrong and unfair.

There are appeal rights against a council’s decision to reduce someone’s CTR. But the Tribunal case DG and Liverpool City Council Appeal 4310M14277/CTR (heard on 11th January 2016) found if the council’s CTR scheme says nothing about CTR reversals, the Valuation Tribunal has no power to consider whether a CTR reversal is recoverable. This means a claimant could appeal a HB overpayment and a CTR reversal to separate tribunals and, on the same facts, have one tribunal rule the HB overpayment unrecoverable, but find the other tribunal unable to make a ruling and the debt still recoverable.

We have had cases of the tribunal suggesting claimants apply for discretionary CTR to cover the CTR reversal. If the council refuses this, the claimant could appeal that decision to the Valuation Tribunal. But this seemed to be a cumbersome way of dealing with the situation.

Our adviceBased on what we have found, we are in the process of issuing some advice to practitioners on dealing with CTR reversals, which both those working in benefits and CT should read and consider. We suggest some ways councils could deal with CTR reversals. They could:• have a policy in their CTR scheme which

mirrors the HB rules on recoverability, and could automatically award discretionary relief if they consider a CTR reversal was the council’s fault

• encourage people to apply for discretionary CT relief, and let them appeal if the council refuses the application

• or, if they signpost to the Valuation Tribunal, they should ensure their policies bring CTR reversals within the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

These are suggestions – there may be other

ways to actively deal with CTR reversals, especially where the council considers the reason for the reversal was its own fault. The key thing is to have – and follow – a policy.

Our research has also shown the quality of information provided on councils’ websites about CTR reversals is variable. Generally, information about HB overpayments is good. Some councils make it clear what their CTR reversal policy is and how to appeal decisions. But, we have seen council websites which have no information at all – that suggest going to the Valuation Tribunal, but say nothing about how to do this, or with links from the CTR pages to a page about appeals, but that page makes no mention of CTR appeals.

One website referred to the council having, “‘the scope of authority’ to recover over-entitlement of CTR”. This is scarcely plain English, and the rest of the page did not give clear information about how to appeal. So we suggest that once a council has a policy on CTR reversals, they review what their public information says about it. And, of course, it should review its CTR decision letters to ensure they are also clear and follow its policy.

Finally, councils should be consistent when a HB overpayment and a CTR reversal are created by the same change – do not write one off and try and recover the other.

We will shortly publish the guidance on our website and we encourage both benefit and CT practitioners to read it and act on it. You can have it delivered straight to your inbox if you subscribe to the news alerts from our website. You can also sign up for our weekly newsletter of the latest benefits and tax investigation decisions.

Andrew Hobley is Assistant Ombudsman with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

24

Dealing with Council Tax Reduction reversals can be fraught with difficulty, so it’s important to get them right!

An

dre

w H

ob

ley

LGO UPDATE

“ Some councils and people use the term “overpayment” and “official error” when talking about these adjustments but the law does not recognise these concepts. So we now use the term “CTR reversal” to avoid confusion with housing benefit overpayments.”

What is aCTR reversal?

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

In my last column, I outlined how sundry debts – commercial invoices issued for a number of reasons such as nursing home overpayments, day-care fees, respite care, licensing fees, planning charges, waste management fees, building permit and service charge arrears – could represent a significant latent revenue stream for local authorities.

While there don’t appear to be any official figures regarding the value of sundry debts owed to local authorities, figures from the Money Advice Trust suggest that 2.3 million debts were passed to bailiffs by local authorities in 2016/17, of which 1.38 million related to Council Tax (CT) arrears.

If just over half of the remainder – some 460,000 – relate to sundry debts, that equates to over 1,000 outstanding debts per local authority in the UK! And with those debts typically ranging from just a few pounds to many thousands of pounds in value, it is clear that the potential returns from a targeted collection programme could run into multi-millions, if not billions, of pounds.

At a time when local authorities are receiving historically low levels of funding from central government and demographic changes are driving greater demand for services than ever before, it is clear that securing payment for sundry debts could have a key role to play funding essential services.

So why aren’t more authorities actively focusing on this specialist revenue stream? In short, day-to-day operational pressures and a focus on delivery rather than process means many authorities are unclear about the effectiveness of their current debt collection strategies.

Research carried out by Esendex in 2018, involving 109 authorities, showed that a significant minority do not keep separate records of the costs involved chasing late payments, nor of the breakdown of internal spend or funding involvement of

external recovery agencies. In fact, 68% of local authorities who responded with their expenditure were unable to say whether the costs of collection exceeded the monies recovered.

Many local authorities currently bundle sundry debt as part of a wider parcel of CT, business rates and parking debt that is then outsourced to enforcement companies. Typically, the sundry debt collection is provided at no charge as part of the wider contract. However, with lower income streams than other types of debt, these more complex and ultimately less profitable debts are frequently returned uncollected.

So, other than raising awareness of sundry debts and their potential to help councils deliver essential services, what can we do to help local authorities improve collection rates and release this latent revenue stream?

To start with, it’s essential to make sure local authorities have a clear understanding of the law and how it can be used to meet the costs of collecting sundry debt payments.

The tools and levers of the Statutory Late Payment Act and Late Payment of Commercial Debt [ Interest] Act can both be used to help offset commercial collection costs. The Acts themselves have two purposes - firstly to deter late payment; and secondly to compensate creditors for the late payment of those debts.

The regulations allow creditors – in this case local authorities – to impose a rate of 8% interest above the Bank of England base rate per annum on overdue payments. Additionally, where those debts relate to a supply of goods and services – a typical scenario for sundry debts – local authorities can also levy a charge for the costs involved in recovering the debt. These differ depending on the invoice value. For example, for debts worth up to £999.99, a £40 charge can be made; for debts between £1,000 and £9,999.99, a £70 charge can be made, and for debts of over £10,000, a £100 charge can be made.

SUNDRY DEBT

Martin Jackson is Director with DSL Local Authority Debt Recovery

25

...the effect on sundry debt collection

Ma

rtin

Ja

ckso

n

Collection challenges and the Late Payment Act...

“ So why aren’t more authorities actively focusing on this specialist revenue stream? In short, day-to-day operational pressures and a focus on delivery rather than process means many authorities are unclear about the effectiveness of their current debt collection strategies.”

