INSIGHT

INSIDE: Counter fraud • Welfare reform • News & events • Faculty Board report • Student focus

JUNE 2015 £6.50 www.irrv.net

ISSN

136

1-13

05

Vulnerabilityin the world of debt recoveryJames McKillop tackles themanagement of vulnerability ina revenues environment

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

Editor’s welcomeFeatures Regular itemsIN

SIG

HT

ww

w.ir

rv.n

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

By the time you read it, you will know the composition of our Parliament for up to another five years, and consequently you will have begun to wonder what effect that will have on your particular aspect of the Institute’s work.Whilst politicians may have some difficulty in turning their election promises into reality during that period, I can guarantee that Insight will continue to bring the very latest news, views and comment on our profession, to assist you in your working lives... now that’s a promise!

This month we continue to offer the opportunity for our key sponsors to comment on their sector’s work, and Marstons fill the cover feature slot with a view on the thorny subject of identifying vulnerability in the enforcement process. They are joined by Ross and Roberts and Andrew Burton, each offering their own contributions towards the collection industry.

The valuation faculty is represented once again by Geoff Fisher, who continues to provide readers with all they need to know about news and events in this key arena and this month he is joined by Roger Messenger, who takes the Viewpoint podium. Don’t forget that June is also a month when the Institute produces its specialist offering for the valuation profession – the renowned Valuer magazine – which readers can access through the member area of our website.

Benefits administration and the welfare reform agenda are as well represented as ever, and it’s the turn of Phil Adlard to offer critical comment, whilst the Department for Work and Pensions highlights local authority good practice in the Universal Credit run-up. Geoff Fimister ’s critical eye ensures that the Department don’t have it all their own way, though, with his usual critical comment.

All our regulars are in there, too, together with the usual collection of news items from the Institute itself – so read on and enjoy!

“ Welcome to the June edition of Insight.”

What’s in the next issue... • Andy Stevens introduces a new series on the

‘nudge’ theory

• all you need to know about ‘hybrid mail’

• the law according to Peter Scrafton.

A message from the Deputy Chief Executive.

Log in to ‘magazines’ in themember area of www.irrv.net to hear the message online.

Chief Executive’s notes 05

News and events 06

Kevin’s korner 07

Daisy’s diary 08

Education and membership 09

Running the Institute 10

From the archives 12/13

Faculty Board report 14

Revenues roundup 15

Valuation matters/VAMP 16

Counter fraud 21

Collection and enforcement 22

Student focus 24

Benefits bulletin 25

Welfare reform 26

Credit notes 27

Management 29

Technology 31

Doherty’s despatch 32

Viewpoint 34

©IRRV 2015. Reproduction in whole or in part of any article is prohibited without prior written consent. The views expressed in this magazine do not necessarily represent the views of theInstitute. Whilst all due care is taken regarding the accuracy of information, no responsibility can be accepted for errors. Any advice given does not constitute a legal opinion.

Cover story 18Vulnerability in the world of debt recoveryJames McKillop tackles the management of vulnerability in a revenues environment

3

INSI

GH

T JU

NE

201

5

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

IRRV INSIGHT

Managing Editor

John Roberts

Editorial Director

Lester Dinnie

Art Director

Don Tregartha

Designers

Clare Barker

Roddy Clenaghan

Copy Editor

Vicki Chastney

Publisher

Tregartha Dinnie

Ltd

IRRV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 2015 ISSN 1361-1305

Follow us on Twitter David Magor on Twitter Gary Watson on Twitter Follow us on Facebook President’s Blog

Your IRRV Council:

IRRV PRESIDENT Kevin Stewart FIRRV MAAT MCMI

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT Jim McCafferty IRRV (Hons)

David Chapman IRRV (Hons)

Phil Adlard Tech IRRV MlnstLM MCMI

John Clark FIRRV

Ian Ferguson IRRV (Hons)

Louise Freeth FIRRV

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

Gordon Heath BSc IRRV (Hons)

Carla-Maria Heath BA IRRV (Hons)

Paul McDermott IRRV (Hons)

Maureen Neave Tech IRRV

Nick Rowe IRRV (Hons)

Peter Scrafton FIRRV FCIArb MRSA (Hon)

Alistair Townsend IRRV (Hons) MCMI

Alan Bronte FRICS IRRV (Hons)

Mary Hardman IRRV (Hons) FRICS MCMI

Kerry Macdermott IRRV (Hons)

Roger Messenger BSc (Est Man) FRICS FIRRV MCIArb REV

Bob Trahern IRRV (Hons)

HONORARY TREASURER Allan Traynor FCCA IRRV (Hons)

Robert Brown BSc FRICS FIRRV

Angela Storey Tech IRRV MCMI

JUNIOR VICE PRESIDENT

IRRV Performance Awards 2015

Watch out for details on

www.irrv.net

INSI

GH

T JU

NE

201

5

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

We must look in detail at every aspect of the tax raising powers and revenue generating mechanisms.

The work has already begun. In England we have the

review of the rating system, although this is tempered by

Treasury insistence that the tax base must not be eroded.

In Wales, at tention is being turned to the devolution of the non-domestic rating pool, with a thorough review

of the tax raising powers and the distribution mechanism.

Of course, we are all aware of the determination of the

Northern Ireland Assembly to carry on with the 2015

revaluation. This has now been delivered and once again the

Land and Property Services valuation team have led

the way.

Perhaps the most interesting developments are in Scotland,

where the Scottish Government has set up a Commission

to review domestic taxes as well as introducing an incentive

scheme to encourage improved performance in maintaining the non-domestic rate. The Commission’s

remit is “to identify and examine alternatives that would

deliver a fairer system of local taxation to support the

funding of services delivered by local government.”

In carrying out this task, the Commission will consider the

impacts on individuals, households and inequalities in income and wealth, together with the wider macro-

economic, demographic and fiscal impacts, including

housing market and land use.The study will look at the impacts on supporting

local democracy, including the financial accountability

and autonomy of local government, as well as the revenue

raising capacity of the alternatives at both local authority and

national levels.

All alternatives appear to be within the scope of the

review, therefore it appears that the recommendation of

the Land Reform Review Group to consider the merits

of a Land Value Tax will be considered. If this is the case, I

do hope the Scottish Government will seriously look at this

option and commission a detailed study and an extensive pilot which will test every aspect of this dif ferent approach.

The reality is that this tax is used very effectively in other

parts of the world, and a modern, meaningful and wide-

ranging study in the United Kingdom measuring the proper

yield and impact is long overdue.

Chief Executive’s notes

A new tomorrow...or anotherfalse dawn? David Magor is keen to ensure that the numerous United Kingdom reviews finally bear fruit

Where are we now? The need for change in the financing of local government is desperate. We must now look at the fundamental structure of our local taxation systems. The various elements of the financing model must be dissected and analysed.

5IRRV Membership Become a member of the largest professional institution operating in the field of revenues, benefits and valuation www.irrv.net

David Magor on Twitter

“ In England we have the review of the rating system, although this is tempered by Treasury insistence that the tax base must not be eroded.”

Henry Liddington –a tribute to the passing of a mentor, from Bob Trahern.

It is with great sadness that I write to advise

members that my ex-boss and mentor,

Henry Liddington, passed away suddenly in

his sleep whilst at his holiday home in Spain

at the end of March, aged 69.

Henry worked in local government for

over 40 years in a number of midland

authorities, finishing his career as Head

of Revenues and Benefits at Rugby BC,

from where he retired in 2007. It was here

that Henry gave me my break as a young,

part qualified member to be his Head

of Revenues between 1993 and 1998.

Post-poll tax, it was a hugely rewarding

and enjoyable period of time in my career

and working in a successful management

team alongside his future partner, Carol

Hill, Henry was always keen to support and

develop me in giving me opportunities (or

as he said ‘proactive delegation’), as well

as my Institute activities.

He nearly always introduced me to others

as “his protégé who he had taught all he

knew” and it was lovely to be able to invite

him to a number of special events during

my Presidential year in 2008, recognising

someone who truly helped to shape and

influence my career.

A long-standing corporate IRRV member

by examination, and Past President of the

East Midlands Association, as well as a

very keen sportsman who played cricket

and squash well into his early 60s, Henry

remained actively involved, initially via some

consultancy work, and more recently his

regular and very successful appearances in

golf events, where he was known as one

of the biggest ‘golf bandits’ on the circuit

and a regular at the prize table! It was on

the golf course I will remember Henry most

fondly – a sport at which he excelled and in

which he remained very actively involved,

captaining his local club in recent years.

Always competitive whether wielding

cricket bat or a golf club, he played with a

smile on his face and was usually humming,

or more often singing, a song dragged

up from the 60s or 70s as he paced the

fairways or sank yet another long putt! It

is fitting that he was out in Spain, where

he loved to escape the colder climes and

playing golf only a day or so before he died

– knowing Henry he probably won and took

the euros!

The Institute has certainly lost one

of its longest serving and most colourful

characters, and the 19th will be a much

quieter and less fun place without him

there. RIP ‘Our Henry’ . . .and thanks

for everything.

Bob Trahern is a Council Member and

IRRV Past President

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

News and events

News of members

Association news

East Midlands AssociationOn 21st April, the East Midlands Association held their Annual General Meeting on a sunny day at Kelham Hall, near Newark in Nottinghamshire. The outgoing President, Mark Fearn, handed

over the chain of office to Newark and

Sherwood Council’s Ivan Carvath. The formal

meeting was followed by an entertaining

presentation by the National President and

fellow IRRV East Midlands member, ‘the legendary Kevin Stewart’ (Ivan’s kind words,

Kevin, in his report on the event – Editor!). Ivan

is photographed receiving congratulations from

Kevin at the handover.

76 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

Login to IRRV Member Area

Korner Dear reader,Firstly I would like to thank everyone for the

many messages I have received regarding the recent terrible accident involving my daughter. It is so appreciated by both my family and me. Life will never be the same again, but I am now trying to get structure back into my life with work and my IRRV Presidential duties.

My final night as IRRV President will be 7th October 2015 when we have the IRRV Performance Awards ceremony in Telford at the Annual Conference dinner that evening. Please do consider making an application for this year’s Awards – further information is available at http://www.irrv.net/awards/index.php I am also very pleased to have Lee Hurst as our guest host for the IRRV Performance Awards dinner this year. Some of you may know that Lee worked with our very own Deputy Chief Executive, Gary Watson, in the community charge days. Applications for this year’s scheme must be received by 5pm on Friday 12th June 2015. Come on – you still have time to apply!

One of the first events that I attended after the tragedy was the Lancashire and Cheshire Association Dinner. This was a very emotional night. It was held in a marquee (some on the night called it a tent!) at the Haydock Thistle Hotel. I so appreciate the warmth and

kindness of everyone there that night led by the Association President, who led by example, even suggesting that I did not have to speak at all. I did speak, although it was very emotional and hard – for a very short time by my standards, even forgetting at first to toast the Association, which I soon corrected after everyone had sat down!

I continue to visit the individual Association Executives across the United Kingdom. Thanks to all who have invited me so warmly to date, and I am very happy to receive further invitations and will make every effort to attend. I am now in a busy period over the next few weeks, with all the AGMs to attend as National President.

Finally I recently visited the University of Keele during the pre-examination course for the June 2015 exams. IRRV headquarters is already taking bookings for the 2015/16 academic year for Level 3 Certificate at http://www.irrv.net/courses/course.asp?Iid=1343 and for the Diploma at http://www.irrv.net/courses/course.asp?Iid=1344 These courses start in October 2015 and there are currently ‘three for two’ offers. Training is very important, so please do consider this and see if your organisation will support you. Thank you.