While these fees can only be charged once for each payment, in a recent trial for a single London authority, our company delivered a success rate of over 50%. Given the financial constraints facing local authorities and the potential value of the unpaid sundry debt pile to councils up and down the country, it’s clear that failing to pay attention to these debts represents a missed opportunity for councils seeking to release more revenues for frontline services.

As to how we achieved those trial results? That’s one for my next column!

DSL Local Authority Debt Collection was born from DSL UK Limited, the UK’s leading veterinary debt collection provider. An organisational member of the IRRV, DSL has a wealth of experience working with vulnerable client customers, combining professionalism and respect for the debtor with a calm and clear focus on recovering outstanding arrears for its clients. The company operates on a contingency-based commercial model: if a debt is not recovered, there is no charge to its clients.

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

Emma Walker is an award-winning businesswoman, Group Managing Director of Ashridge Group Ltd and an active supporter of various charitable trusts. In this article she offers advice to local authorities involved in TUPE arrangements, based on many years of experience.

TUPE is the acronym for the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. To many, the details can appear somewhat technical and even complex, and there is a tendency for those involved to concentrate exclusively on abiding by the rules – sometimes to the exclusion of the human factors involved.

For anyone changing employer, not by their own choice but by decisions of others, the natural human apprehension about major life-changing events is often exacerbated when large numbers of employees are involved. To many, this can seem highly impersonal, even intimidating, especially if those affected are the major or sole breadwinner in a family.

At Ashridge Group, I have had experience with dozens of TUPE cases and whilst it is obvious that the regulations must be followed to the letter, it has taught me that for successful outcomes it is the people who matter most. We work with employees in all kinds of roles, from receptionists to porters to facility assistants, post room employees, security officers and various levels of management. This brings us into contact with all types of employee but the unifying factor across all groups involved in a TUPE exercise is their need to feel secure and well-motivated under the new stewardship of their jobs.

To provide some context for public sector employment, according to ONS (Office for National Statistics) data, across the UK there were in March 2015 some 5.36 million people employed in the public sector; of which just over 2 million were in local government. Interestingly

in the context of well acknowledged budget pressures on local authorities, the numbers employed by central government continue to rise (up by 3.5% year on year 2017:2018) whilst in local authorities the opposite is the case.

This employment scenario also includes over recent times such major horror stories as the Carillion collapse and a general trend among many local authorities for ‘insourcing’, when services are brought back in-house, sometimes to create new structures, including partnerships, wholly owned delivery mechanisms and joint ventures.

In TUPE we have what a leading legal practice has referred to as ‘a different piece of legislation to manage and local authorities that are actively re-aligning their services and structures need to be fully aware of its significance – virtually all service provision changes may trigger a TUPE transfer, depending on the circumstances’.

In addition, for local authorities there are ongoing consultations on the possible introduction of further pension protection for employees of local government pension scheme (LGPS) employers who are compulsorily transferred to service providers.

In the experience of Ashridge Group, consultation and communication are key elements in helping affected employees to achieve their primary goals – security of employment and high levels of motivation at work. Remember too that some people will have experienced TUPE many times over. If handled badly, each successive change will mark another turn in a downward spiral of job dissatisfaction where they feel like simply an unappreciated cog in a very large and unsympathetic wheel.

Generally speaking TUPE is triggered either by a failure of quality and service level by a provider, a state of affairs which is often a product of poorly managed and motivated employees, or by a cost-driven review of services which will most likely result in a competitive

tender process. Local authority managers will hardly need reminding that failures of service providers can have severe knock-on effects and even put operational sites at risk. In some circumstances the first consideration applied by Ashridge Group will address issues surrounding infrastructure, service level agreements and key documentation. In extremis, we have had to deal with cases where an outgoing provider simply abandons any pretence of professionalism and becomes uncooperative and uncommunicative. Where employees are caught up in the fall out there is a particular duty of care to help them rediscover a job which fulfils both their financial needs and their sense of self-worth.

Where we need to start ‘from scratch’ we implement a programme of in-depth transition with multiple meetings and briefings to explain the circumstances, processes and timeframes. Whilst the minimum required transition period of the regulation is 28 days, we urge our business partners to allow a three month ‘probationary’ period before assessing the success of a TUPE process. Month four is, in our view, the critical time when consultation, training and re-motivation of employees will kick-in. Within this period there may well be some quite specific requirements, for example the provision of new workwear for uniformed employees.

We have developed our approach based on 16 years of operations, working with both local authorities and private sector organisations in the supplier community; names such as Engie, Experian and Sony will be well recognised in local government. In the recommendations and proposals we make to our business partners we always aim to create a ‘balance of interests’, recognising that the demands from senior finance executives for best value are met by a combination of competitive pricing and outstanding service performance levels.

Many local authorities have issued their own guidance notes which set out the actions that should take place where a contract

26

Successful TUPE transfers are about much more than the regulations

Em

ma

Wa

lke

r

EMPLOYEE WELFARE

Don’t forget the people

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

involves TUPE regulations. The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council document for example helpfully includes a checklist of actions, sub-divided into the four fundamental stages of the procurement process; Pre-ITT, Pre-Qualification Questionnaire, Invitation to Tender and Contract Award.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) has also produced a guide to TUPE transfers (published in June 2018) which includes a number of exemplary case studies and these help to flesh out the circumstances which may exist. It also lists the responsibilities involved in TUPE cases where liability passes to the new employer.

These are:• current terms and conditions of employment• continuity of service • redundancy payments• arrears of pay• unfair dismissal and discrimination• collective agreements• personal injury claims• lost share options compensation• lost private medical/health

insurance compensation• employer liability insurance indemnities.

The CIPD document has good advice on the information and consultation processes needed under law – it also briefly speculates on what the effects of BREXIT might be. It concludes;

“ Major dramatic changes seem unlikely because businesses are used to how the rules work and there would be a significant employee backlash if market practice and protections were changed significantly.”

While making predictions about BREXIT is acknowledged as notoriously difficult territory, such a view seems eminently sensible.

However, to summarise, and to return to the main piece of advice I would give to

any organisation involved with TUPE, the success and outcomes of such a process are not guaranteed solely by observance of the regulations, important though they are.