Yours, Kevin

Back on the road again

Check out Kevin’s blog on: http://irrv-president.blogspot.co.uk/

Kevi

n’s

President’s Blog

INSI

GH

T JU

NE

201

5

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

It’s caption time again... In the May edition, we asked you to tell us the best caption

for the Deputy Chief Executive’s off-road search for new

conference venues. Our winner this month comes from

Andrew Burton, with, “No Gary, Steve McQueen did it on a motorbike!”

Several close runners-up this month, starting with Terence Goodwin’s “When I bought it the salesman assured me that it was a Welsh satnav.” Last month’s winner, Marshall Morris is back, too, and as a man of Wales he is entitled

to be! His contributions this month are “Warning – some satnav voice prompts convert automatically to Welsh on crossing the border from England and can cause problems for foreigners”, and “If this is the green, green grass of home, where is Tom Jones?” Thanks all!

This month, we focus on incoming President of the Rating

Surveyors’ Association and IRRV Council member Robert Brown, who poses for a photo shoot with a tempting pint

close by.

Tell us what Robert is thinking (or if you want to be surreal,

what the pint is thinking!) – answers to your Editor

on jcroberts54@hotmail.com please!

Captions invited!

LATE NEWS LATE NEWS LATE NEWS LATE NEWS LATE NEWS

Northern Ireland rate billing gets personal! From April 2015, the annual rate statements in Northern Ireland will show how households’ rate payment contributes to the provision of public services such as health, education and roads, as well as a range of other important regional services Finance Minister Simon Hamilton said, “This

is the first year ratepayers will receive a

personalised statement which shows where

their money goes when they pay their rate bill.

The new annual statement makes it clear that

rates pay for much more than bin collection

and street cleaning. It provides a breakdown

of ratepayers’ contribution towards paying

for important public services such as health,

education and job creation.”

The Minister added, “This is another step,

as part of my public sector reform agenda,

to provide improved public services for

people in Northern Ireland. Across the public

sector I want to see the development of new

approaches, more collaborative and innovative

thinking to better deliver public services.”

High Court council tax winfor retired vicarAnti-poverty campaigner and retired vicar Paul Nicolson deliberately refused to pay his tax to Haringey Council as he suspected the costs, checked by magistrates, were inaccurate. A High Court judge said that magistrates had not had “relevant information” before them when making a costs order. Mrs Justice Andrews said the case was of “significant public interest”.The 82-year-old retired vicar described the

ruling as “game, set and match to the poor”,

saying that he brought the case because a

£125 costs bill was a “very big penalty” in

addition to the “inevitable council tax arrears”

generated by thousands of benefits claimants

in Haringey.

Regular

contributors to

Insight are

lined up to

speak more

about this key

case in forthcoming issues.

Education and membership

Michael Hopkins is Qualifications and Membership

Manager with the IRRV. Contact him on

michael.hopkins@irrv.org.uk or 020 7691 8978

New members

STUDENT MEMBERSNAME EMPLOYER

Zoe Morgan Self employed

Katie Harrison East Hertfordshire DC

Gemma Beale Ross And Roberts Ltd

Danielle Marriott Tewkesbury Borough Council

Amarjit Kaur Colliers International

Sarah Oates Colliers International

Reece Pritchard Colliers International

QCF MEMBERS NAME EMPLOYER

Mehkala Pathmanathan VOA Assessment Centre

Joanne Hagger Information unavailable

John Rhodes Information unavailable

Nichola Williams Information unavailable

Anthony Keen Barnstaple VOA

Roger Lydiatt Oxford VOA

Rachel Payne St Albans VOA

AFFILIATE MEMBERS NAME EMPLOYER

Christopher Murray Scotiabank (Trinidad and

Tobago) Limited

HONORARY MEMBERS NAME

John Lytton

ORGANISATIONAL MEMBERS NAME

Newlyn Plc

The Recognised European Valuer (REV) scheme, created by The European Group

of Valuers’ Associations (TEGoVA) is now

well established, and the IRRV is a body

licensed to award REV status. Now, following

considerable demand, TEGoVA has instituted

its Residential Valuer scheme (TRV). The

Institute aims to achieve recognition as an

awarding body for TRV alongside REV.

TRV will recognise competence in residential

valuation and will improve practice in the field.

The aim is to provide a European pool of high

quality residential valuers, ensuring that internal

and external appraisers conducting residential

property valuations are professionally

competent and sufficiently independent from

the credit underwriting process.

TEGoVA launched the new status at its

General Assembly in April 2015. Its role will

be to demonstrate to international and local

clients that the residential valuer is qualified to a

consistent high European standard of practice.

At the time of writing, TEGoVA is only at

the stage of having approved the scheme

in principle – the detailed regulations and

procedures remain to be finalised. The

Institute has formally registered its interest

in the scheme, and it is hoped that by the

next edition of Insight, or soon thereafter,

we will be able to report that we are open to

applications for TRV.

The Royal Agricultural University (RAU) diploma and degree in valuation is still

available to anyone interested in obtaining

the qualification. With comprehensive

content including Landscape Modelling,

Property Economics, Business and, of course,

Valuation, it provides a thorough grounding

in the theory and practice of valuation and

its associated areas. After the second stage,

students obtain the IRRV Diploma, and after

the third stage they obtain a degree and IRRV

(Honours) status. Details of the RAU course

and qualification are available through the Real

Estate and Land Management pages of the

RAU’s website at http://www.rau.ac.uk/study/undergraduate-study

New valuation initiatives and qualifications are high on Michael Hopkins’s list of priorities this month

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

98 IRRV Annual Conference • 7 October 2014 - 9 October 2014 • Don’t miss out! Have you booked your seat yet? Log on to www.irrv.netwww.irrv.net • Forums • Conferences • Training Days • News • Online Training • Qualifications • Membership • Jobs • Council • Tel 0207 831 3505

The Institute has, for some time, been in

discussion with the Chartered Institute of Public

Finance and Accounting, in order to come to

an agreement about membership recognition.

We are close to agreeing a formula whereby

IRRV (Hons) members will be able to obtain

a level of CIPFA membership from which they

can progress to Full Professional CIPFA Membership. The conversion process to obtain

Full Professional membership remains to be

specified, but the principle of the agreement has

been approved by the IRRV Council.

Further changes are proposed to the

Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF) , on which the Institute’s vocational

qualifications are based. Ofqual, the

qualifications regulator for England, Wales

and Northern Ireland, is reviewing the

Framework and wishes to adjust it to make

it easier and more flexible for awarding

organisations, centres and candidates. The

unit-based system is undergoing re-evaluation,

and there has been discussion of removing

the unit bank, which underpins all QCF

qualifications. However, the unit bank will

probably stay, following consultations with

awarding organisations. There has also been

discussion of the credit system, which was a

way of expressing the size of a qualification

through the length of time taken to complete.

Such discussions are progressing, and will

undoubtedly impact on our qualifications in

the longer term. We await, however, further

guidance on the outcome of the consultations.

Latest vocational qualification successes

Daisy’s Diary

being on trend or following the latest fashion. It’s so

important to manage our image, because humans

believe what they see. So if you are dressed in an

appropriate way that is in keeping with your job and

your lifestyle, people will trust and believe you more.

The course taught me in depth how to analyse a

person’s body and face by looking at their proportions,

body shape, scale and line. The results were

fascinating – I can now offer professional and detailed

advice on the clothes and accessories that are going

to suit an individual and their lifestyle best. Suddenly

there is a formula on how to be true to yourself while

allowing others to perceive you exactly how you want

to be seen. It’s empowering to think that as a qualified

Personal Stylist I am now in the position to potentially

change someone’s life! I’ll be featuring more on image

management in future articles, but if you can’t wait

and want to know more, contact me on daisy@irrv.org.uk – I look forward to hearing from you.

And don’t forget, for any queries regarding your IRRV

membership, please continue to use membership@irrv.org.uk – many thanks!

Hi everyone and welcome to Daisy’s Diary!

This time I am writing to you from the comfort

of my own home. I have taken time off from the

usual membership routine to develop additional

skills as a Personal Stylist. The last five days have been the most intense

and interesting week I’ve experienced in a

long time. Each day I tried to soak up all the

knowledge and experience of my tutor, Gail

Morgan FFIP, like a dry sponge dunked in water.

Gail really highlighted to me and my fellow

student (yes, it was only two of us) why image,

appearance and first impressions are so important

– especially in a corporate environment. As Coco

Chanel once said, “If a woman is poorly dressed

you notice the clothes. If she is impeccably

dressed, you notice the woman.”

It really opened my eyes to the true nature

of image management – it is much more than

This month Daisy Schubert launches into something for all readers – image management

IIRV-Ad-final.qxp_Layout 1 10/04/2015 15:07 Page 1

Congratulations to everyone!!

INSI

GH

T JU

NE

201

5

LEVEL 3 QCF BENEFITS PATHWAY

TITLE EMPLOYER

Holly DeGrussa Shepway District Council

LEVEL 3 QCF ADVICE PATHWAY

TITLE EMPLOYER

Sonya Hiscock Isle Of Wight Council

LEVEL 3 QCF LOCAL TAXATION PATHWAY

TITLE EMPLOYER

Andrew Wood Isle Of Wight Council

IRRV Performance Awards 2015

Watch out for details on

www.irrv.net

INSI

GH

T JU

NE

201

5

11

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

Running the Institute

On governance and administration,

a number of items were considered.

These included the council elections, Past

Presidents’/Honorary Members’ lunch and the

review of the Council members’ handbook

under governance, and finance, litigation,

accommodation, storage facilities, contracts,

staffing and Associations under administration.

With regard to Associations, consideration

was given to the feedback Association

executives had been asked to provide on three

key issues. These were:

• Association boundaries

• membership drive

• status of Council members on Executives.

The Deputy Chief Executive was asked to

respond to the Associations, both collectively

and individually, on the decisions taken by

Committee at the meeting.

Commercial Services CommitteeThe meeting was chaired by Ian Ferguson.

Key reports considered included:

• sales and sponsorship

• conferences/seminars (including Performance Awards)

• professional meetings and training courses

• Forum (and Benefit Advisory) Services• Communications Working Group

(magazines, website and publications)

• update on activities in Scotland and

Northern Ireland.

An update on sales and sponsorship was

provided. The focus was on the Revenues

and Enforcement Conference in June and the

Annual Conference (including the Performance

Awards) in October. Early indications are that

exhibition sales were holding up well.

Committee considered the conferences and seminars (including Performance Awards) in 2015. The Welfare and Benefits

Seminars scheduled for February did not

attract the anticipated delegates, with the

event in Leeds having to be cancelled. Whilst

IRRV HQ was again the venue for the second quarterly cycle of council meetings in 2015. A summary of what was discussed at Council and in the Committees (excluding the Professional Conduct Committee) is detailed below:

CouncilThe meeting was chaired by the President,

Kevin Stewart. Key reports considered

included:

• reports of the Standing Committees

• election of President and Senior Vice

President 2015/16

• Chief Executive’s report

• President’s report.

Policy and Resources Committee The meeting was chaired by Richard Harbord. Key reports considered included:

• management accounts as at 31st December 2014

• management accounts as at 28th February 2015

• governance and administration• fees to Council members.

The management accounts as at 31st December 2014 were reviewed. These

accounts, which were showing a positive

variance in the budget, would now go forward

to be audited. When analysing the accounts,

income generated from membership had

again fallen in 2014, whilst the delay in

receiving text for key publications had

impacted on the ability to generate sales.

Against this, the outturn for professional

meetings in England, Wales and Scotland

continued to improve throughout the year

and exceeded the targets set.

The management accounts as at 28th February 2015 were the first set of accounts

to be produced for the year (no accounts

are produced for January). Although it was

too early to get a feel of how the budget

was looking, there were no major areas of

concern at this time.

the seminar in London did go ahead, numbers

were disappointing. The programme for the

Revenues and Enforcement Conference in

June was now being marketed, and for the

Annual Conference in October initial thoughts

on the programme were discussed.