Employees are understandably only partly assured by the belief that the correct procedures are being followed. What is paramount is a sense that the new employer cares about the individual, is sensitive to the anxiety TUPE causes and is fully involved in the issues that involve them personally. Where will they work? How will the organisation change? Is their remuneration and benefits package still in place? Above all is there continuity and certainty of employment and a future for them in the new set-up?

Investing in time, training and communications with ‘new’ employees is, in our judgement and experience the best, perhaps the only way to ensure that TUPE does not negatively impact on your most precious asset – your people. We recently met someone who had been subject to TUPE transfers on no fewer than six occasions over the past 16 years of his employment, and not once had he been granted a proper level of consultation and discussion. This simply will not do.

Many local authorities, with their clear remit for, and accountability to, the public, are outstanding in the field of HR and best practice. TUPE processes may put a strain on HR resources but applying the right practice will reap its own rewards through a well-motivated and effective workforce.

Emma Walker is Group Managing Director of Ashridge Group Ltd

27

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

A good place to obtain a straw poll as to the feelings of small landlords is the national Landlord Investment Show, held periodically at Olympia in London and at other venues in cities around England throughout the year. Resembling in many aspects the formats of exhibitions and sessions at IRRV conferences of past years, these events are characterised by commercial organisations promoting their services and specialist talks and seminars for landlords. What emerged from the most recent event, held in June, is that a growing number of small and independent landlords see themselves as an increasingly oppressed and beleaguered minority within the UK. Central government, local government and the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) are all perceived as working on a collective agenda against them.

Such bitter feelings were being expressed, particularly after a panel discussion which provided the highlight of the morning session, chaired by journalist and TV broadcaster Andrew Neil (who incidentally demonstrated a better grasp of housing law and policy than many anticipated). Endorsing this perception were two speakers – Tony Gimple from Less Tax 4 Landlords and Sarah Davidson, the Knowledge and Product Editor from the online money page of the Daily Mail. Ms Davidson considered that the additional legal demands imposed upon the letting of residential property reflected an unspoken official policy designed to encourage the largest corporate landlords at the expense of smaller individual landlords and investors. She identified pension fundholders with massive investment reserves as the expanding players in the private lettings market as the sector currently favoured by government.

The feeling amongst many private landlords in the audience is that they are being victimised by officialdom. Many clearly felt they were being targeted nationally by branches of the state at the behest of central and local government, who are perceived as acting in cahoots in adding legislative and financial burdens to their businesses, with the result that many small

landlords are abandoning letting residential property altogether and selling up.

On the macro-scale changes in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, the imposition of energy efficiency measures on private lettings, problems with Housing Benefit and Universal Credit (UC)payments covering rent for low income tenants and the increasingly complex licensing conditions for HMO properties have all added to this perception. And it is especially issues concerning HMOs and their taxation which are generating an increased sense of injustice and dissatisfaction on a local level, as a result in day-to-day contact – or often lack of it – with the revenues departments of local authorities and the VOA. Disparities around the treatment of multi-occupation properties are receiving attention, where smaller landlords may be confronted with different definitions and interpretations of what constitutes a house of multiple occupation in law.

Growing complaints are emerging in the policies pursued by the VOA in re-classifying multi-occupation dwellings, including those which have previously been treated as single dwellings where the landlord paid one Council Tax (CT) bill. It appears in a number of regions that the VOA has adopted a policy of re-classifying rooms within a

particular property (one previously listed a single dwelling) so as to create multiple dwellings for listing purposes, with each re-classified dwelling then attracting a CT bill. Sometimes these upset single-bill arrangements which have been in place for years.

The reasons for doing so are often opaque, with no proper or adequate explanation provided for the re-classification, being to the consternation of the owner (rarely do such changes seem to arise from a physical inspection).

These new liabilities fall upon any tenant or licensee occupying who finds what was formerly listed as his/her single room transformed into a chargeable dwelling. With each typically given a band A or B, it means the overall tax yield for a dwelling otherwise operating as an HMO is greatly increased.

A measure of legal justification may be derived in some cases under Article 3 of the Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992 (SI 1992 No 549), which provides that each self-contained unit within a single property is to be treated as a separate dwelling for the purpose of levying CT under the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Where dwellings are so listed or re-listed, each will attract its own separate CT bill.

This poses problems for landlords and tenants. The self-contained element is often disputed, with landlords having arranged matters so a single CT bill is paid on the property as an HMO (the tax being recouped in the rent or rental charge). Consequently, the tenant or licensee lacks the means to afford the CT bill, particularly those in receipt of UC. In this regard, IRRV members may remember cogent warnings issued on UC – the 105 questions put by the Institute to Welfare Minister Lord Freud a few years back!

The arrival of CT bills in such situations lead to allegations of the landlord breaching the contract (where CT was previously included in the rent) and all too frequently encourages a decision by the tenant to move out, being unable to afford the bill. This leaves the landlord with an empty unit, for

28

Are the combined forces of central and local government the cause of the problem?

Ala

n M

urd

ie

LEGAL VIEW

“ Many clearly felt they were being targeted nationally by branches of the state at the behest of central and local government, who are perceived as acting in cahoots in adding legislative and financial burdens to their businesses, with the result that many small landlords are abandoning letting residential property altogether and selling up.”

Landlord woes with HMOs!

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

which s/he is then taxed.The owner of such a reclassified dwelling

seeking to challenge any de-aggregation decision by the VOA may then hit an immediate legal technicality. Article 2 of the Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992 SI 549 (as amended by SI 1997 No 656, art. 2) defines a self-contained unit as follows: “self-contained unit’ means a building or part of a building which has been constructed or adapted for use as separate living accommodation.” Questions of mixed fact and law can always be tricky in any situation – the higher courts have encouraged a ‘bricks and mortar’ test in terms of what constitutes a chargeable dwelling (Corkish v Wright [2014] EWHC 237).