The professional meetings and training

courses run by the Institute in 2014 had

proved to be very popular - particularly those

run on completion notices in partnership with

the Valuation Office Agency. This success

has continued in 2015, with a number of

professional meetings run on more than

one occasion to cater for demand. As was

reported at the previous meeting, it remained

the intention of the Valuers’ Association

Board to run a series of regional professional

meetings to cater in particular for members

(and prospective members) of the Valuers’

Association.

On the Forum (and Benefits Advisory) Services, an update was given on

membership. Although we had lost a handful

of Forum members following the issue of

renewal notices in December, we still retain

over 200 members. The renewal notices for

the Benefit Advisory Service had been delayed

(the year runs from April to March) and at this

time it was not possible to gauge the likely

membership level for 2015/16.

Education and Membership CommitteeThe meeting was chaired by Jim McCafferty.

Key reports considered included:

• qualifications and syllabus

• membership (including Organisational Membership)

• valuation matters• IRRV courses• electronic learning: business plan.

A report was brought to committee on

qualifications and syllabus to address

the increasing decline in students taking the

Institute’s professional qualification. A proposal

was put forward to review the subjects (and

their content) and to ensure there was a

The April round of Council meetings is the subject of Gary Watson’s latest roundup of Institute affairs

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

transition to Diploma for those studying the

various streams at Level 3 Certificate. It was

agreed the detail would be worked up within a

small group, with a view of having everything

in place for October 2015.

On membership (including Organisational Membership) , it was

reported that those who had yet to pay

their membership fees this year had already

received a reminder notice and final notice.

Shortly, they would be sent a letter to

confirm their membership had lapsed.

Details of the lapsed members would be

circulated to Council and the Associations

before the next cycle of meetings. On

Organisational Membership, a new scale of

fees (differentiating between large and small

organisations) would be put in place for next

year.

For valuation matters, a breakdown of the

TEGoVA budget was provided and a general

discussion ensued on the benefits to the

Institute of being a member. This included

the Institute retaining the chair of TEGoVA in

the form of Roger Messenger. A marketing

plan produced for the Royal Agricultural

University’s Degree/Diploma course in Real

Estate Valuation was then considered. This

had previously been before the Valuers’

Association Board and had now been brought

to Committee for consideration.

The way forward for the IRRV courses (i.e.

day release course and the distance learning

course) would be subject to decisions taken

on the syllabus. In any event, it was likely the

heavy reliance on IRRV HQ to deliver courses

leading to the professional qualification of the

Institute would continue.

Law and Research CommitteeThe meeting was chaired by Gordon Heath.

Key reports considered included:

• consultations• Payments Council: UK Payments System

Restructure – IRRV invitation

• meetings with government

departments – update

• local taxation and revenues update

• research update

• valuation update

• welfare reform update.

Consultations considered in detail at

the meeting were:

• Commission on Local Taxation (Scotland)

• Business Rates Review (England)

• Business Improvement Districts (England)

• Exemptions to the Council Tax Premium on

Second Homes (Wales)

• Exemptions to the Council Tax Premium on

Long-Term Empty Homes (Wales).

National Council is keen the membership are

aware of what is discussed at its meetings.

Should a member require further information

on any of the reports considered by National

Council, they should contact me on gary.watson@irrv.org.uk

Preliminary notice is given, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Articles of Association of the Institute, that a number of vacancies for members of the Council who are Fellows, Members (Diploma Holders) and Members (Honours) of the Institute will arise at the conclusion of the Annual General Meeting on 6th October 2015.

The following Council members retire at the AGM at the conclusion of their term of office:

Robert Brown BSc FRICS IRRV (Hons)Mary Hardman FRICS IRRV (Hons)Kerry Macdermott IRRV (Hons)Bob Trahern IRRV (Hons)

Two vacancies will arise in rotation to be filled, where the members originally elected in 2012 will be ex officio members of the Council in 2015/16. These are Ian Ferguson IRRV (Hons), who will be Senior Vice-President and Kevin Stewart IRRV (Hons), who will be Immediate Past President.

Richard Harbord MPhil CPFA IRRV (Hons) retires, as he will have completed his year as Immediate Past President of the Institute, which position carries an ex officio seat on the Council.

Nominations for election are invited from members who are Fellows, Members

(Diploma Holders) and Members (Honours). Nominations should be received by the Director, The Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation, 5th Floor, Northumberland House, 303 – 306 High Holborn, London WC1V 7JZ, not later than 5pm on Friday 7th August 2015. Nominations may be accompanied by a photograph of the candidate, which will be included with the voting material. Retiring members are eligible for re-election.

Nominations by fax (020 7831 2048) are acceptable, so long as confirmed by delivery of a hard copy within three working days of receipt of the fax. Nominations may also be made by email to gary.watson@irrv.org.uk Requests for nomination forms should be addressed to Gary Watson at the Institute (020 7691 8988 – email address as above).

If the election is contested, voting will be carried out electronically through the members’ section of the Institute website. Emails will be sent in due course to members alerting them to the fact that voting is open.

By order of the Council.

David Magor OBE IRRV (Hons)Chief ExecutiveMay 2015

IRRV Council elections 2015

It’s still 1897, and Gary Watson introduces the third part of his analysis of our history in this critical year

INSI

GH

T JU

NE

201

5

Petition in favour of the BillThe humble petition of the Metropolitan Rate Collectors Association to the Honourable

The Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled.

Herewith that a Bill (now awaiting its second reading in your honourable House) has been

introduced to extend the provisions of the Poor Law Officers Superannuation Act 1896 to all

officers and servants of a County Council, Borough Council, District Council, Parish Council,

School Board (except officers and servants with teaching staff), Burial Board, Highway Board,

Joint Board (formed under any Public Act), Public Libraries Commissioners, Public Parks

Commissioners and any Vestry, Diocese Board, other Parochial Body within the meaning of the

Metropolitan Officers’ Superannuation Act 1866 and any Vestry or other body which has and

exercises powers of making and levying rates for the relief of the poor or for lighting, highway

or sanitary purposes or appointing vestry clerks, assistant overseers or rate collectors subject to

the qualification that it does not include any guardians or other authority, to whom the Poor Law

Officers Superannuation Act 1896 applies.

Your petitioners are an Association comprising the collectors of poor and local government

rates approved by the several rating authorities throughout the metropolis, whose onerous and

responsible duties include the collector of millions sterling per annum and many of who having

filled other important positions in connection with municipal and local government work, long

before attaining their present appointments, are much interested in the measure forming the

subject of this petition.

Your petitioners feel confident that the provisions of this Bill provide an equitable settlement

of the difficulties arising out of the legislation now in force in London, where it much depends

upon the locality in which an officer serves and the votes of members who are often

unacquainted with his place and history of work, in whether he is granted superannuation or

not. Instances of this could be adduced in so much as many local authorities readily grant to

retiring officials, superannuation according to the provisions of the 29th Victoria C31; whereas

other authorities similarly constituted refuse to recognise claims made under the said Act and

consequently, officers who have spent the greater part of their lives in the public sector, at very

moderate salaries, are subjected to unexpected hardships in their declining years.

Your petitioners are advised by actuaries and other responsible persons that the proposed

deductions from the salaries of officers coming within the scope of this measure are calculated

upon a fair and liberal basis both to ratepayers and the officers and servants of local authorities.

Your petitioners most respectively submit that officers having an assurance that their old age

is provided for, will cause increased energy to be placed in their various duties.

Your petitioners while requesting the Bill does not provide for the return of contributions

in the event of officers ceasing to hold their positions by death and other causes, are willing

to accept its provisions as they feel confident that it will be a satisfactory settlement of a long

vexed question to all parties concerned.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will pass the Bill its

remaining stages so that the same may become law during the present Sessions.

Your Petitioners will ever pray.

Signed on behalf of the Association pursuant to a resolution passed at a

General Meeting of members held the Third day of April 1897 by:

George S Ager (Islington): Chairman

Arthur J White (Paddington): Honorary Secretary

A General Meeting of the Association took

place on 3rd April, with the President,

Mr George Ager Esquire in the chair. Having

approved the minutes of the meeting on 30th

January, the chair reported that this meeting

had been convened pursuant to a resolution

of the Executive Committee on 6th March,

in accordance with Rule 3 of the Association.

The resolution referred to was as follows:

“That a General Meeting of the Association

be convened for Saturday, 3rd April next, for

the purposes of considering the admissibility

of petitioning Parliament in favour of the Local

Authorities (Officers) Superannuation Bill.”

Mr John R Maltby (Camberwell) proceeded

to move the resolution which he had given

notice of to the Secretary, and urged upon

every member present to use their utmost

endeavours to obtain the passing in to

law of the Local Authorities (Officers) Superannuation Bill.

Messrs Ager and Schiller, two of the

representatives of this Association who

had attended the recent Superannuation

Conference, then made statements as to

the position of the Bill in question and drew

attention to the inferior quality of the petitions

that had been sent to Parliament against the

Bill. It was resolved unanimously that this

Association, having considered the provisions

of the Bill (which was now awaiting a second

reading) do heartily approve of the same

and that the Chairman, in conjunction with

the Honorary Secretary, draw up a petition to

Parliament and the Local Government Board in

its favour. It was further resolved that the said

officers sign such a petition on behalf of the

Association and arrange for the presentation

thereof at as early a date as possible.

The Bill had been introduced in the

House of Commons by Mr James Wanklyn MP

(Bradford Central). Mr James Wanklyn MP had

entered Parliament at the General Election on

13th July 1895 and represented the Bradford

Central Constituency until the General Election

on 8th January 1906. For clarification, the

origins of the surname ‘Wanklyn’ (with an

unfortunate translation in German!) can be

traced to Scotland, although strong links also

exist with South America.

On a separate issue, it was then moved

by the Chairman (seconded by the Vice

Chairman) that the rules of the Association be

altered by the addition of the following:

“That the General Fund of the Association

be kept at such branch of the London and

County Bank as the Executive Committee may,

from time to time direct, in the names of the

Treasurer and Honorary Secretary, who shall

jointly sign all cheques for the payment of

accounts after the same have been passed

by the Executive Committee and accepted by

the Chairman.”

Subject to an amendment from Mr Schiller

that reference to ‘Branch of the London and

County Bank’ be struck out, it was resolved

the rules be altered.

A cordial vote of thanks was then passed

on to the Chairman for his able and impartial

conduct of the meeting, at which point, the

meeting closed.

The Executive next met on 8th May under

the chairmanship of Mr W P Hunter, when the

minutes from the meeting held on 3rd April

were approved. Apologies for absence had

been received from the chair, Mr Ager (who

was laid up with a bout of sciatica) and Mr

Cook (who gave no reasons). It was agreed

a letter be sent to the chair wishing him a

speedy recovery to good health – however,

no such letter was to be sent to Mr Cook!

It was resolved that the thanks of the

Executive be tendered to the representatives

of this Association upon the Superannuation

Conference for the manner in which they

have assisted in endeavouring to settle

the long vexed pension question. It was

further resolved that a cheque be drawn for

£5 and forwarded to the Secretary of the

Superannuation Conference, towards the

expenses incurred by the body in promoting

the aforementioned Bill.

The Honorary Secretary then submitted the

petition that was to be presented to Parliament

in favour of the Local Authorities (Officers)

Superannuation Bill drawn up by the Chairman

and himself. The petition itself is reproduced

later on in this article.

It was resolved that the Honorary Secretary

should wait upon Mr Wanklyn MP at the House

of Commons and request him to present to

Parliament the foregoing petition.

Moving on from the Bill, it was resolved that

the summer outing of the Association should

take place on a Saturday in early July and that

the trip be a river trip from Reading to Sonning

and then back to Henley. Quite why the trip

did not return to Reading is unknown. The

inclusive charge would be 17/6d per ticket and

the arrangements for the event were to be left

in the hands of six Executive members.