Unfortunately, the decision to de-aggregate a dwelling (or aggregate one) is a discretion that cannot be challenged at Valuation Tribunal (VT) level – Burtfield Estates Ltd v. Dixon (2016) 5930776352/084CAD holding that a decision on aggregation can only be determined by the Listing Officer. The decision of the Listing Officer cannot be altered by an adjudicating panel at the VT (a problem that has already arisen with student accommodation and halls of residence – see Sulets v Leicester City Council [2017] Appeal No: 2465M197400/037C October 7) – the only route is judicial review, which few will want to attempt. Therefore, any proposals made against the Listing Officer decision not to aggregate will be treated as invalid proposals, at least if contained in a single proposal letter or form.

This means a single proposal aimed at challenging the overall listing of a dwelling will not be entertained, forcing the landlord into appealing every separate dwelling decision as to whether a room can consists of a self-contained dwelling, having regard to all the circumstances, including the extent, if any, to which the parts of the property separately occupied have been structurally altered.

To say these technical distinctions are not easily appreciated by many landlords is probably

an understatement, exacerbated by what in many cases have been earnest attempts to comply with the increasingly stringent requirements of HMO licensing required by councils under the Housing Act 2004. The fine detail of the many complex legislative measures has perhaps understandably escaped many small landlords and investors, who are faced with increased demands for tax and stark reminders of the consequences if they do not pay up accordingly. Add noises from central government about a proposed ‘right to rent’ restriction and a county court system beset by delays in possession proceedings and many are feeling fearful and vexed.

Complicating matters yet further, these provisions operate a different conception of what constitutes an HMO than the one which should apply for CT purposes which is contained in Class C of the Council Tax (Liability for Owners) Regulations 1992 SI 551. Unfortunately, the tests under this statutory instrument differ from those prescribed in the Housing Act 2004, which is often the one engaged for planning purposes. Ultimately, the discretion to treat the dwelling as one regardless for single or multiple CT bills ultimately lies with the Billing Authority (BA) but few go against listings by the VOA.

Throw in the infinite number of variations and differences which can exist with the adaptation, construction and letting arrangements for dwellings and we have a recipe for uncertainty,

Alan Murdie LL.B Barrister is a Director with Council Tax Legal Services. Contact him on 07958 552869 or [email protected]

29

“ Throw in the infinite number of variations and differences which can exist with the adaptation, construction and letting arrangements for dwellings and we have a recipe for uncertainty, inconsistency and arbitrary decision-making.”

inconsistency and arbitrary decision-making.Further fuelling the grievances of landlords in

this area is the failure to clearly and adequately explain the reasoning in decision letters issued to them as taxpayers and members of the public. Numerous factors can contribute to this, reflecting the fragmentation of the decision-making process to production errors arising from churned-out letters using the cut-and-paste method of creating and answering correspondence. All can lead on occasion to the issue of seriously defective decision letters, omitting vital points and information. Often landlords point to other HMOs, situated in the same BA area, which appear to be treated differently, fuelling resentment and suspicions of discrimination. Compounded by delays in dealing with proposals by the VOA and the VT system where such cases go on appeal, we have a system that is becoming chaotic and no longer fit for purpose.

And this is before we get on to complaints about the imposition of the empty property premium under section 11B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

As originally envisaged, local authorities were meant to consider the state of the housing market before exercising their discretion about extra premiums for dwellings empty for two years or more.

Six years on, with a growing number of surprising and questionable decisions at tribunal level on the premium, the topic is becoming increasingly problematic, with potential for further damaging a shaky housing market and actually preventing empty properties coming back into use. Watch this space...

INSI

GH

T M

ON

TH 2

019

In a recent decision in the Court of Appeal, two local authorities (the claimants) lost ‘test cases’ after attempting to recover business rates arising from empty properties. The impact the decision will have will mean that authorities are set to potentially lose millions in business rates as landlords and businesses are able to employ schemes which benefit from empty rate discounts.

The case arose as a challenge to those schemes utilised by businesses to avoid the payment of business rates on typically unoccupied properties. The schemes generally involve granting a lease on a property to ‘Special Purpose Vehicles’ (SPVs) which did not have assets or liabilities. The SPV would then be placed in voluntary liquidation or struck off the register at Companies House (for failing to file accounts) as dormant companies, which were subsequently dissolved without business rates liability returning to the landlord/owner of the property.

The claimants argued that SPVs “can as a matter of law, be disregarded” representing a sham. They sought declaratory relief to the effect that the schemes were ineffective and that the SPVs should be disregarded as a nullity, sham or agent of the landlord. If successful in this argument, the claimants argued that the schemes could then not succeed and the defendant companies would be liable for paying business rates on the properties and that these rates could then be recouped.

The defendants argued that the SPVs were not a sham – the transaction would have to say one thing and do another, i.e. it would not give the legal rights and obligations it proclaimed to give. The defendants argued that the granting of leases to the SPVs in this capacity did not appear to create different legal obligations. HHJ Hodge QC sided with the defendants and confirmed that “the fact that a transaction may be described as uncommercial or artificial does not render it a sham”.

During this case it was questioned if it was arguable that the doctrine of ‘piercing the corporate veil’ (Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd

[2013] UKSC 34) was applicable to the SPVs and whether the leases fell to be disregarded by the application of the ‘Ramsay’ principle (WT Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1982] AC 300).

If the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil was applied in this instance, it would enable the court to look at the SPVs as a separate entity to the landlords or businesses who had deployed the scheme in order to determine if there was a dishonest use of the SPV. The claimants argued here that the SPVs were being used to conceal the true position and therefore the liability for payment of rates should revert back to the landlord/owner.

In defence of the claimants’ argument in favour of enforcing the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, counsel for the defendants argued the veil should only be pierced to prevent the abuse of corporate legal personality and that the SPVs in these instances were legal schemes with valid leases. HHJ Hodge QC (sitting in the High Court) clarified that the Supreme Court in Prest confirmed very limited and novel scenarios where one could look behind a corporate personality but the facts of this case did not justify the extension of this principle. Notably, however, HHJ Hodge QC did comment that the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is a developing piece of jurisprudence and the claimant did have an arguable case on this point.

The Ramsay principle would allow the claimants to ignore the granting of the leases to the SPVs and seek the recovery of rates from the property owners. The claimants argued that the SPVs existed and were used as “an act of impropriety with a view to avoiding a potential or immediate legal obligation or liability; evading the law or frustrating the enforcement of the relevant legal obligation”. The claimants did not view the SPV leases as valid and on that basis argued they should be disregarded.

2019 counsel for the defendants argued that a genuine transaction was what it professed to be and HHJ Hodge QC confirmed in his judgment

that granting the leases to the SPVs was genuine – “the court could not go behind it to some supposed underlying substance”.

These were the two main points of consideration for HHJ Hodge QC, alongside consideration of the leases as ‘sham transactions’, which is disappointing and undermines the efforts of local authorities to collect business rates. The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the claimants’ arguments. HHJ Hodge Q.C in his judgment confirmed that it could not be said that the SPVs were used as “engines of fraud” and that the SPVs held valid leases, meaning businesses were entitled to make use of the empty rates exemption granted to insolvent companies pursuant to the Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property (England) Regulations 2008. This approach meant that on the proper application of the Ramsay principle, it could not apply as the transfer of ownership had taken legal effect. Further, the SPVs could not be said to be nullities as they served a bona fide commercial purpose and were properly incorporated companies, they were not judged to be a sham.

Whilst each case has to be considered on its merits, landlords will be pleased with the Court of Appeal decision that it is not fraudulent for companies to take advantage of the SPVs, inevitably local authorities will be hit hard by the decision. It remains to be seen if the claimants will seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, in particular building on their argument to apply the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. We would also hope that Parliamentary proposals for further anti-avoidance legislation will also likely be on forthcoming government agendas to potentially change the regulations.

Paul Caldicott is a partner at Blake Morgan LLP. Contact him on [email protected] The views and opinions expressed in this article are his own.

30

Councils left vulnerable following recent Court of Appeal decision in Rossendale Borough Council and Wigan Council v Hurstwood Properties Ltd and Property Alliance Group Ltd (2019) EWCA Civ 364

Paul C

ald

ico

tt

COLLECTION & ENFORCEMENT

“ If successful in this argument, the claimants argued that the schemes could then not succeed and the defendant companies would be liable for paying business rates on the properties and that these rates could then be recouped.”

Will authorities lose millions in business rates?

INSI

GH

T M

ON

TH 2

019

It’s that time of year when the first liability orders have started to roll in. It’s also a good time to think about collections for the year and what can be done to improve them. We’re sharing some ideas we’ve been putting into practice recently for councils.

Deceased accountsCouncils are frequently encountering cases where the owner of a property has died and left a vacant property behind. This causes problems with collecting historic debt for Council Tax (CT) as well as other debts such as care costs, presenting an empty property for the council’s empty homes team to deal with and often triggers CT relief reducing revenue going forward.

Where an executor is put in place quickly and is in contact with the council, a sale of the property will result in payment of the debt, curing the empty homes issue and returning the revenue stream, as the purchaser is liable for CT.

Difficulty arises where there is no executor appointed. The unpaid debt, empty homes issue and CT relief then continues indefinitely. Where money is owed to the council by the deceased, whether for CT or any other debt, there are litigation options available to cure all three problems:• securing the debt by way of charging order

and then applying for an Order for Sale, appointing a panel solicitor as personal representative for the purpose of those proceedings, allows for recovery of the debt and onward sale at a limited cost to the council

• where the estate cannot meet the indebtedness, applying for an Insolvency Administration Order will ordinarily see payment of at least some of the debt whilst again dealing with the empty homes issue and concluding CT exemptions

• if the above options aren’t available, the council

can consider issuing citations to compel potential executors to take office and in default take office and administer the estate itself so as to dispose of the property. Whilst there may not be recovery of the debt due, it again resolves empty homes issues and brings the property back into CT payment.

Order for sale on empty property – even if in negative equityA lot of debtors take the view that once the council’s debt is secured by charging order, the council will be content to sit back and wait for the property to be sold.

If you have cases like these, why not turn them into cash? Contact the debtor and give them several opportunities to get in touch and make arrangements for repayment. If this doesn’t work, order for sale proceedings can be issued. In the majority of cases, this then results in contact and a sensible repayment arrangement set up.

Where instalments have been agreed, a ‘suspended’ order can be obtained from the court, which means that if the debtor doesn’t keep to the arrangement, the order for sale becomes effective. This makes it much more likely that the debtor sticks to the arrangement.

It is even possible to obtain an order where the property is in negative equity, on the basis that it is in the interests of the public purse to return the property to use.

Review of ‘top 20’ business rate debtsIf these debts have come back from the enforcement agent, there may be a reluctance to write them off simply because of the high value. We can review each one and give a realistic opinion on whether the debt can be recovered by way of insolvency proceedings. A single successful case can be a six-figure sum, equivalent to 100s of CT cases. If not, then our report can be used as a basis on which to justify a write off.

Richard Kerr is Director with Greenhalgh Kerr. You can contact him on 0333 200 5225 or [email protected]

31

Now is the time to look at some ideas to improve your collection success

Ric

hard

Ke

rr

Time to think about improving your collections

“ Where an executor is put in place quickly and is in contact with the council, a sale of the property will result in payment of the debt, curing the empty homes issue and returning the revenue stream, as the purchaser is liable for CT.”

Disputed business rate proceedingsDealing with disputed proceedings can be time consuming and difficult, especially if the debtor is legally represented.

We have introduced a new way of helping with cases which become disputed following issue of the summons:• we will review any existing paperwork and

evidence and if possible prepare advice on the merits of the council’s position

• if there’s not enough on which to base advice, we will seek directions from the court and then prepare our advice once we have had disclosure of the debtor’s evidence

• we charge a fixed fee to get to this point. If our advice is not to proceed with the matter on the basis that the prospects of success are less than 60%, then we will assist you in withdrawing from the proceedings, or you may continue those if you wish

• if the prospects of success appear to be 60% or better, we will agree to continue to represent the council under the terms of our CFA. We also have an arrangement with counsel who is willing to act on a CFA in relation to the final hearing.

This means that you are only proceeding with matters which stand a good chance of success. The cost of handling the dispute is fixed. If it proceeds all the way to a final hearing, there is no further cost to the council from us or the barrister in the event that a liability order is not granted.

COLLECTION & ENFORCEMENT

E: [email protected] T: 020 7691 8994W: www.irrv.net/apprenticeships

• Are you looking to employ an Apprentice?