A letter from Mr Carnell, Secretary of the

Municipal Officers Association, was then

presented and read, suggesting the desirability

of acquiring suitable central premises in

London, as offices for the accommodation of

this and kindred organisations. It was resolved

that the Secretary be instructed to convey the

best thanks of the Executive to the Municipal

Officers Association for their letter and inform

them that at present, the arrangements of this

Association are adequate to their requirements.

A cordial vote of thanks was then

unanimously passed to Mr Hunter for his able

and impartial conduct in the chair and the

meeting then closed.

For the record, the minute book then states

that on 10th May, the Honorary Secretary,

in conjunction with Mr Sales of Paddington,

duly attended the House of Commons,

Westminster, and handed to Mr Wanklyn MP

the petition. The honourable member kindly

promised to present the same to Parliament,

at once.

From the

13

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 gary.watson@irrv.org.uk In addition, copies of previous articles

can be provided on request.

Gary Watson on Twitter

Gary L Watson IRRV (Hons) is

Deputy Chief Executive of the InstituteINSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

12

Local Authorities (Officers) Superannuation Bill(In Parliament: House of Commons – Session 1897)

“ It was further resolved that the said officers sign such a petition on behalf of the Association and arrange for the presentation thereof at as early a date as possible.”

Here Insight reproduces the petition presented by the Association...

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

14

INSI

GH

T JU

NE

201

5

15

These aretaxing issues...

As I write this, we have just completed

one full year under the new enforcement legislation. I therefore thought it might be

a good time to focus on one issue which,

as the year has progressed, has become a

problem for Enforcement Agents, creditors

and debtors alike.

Those practitioners who have been around

for a few years will recall that prior to 2004,

when the government changed the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (as amended), billing

authorities were unable to include bailif f

fees in Attachment of Earnings Orders.

This was despite it being possible to include

them within committal proceedings under

regulation 47. The change to the legislation

(SI 2004/927) was welcomed universally by

billing authorities as it discouraged debtors

from ‘holding out’ to avoid the costs and it

allowed billing authorities to change course

towards a less draconian remedy without

being penalised.

Clearly, Parliament intended this to

continue into the new legislation, as just

three years later, the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 amended the Local

Government Finance Act 1992 to ensure

that the amount outstanding for the

purposes of an Attachment of Earnings

Order included ‘any amount recoverable...

under paragraph 62 (Costs)’.

Unfortunately, as is often the case, it isn’t

quite that simple! To avoid the possibility

of two forms of recovery being undertaken

against the same person for the same

debt, the Council Tax (Administration and

Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (as amended)

have always included regulation 52 –

relationship between remedies. In very simple

terms, this regulation states that in order for

an Attachment of Earnings Order to be made,

other action must cease. This means that

the ‘enforcement power’ defined under the

Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007

Consultation papers and invitations to

contribute to Committees of Inquiry have

been coming in thick and fast in recent weeks.

In Scotland, the Commission on Local Taxation Reform is now well underway,

charged with looking at alternatives to council tax to fund local government. The

Commission is due to report to the Scottish

Government and CoSLA in the autumn. The

Committee wants to ‘break new ground’ in

thinking about the best way to pay for local

services, but there are several hoary old issues

to contend with, such as:

• how any new tax will impact on

individuals, households and income

and wealth inequalities

• how it would affect more widely the

housing market and land use, and

• what administrative and collection

arrangements (including transition)

need to be put in place.

Not least in the mix, the Commission will

need to examine how the tax impacts

on local government autonomy and

financial accountability. It is pleasing to

report that the IRRV has already engaged

with this work, and the Senior Vice President,

Jim McCafferty, and Chief Executive David Magor have separately made presentations

to the Commission, with more input due

from the Scottish Association in framing a

writ ten submission.

Similarly, in Wales, the Institute has been

invited to contribute to the current inquiry

into the operation of business rates. It is

anticipated that a written submission will be

augmented, with an opportunity to provide

oral evidence before the Committee of Inquiry

later in the year.

In England, consultation on a review of

Business Improvement Districts (BIDs)

will close on 19th June. One of the questions

in that process will be addressed by the LTR

Faculty, regarding whether BID bodies should

must end (either by the Enforcement Agent

returning the unsuccessful case or the creditor

rescinding the power) before an attachment

can be made, and this is where the crux of the

issue arises.

Regulation 17(1) of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 states:

17 Fees and disbursements not recoverable where enforcement process ceases:(1) The enforcement agent may not

recover fees or disbursements from

the debtor in relation to any stage of

enforcement undertaken at a time when

the relevant enforcement power has

ceased to be exercisable.

So, whilst the primary legislation clearly

intends for fees to be recoverable by way

of an Attachment of Earnings Order, the

secondary legislation basically says that

there aren’t any, because to do the

attachment, the enforcement power has to

end and if the enforcement power ends no fees are recoverable.

If this had been a simple contradiction

between primary and secondary legislation, I

believe it would have been correct to follow

the primary intent. However, it isn’t a simple

contradiction – both primary and secondary

legislation can coexist in their current form

and are not in conflict. I have heard that the

Ministry of Justice is aware of the problem

and will be looking to rectify it, but it is going

to require legislative time, which in itself is

always a problem.

In the meantime, it is illegal to keep

unpaid enforcement fees on an account

and include them within an Attachment

of Earnings Order – and I use the word

‘illegal’ in its correct term. It would not

be an act beyond the authority’s powers

(ultra vires), it would be an act in direct

breach of legislation, although the remedy

have the option to decide who collects

the levy on their behalf – collecting the

payment by themselves being an option. On

first reading, this appears to contradict the

statement in the paper that there is a need to

develop closer working relations between BID

boards and local authorities.