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

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

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

From May 2017, employers with a pay bill of over £3m are required to contribute to an Apprenticeship Levy Account. The Government set targets for the number of apprentices each organisation must employ each year by 2020. If the funding in the levy account is not used within 2 years, the oldest 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, Revenues and Benefits apprenticeship. The IRRV apprenticeship not only leads to the award of the Level 4 Apprenticeship qualification, but a key benefit, for both the apprentice and the employer, is that successful apprentices will be awarded the Certificate in Local Taxation, Revenues and Welfare Benefits. This enables them to become a Technician member of the Institute i.e. if the apprentice continues to be a member of the IRRV, they will be able to use the designatory letters ‘Tech IRRV’ after their name.

How it works

The IRRV have considerable experience in training staffin all aspects of Revenues and Benefits. We offer a‘blended learning’ approach to training. As discussedand agreed with the employer, the IRRV will deliver thefollowing training products and services as part of ourapprenticeship training programme:• Legislation / Administration Training• Conferences and Professional Meetings• Forum Meetings• Training Courses• Webinars (Technical and Soft Skills)

• On-line Learning• Off-site Work and Research• Face-to-face• End Point Assessment preparation and support

In addition to the above, as the apprenticeship trainingfee includes IRRV membership, the apprentice willreceive the following membership benefits:• 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

• Free access to the Technical Enquiry Service• The IRRV’s monthly newsletter, containing the latest

legislative changes, government announcements and current developments within the profession

Fees

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

Enquiries

For all enquiries on Apprenticeships, please contact us at [email protected] or telephone us on 020 7691 8994.

IRRV ApprenticeshipsThe IRRV Level 4

Revenues and Welfare Benefits Practitioner Apprenticeship

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

‘It’s The Manager’, by Jim Clifton and Jim Harter, from Gallup, utilises research conducted by the company on the future of work. I despair at times, though, because the underlying diagnosis from the book is that the concept of ‘management’ has stood still for thirty years. Really?

The work says too many managers are still bosses, using command and control strategies, and not enough are coaches learning of and developing the actual strengths of individual team members. Clifton and Harter claim too many remain focussed on performance management and not enough on performance development.

Having considered the diagnosis, the book’s prognosis is that the managers are critical to any organisation’s future success. In times of streamlined structures, one of the biggest errors organisations can make is to cut back on management roles but, more importantly, appoint the wrong people into whatever roles exist.

If you are in any doubt about the impact a good manager can have, look no further than this last twelve months at Leeds United Football Club. Last summer Leeds appointed maverick Argentinian, Marcelo Bielsa, as head coach. With little change to the playing personnel from the season before, he transformed them from 13th place in 2018 to 3rd place in 2019. Both their results and performances were superior in comparison to the previous season. It’s evident Bielsa effected dramatic change in the players’ confidence and, from what I’ve read and seen, much is due to his attention to personal development.

Bielsa’s philosophy is built upon the premise that he’ll only be able to achieve what he wants from the players if he ‘loves’ them. Anything else won’t work. “Whoever is loved will always feel safer and have that sensation of strength that will put him in a superior position to confront the battle,” he once said, in a previous role as Chile manager. “I’m quite clear in my mind one has to feel sincere love for those he leads...”

Chilean sociologist, Eugenio Tironi, said Bielsa is “an excellent reference and role model

for youth, because he achieves results through discipline, rigour... enthusiasm”.

Those principles apply in any organisation, in any field, anywhere in the world, in my opinion. And enthusiasm counts for much.

It’s often said that people don’t leave bad jobs, they leave bad managers, or toxic cultures. ‘Lousy managers create miserable employees,’ according to Clifton and Harter, in ‘It’s The Manager’. Such an atmosphere creates a circle of poor work/life balance – team members take misery home, creating tension there, which is then returned to the workplace and so it goes on. It can have the effect of ruining customer interfaces and increase health problems, leading to further sickness. The cost of which is almost immeasurable.

Speaking of work/life balance, I read recently that we need to be smarter about it, because the mere phrase suggests work is bad – what we should be doing is redefining work, understanding what people like/enjoy/are good at, and make their work more about that.

OK, that sounds ideological, but given the lack of attraction working in local government carries for the millennial generation, maybe we need to be radical.

For me, one of the significant issues is managers are expected to ‘do work’. Now, it’s inevitable they’ll have to deliver some outputs – reports, business cases, performance assessments, etc. However, I’d argue organisations need to be smarter. Free up their manager’s time to effectively deliver the people issues crucial to an organisation’s success. Notwithstanding the fact they’ve first appointed managers having the correct aptitude to deliver on the people issues. Arising out of conclusions drawn in ‘It’s The Manager’ is the essential need to engage people – Gallup research showed 70% aren’t. You accomplish engagement most significantly through effective communication but you must also understand your workforce’s strengths and seek to develop some weaknesses.

MANAGEMENT

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

33

Love your team andthe love will be returned,delivering effectiveperformance

Se

an

La

ng

ley

They just wantto be loved!

“ For me, one of the significant issues is managers are expected to ‘do work’. Now, it’s inevitable they’ll have to deliver some outputs – reports, business cases, performance assessments, etc. However, I’d argue organisations need to be smarter.”

This is critical. You can only succeed by understanding which weaknesses are under-developed, as opposed to innate weaknesses. So you could perhaps use a psychometric test to understand what may be innate?

Meredith Belbin developed a classification of nine different roles considered appropriate for effective team performance. The nine are ascribed brief statements of the personal characteristics and allowable weaknesses for each. According to individual characteristics and personality, people have a ‘preferred’ team role. However, people tend to respond differently, depending on stimuli and needs at specific times.

Which, for me, makes Belbin less reliable, and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), a better form of psychometric testing for the purpose I’m outlining. MBTI is designed to measure psychological preferences in how people perceive the world, and make decisions.

The significant difference between the two tests being an individual completing a Belbin questionnaire several times over the course of their career, may find a slightly different outcome each time, as they adapt to different roles, whereas the MBTI is more about personality than about roles in the workplace. It’s therefore more likely to remain consistent each time an individual completes the questionnaire, hence maybe more reliable in identifying innate weaknesses.

The millennial generation isn’t simply going to accept being told what to do, they’ll be looking for ‘depth’ from their employer. They’ll seek purpose – whether that be environmental, diversity or equality, or clear corporate social responsibility. Or, maybe, just to be loved!

E: [email protected] T: 020 7691 8994W: www.irrv.net/apprenticeships

• Are you looking to employ an Apprentice?

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

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

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

From May 2017, employers with a pay bill of over £3m are required to contribute to an Apprenticeship Levy Account. The Government set targets for the number of apprentices each organisation must employ each year by 2020. If the funding in the levy account is not used within 2 years, the oldest 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, Revenues and Benefits apprenticeship. The IRRV apprenticeship not only leads to the award of the Level 4 Apprenticeship qualification, but a key benefit, for both the apprentice and the employer, is that successful apprentices will be awarded the Certificate in Local Taxation, Revenues and Welfare Benefits. This enables them to become a Technician member of the Institute i.e. if the apprentice continues to be a member of the IRRV, they will be able to use the designatory letters ‘Tech IRRV’ after their name.

How it works

The IRRV have considerable experience in training staffin all aspects of Revenues and Benefits. We offer a‘blended learning’ approach to training. As discussedand agreed with the employer, the IRRV will deliver thefollowing training products and services as part of ourapprenticeship training programme:• Legislation / Administration Training• Conferences and Professional Meetings• Forum Meetings• Training Courses• Webinars (Technical and Soft Skills)

• On-line Learning• Off-site Work and Research• Face-to-face• End Point Assessment preparation and support

In addition to the above, as the apprenticeship trainingfee includes IRRV membership, the apprentice willreceive the following membership benefits:• 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

• Free access to the Technical Enquiry Service• The IRRV’s monthly newsletter, containing the latest

legislative changes, government announcements and current developments within the profession

Fees

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

Enquiries

For all enquiries on Apprenticeships, please contact us at [email protected] or telephone us on 020 7691 8994.

IRRV ApprenticeshipsThe IRRV Level 4

Revenues and Welfare Benefits Practitioner Apprenticeship

INS

IGH

T A

UG

US

T 20

19

Almost every day a newspaper somewhere talks about a gap in local services or a failure to provide a level of service which is acceptable. It makes me and, I am sure, most local authority professionals very sad. I can’t help wondering whether the state of local government is now so parlous that recovery will be very difficult indeed.

In addition to the difficulty to provide a proper level of services, there are obvious signs of distress. Reports name 11 authorities whose reserves are at a dangerously low level and not sustainable, or authorities who in month three of the year are reporting multi million pound overspends. The report on reserves has been duly rubbished by the authorities on the list, pointing out that it doesn’t differentiate between types of reserve and that only they and their Section 151 Officer can really judge the financial state of the authority and the statutory position means the Section 151 Officer has to certify the level of reserves is adequate, etc.

I have been thinking back to when I entered the world of local government finance. It seems at a distance a very different and tranquil world. Local authorities had much more freedom to innovate and provide services for their local population and I think there were two key determinants to that.

The real difference is that there was a certainty about the level of central government support. Although only announced annually, it was reliable and generally grew in line with inflation and there were many more specific grants which funded the ideas of government ministers for new aspects of service. The other difference was the local taxation base. There were no restrictions over increases in the General Rate and so the wishes of residents could be met if elected members felt they had the mandate to do so.

I know that I have told this true story many times, but it does rather make the point. My Director of Finance at the London Borough I

worked at retired to the gasps of admiration from his adoring elected members, local paper and even the public. That was because in his final year he proposed a 0% increase in rates when the average in London was 6 or 7%. He wisely retired on 31st March and I took over later that year to discover that every penny of the reserves had been used to achieve this result. In my first budget I had to propose an increase of 34% – I was not popular. It was lucky it was not election year and I survived. But that is not the point. The point is that I could do so without any central government interference or flicker of interest.

Now of course we are suffering from not being able to raise any independent funds. The only discretion authorities have is over the level of fees that can be charged for some services. That in itself is endlessly criticised in the papers in respect of the amount of money raised by charging for services.

At the moment, medium term financial planning is impossible, as authorities have reached the point of not knowing what finance is available to them for the next year. The total concentration of the government on Europe has excluded any sort of proper discussion on local authority finance.

The Green Paper on social care finance keeps being delayed. It will be controversial and will consume considerable parliamentary time which is not there. The further reform of business rates has stalled. The all-important regular review of public finance is behind schedule. The point is that this is the time of year that authorities are starting to formulate next year’s

budget. Currently an impossible task. The real worry is now the fact that the new

Prime Minister will be concentrating efforts on Europe, trying to negotiate a new deal by October 31st and that there will be little time for anything else.

There has been excellent work in some of the Parliamentary Committees but little time to debate their recommendations. Those devotees of the TV Parliament Channel will have seen an excellent debate in the House of Lords showing their Lordships had a very real concern for the future of local government. Sadly this was not headline news.

The real irritation is that however unsuitable Council Tax is, it would be capable of being a much more useful and productive tax if it were brought up to date and had a new banding system, with authorities left accountable to residents for the level of the tax. There is no political will to even start a discussion on this.

Local authorities face a very difficult task in arriving at lawful balanced budgets for next year.

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 expressed are his own.

34

When is the squeeze on public finances going to end and when are other matters going to bring it to the fore?

Ric

ha

rd H

arb

ord

VIEWPOINT

Uncertainty is making mid term financial planning impossible

IRRV Annual Scottish Conference & Exhibition 2019The Crieff Hydro Hotel: 4th and 5th SeptemberEngaging minds, Empowering success

E: [email protected] T: 07899 877883W: www.irrvscotland.org.uk

The Institute is delighted to announce details of its 2019 Scottish Conference. The Conference is – by popular demand – returning to the Crieff Hydro Hotel, where conference attendees will have the opportunity to enjoy the excellent recreational facilities set in beautiful surroundings.

The theme of this year’s Conference – “Engaging minds, Empowering success” – highlights the emphasis on quality and improvements as themes that run through the delivery of Scottish public services and the subjects discussed and debated at Scottish Conference 2019.

Conference comes at an important time for Scotland and will look in-depth at the key issues facing the public services, with particular emphasis on valuation, benefits and revenues issues and wider public service reform issues. There are many significant issues affecting revenues, valuation, benefits and welfare reform ahead and the IRRV Scottish Conference will again live up to its long-standing reputation of being at the forefront of debating key issues and solutions.

We are delighted that Kate Forbes MSP, Minister for Public Finance and Digital Economy, Scottish Government has accepted our invitation give the Ministerial Address to conference this year. We have also invited Ruth Davidson MSP, Leader of the major opposition group in the Scottish Parliament to give an address on an alternative approach to local government finance reform.

In addition to delivering key updates on these big issues and encouraging debate about these, conference will also examine the improved delivery of Scottish public services in a time of financial challenge and will examine how to provide quality services, with an emphasis on continuing improvement into the future.

The Institute is again indebted to Scott and Co who are our Overall Conference Sponsor at Crieff 2019.

Conference sessions include:

• Ministerial Address : Kate Forbes MSP, Minister for Public Finance and Digital Economy – confirmed

• Barclay Review – the implementation challenge• Collection and recovery challenges in the environment of

welfare reform• Collaboration and shared services in practice• Local government finance – an alternative approach• Universal Credit Managed Migration – a progress report

from DWP• Local authority anti-poverty strategies – a case study• Council Tax and Council Tax Reduction reform – the issues• Changing culture and improving collection – a case study• Delivering Scottish Social Security• Alternatives to Council Tax – Looking at Land Value Tax• Corporate Fraud Teams• A paperless office – creating a modern digital workspace• Achieving real organisational change – a case study• Artificial intelligence – is there a real role for automation

in service delivery?

• Manager or Leader? You decide! – An entertaining presentation on leadership

This year sees a comprehensive programme of sessions for valuation professionals, including:

• The future of the appeals process• Private Practice Revaluation – Valuation Office Ireland• Hydro Electricity Generation subjects – Valuation Issues

& Principles• Value of occupation for other than commercial gain• Right First Time – Improved information flow• Plant & Machinery rating review – next steps• The Hypothetical Tenant – Mexford House Case• Lessons to learn for experts appearing in Committee,

Tribunals and the Courts

“ In my first budget I had to propose an increase of 34% – I was not popular. It was lucky it was not election year and I survived. But that is not the point. The point is that I could do so without any central government interference or flicker of interest.”

IRRV Annual Scottish Conference & Exhibition 2019The Crieff Hydro Hotel: 4th and 5th SeptemberEngaging minds, Empowering success

E: [email protected] T: 07899 877883W: www.irrvscotland.org.uk

The Institute is delighted to announce details of its 2019 Scottish Conference. The Conference is – by popular demand – returning to the Crieff Hydro Hotel, where conference attendees will have the opportunity to enjoy the excellent recreational facilities set in beautiful surroundings.

The theme of this year’s Conference – “Engaging minds, Empowering success” – highlights the emphasis on quality and improvements as themes that run through the delivery of Scottish public services and the subjects discussed and debated at Scottish Conference 2019.

Conference comes at an important time for Scotland and will look in-depth at the key issues facing the public services, with particular emphasis on valuation, benefits and revenues issues and wider public service reform issues. There are many significant issues affecting revenues, valuation, benefits and welfare reform ahead and the IRRV Scottish Conference will again live up to its long-standing reputation of being at the forefront of debating key issues and solutions.

We are delighted that Kate Forbes MSP, Minister for Public Finance and Digital Economy, Scottish Government has accepted our invitation give the Ministerial Address to conference this year. We have also invited Ruth Davidson MSP, Leader of the major opposition group in the Scottish Parliament to give an address on an alternative approach to local government finance reform.

In addition to delivering key updates on these big issues and encouraging debate about these, conference will also examine the improved delivery of Scottish public services in a time of financial challenge and will examine how to provide quality services, with an emphasis on continuing improvement into the future.

The Institute is again indebted to Scott and Co who are our Overall Conference Sponsor at Crieff 2019.

Conference sessions include:

• Ministerial Address : Kate Forbes MSP, Minister for Public Finance and Digital Economy – confirmed

• Barclay Review – the implementation challenge• Collection and recovery challenges in the environment of

welfare reform• Collaboration and shared services in practice• Local government finance – an alternative approach• Universal Credit Managed Migration – a progress report

from DWP• Local authority anti-poverty strategies – a case study• Council Tax and Council Tax Reduction reform – the issues• Changing culture and improving collection – a case study• Delivering Scottish Social Security• Alternatives to Council Tax – Looking at Land Value Tax• Corporate Fraud Teams• A paperless office – creating a modern digital workspace• Achieving real organisational change – a case study• Artificial intelligence – is there a real role for automation

in service delivery?

• Manager or Leader? You decide! – An entertaining presentation on leadership

This year sees a comprehensive programme of sessions for valuation professionals, including:

• The future of the appeals process• Private Practice Revaluation – Valuation Office Ireland• Hydro Electricity Generation subjects – Valuation Issues

& Principles• Value of occupation for other than commercial gain• Right First Time – Improved information flow• Plant & Machinery rating review – next steps• The Hypothetical Tenant – Mexford House Case• Lessons to learn for experts appearing in Committee,

Tribunals and the Courts

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

MISSION OUTCOME: 100% SUCCESS

To find out more and to book your free place please contact:

[email protected] : 07739 976458 : www.cfh.com

Whether you’re sending a handful of letters or a bulk mailing -

Talk to us and see how we can help.

We’re delighted that yet again we received a 100% clean bill of health for annual billing and our service was pronounced ‘excellent’ by all our clients.

We like to think that we don’t just pull the stops out at annual billing but that we’re delivering a best in class

service all year round. We support councils with daily billing and manage all their regular post to relieve them

of the burden of handling post in house and helping them to drive down costs and maximise efficiencies.

You might also like to attend one of our free ‘best practice’ seminars in September (in partnership with the

IRRV) for some inspiration and to talk to colleagues about how to best meet the increased challenges of

improving communication with reduced budgets.

RABD IRRV A4 Ad July 2019 3.1.pdf 1 12/07/2019 11:18

insight - the irrv · 2019. 8. 1. · 2 your irrv council: features insight august 2019 ©irrv...

Documents