The government has been thorough in its

engagement with stakeholders over the last

year in its examination of various aspects

of the rating system. The latest discussion

paper, which closes to comment on 12th

June, sets out the terms of reference for the

government’s review of business rates and

provides further information on the review’s

aims and core themes. The review will

report its findings by Budget 2016. This

paper is the first to ask for views on the sustainability of business rates as a property tax, and if there is evidence in

favour of moving away from a business tax

based on property. There is also focus in

the questions on how to improve business

rates (or if there are other mechanisms) to

incentivise business growth, in particular

at a local level. Some business groups have

argued for some time that business rates fail

to take sufficient account of the individual

circumstances of businesses, such as their

size or ability to pay rates – now they have

an opportunity to respond in this paper to that

specific issue.

The fif teen questions in this current

business rates review come hard on the heels

of those raised in the recent discussion paper

concerning the government’s interim findings

on the Business Rates Administration review. This paper concentrated on issues

relating to clearer billing , better sharing of information, a more efficient appeals system and the frequency of revaluations.

LTR Faculty Board, with The Valuers’

Association Board, had much to say on this

paper, the full details of which are on the

IRRV website.

for an aggrieved person would likely be the

same, being judicial review. In addition,

Enforcement Agents who make attachments

on behalf of their clients are not entitled to

recover their fees as part of the order. They

must either provide the additional service for free or simply stop making attachments

on behalf of billing authority creditors. Either

option is unsatisfactory.

The effect of this flaw in the legislation is

far wider reaching than just an annoying loss

of revenue or a cost to Enforcement Agents

– I believe it undermines the whole intent of the enforcement law reform. Not being

able to include costs in an attachment creates

a perverse incentive for Enforcement

Agents to continue through the process of

taking control of goods in an attempt to

recover costs incurred, even where they have

employment details for a debtor. This can be

considered nothing less than encouraging

aggressive enforcement . It will cause

delays in enforcement (which is the most

common cause of creating a cycle of debt),

escalating costs, which benefit no-one, and

will simply drive the wrong behaviour. It will

cause precisely the behaviour that the new

legislation was created to stop.

I believe that this issue needs resolving as

soon as procedurally possible to reduce these

effects as quickly as possible.

The IRRV response identified that shorter

periods between revaluations would be

preferred by the majority of ratepayers, as

this would help to even out some of the

changes in levels of value which can occur

within the revaluation cycle. This may also

reduce the number of properties which enter

into transitional phasing, which ratepayers

often do not understand. If administrative

timescales can be reduced, then more

frequent revaluations should be considered.

More frequent revaluations would be possible

if previously proposed changes to the appeals

system were introduced.

Taking steps to improve transparency

in the business rates valuation and formal

challenge system would serve to reduce

appeals under future lists and reduce

the administrative time to be factored in

between revaluations.

The Institute expressed concerns over a

move to a regime of charges (unless modest)

for any aspect of the lodging, management and hearing of appeals, similar to that

which already exists in the Upper Tribunal. At

the present time, the Valuation Tribunal for

England is a lay tribunal and while the IRRV

would not wish to denigrate the quality of

decision-making, many ratepayers would resent

being charged for a decision at this level. An

initial challenge against a tax liability should

be free of charge as a matter of principle –

historically, this has always been the case.

Billing authorities should (again) have the

general right to make proposals and to receive

copies of all proposals made to amend the

list and all decision notices relating to those

proposals. There is justifiable reason for

putting forward this argument with the advent

of business rate retention and the importance

income from non-domestic rates have on the

funding of local government.

“They must either provide the additional service for free or simply stop making attachments on behalf of billing authority creditors. Either option is unsatisfactory.”

“ The IRRV response identified that shorter periods between revaluations would be preferred by the majority of ratepayers, as this would help to even out some of the changes in levels of value which can occur within the revaluation cycle.”

Revenues roundupFaculty Board report

Alistair Townsend unearths an enforcement legislative issue in need of immediate reform

This month, it’s the turn of the Local Taxation and Revenues Faculty. Moira Hepworth reports

Alistair Townsend FIRRV CMgr MCMI

is Revenues and Benefits Service Delivery

Manager with Milton Keynes Service

Partnership, a member of the IRRV Council,

and Chair of the Institute’s Local Taxation and

Revenues Faculty Board

Moira Hepworth is the Institute’s

Policy and Research Manager

Encouraging aggressiveenforcement?

The world of valuation according to Geoff Fisher is once again revealed for all to see

Geoff Fisher FRICS Dip.Rating IRRV (Hons) REV is a Past President of the IRRV, Rating Diploma Holder and a member of the Institute’s Professional Conduct Committee

INSI

GH

T JU

NE

201

5

17

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

16

Valuation matters

An Olympic tour!

Don’t forget that you can view

the latest edition of the IRRV’s

Valuer magazine by logging on to

the member area and clicking on

‘magazines’. In this month’s issue we

feature the following:

• a compulsory purchase checklist

from Stan Edwards

• Roger Messenger and Michael

MacBrien on TEGoVA, and the

introduction of The Residential

Valuer qualification

• the work of the IRRV’s Valuer’s

Association is exposed by

Peter Scrafton

• all the news from the VTS

and VOA

• forthright opinion from Tom Dixon

in ‘From the trenches’

• David Garnett explores the future

of the UK housing market

• the RICS Rating Diploma Holders on

Material Change of Circumstance

• Paul Sanderson’s IPTI

travels continue

• more up to the minute case law

from Peter Brown, and some

historical ones too

...and much more!

GENERAL PRACTICE District Valuer Services determine

Community Infrastructure Levy appeals

under 2010 Regs (as amended) and Guidance

Notes can be found at http://manuals.voa.gov.uk/corporate/Publications/Manuals/CommunityInfrastructureLevy/toc.html with appeal decisions at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/community-infrastructure-levy-appeal-decisions

The Compulsory Purchase Association National Conference is scheduled for 30th

June and is planned to focus on the use of

CPO powers as a delivery tool in infrastructure,

housing and regeneration, and will also

cover Advanced Payment Reform, Good

Practice at the Tribunal, Land Registration

and a Legal Update. See http://www.compulsorypurchaseassociation.org/cpa-conference-2015.html

The Independent Surveyors and Valuers Association held their CPD Conference and AGM on 13th May at Towcester racecourse,

with presentations including fire regulations,

renewable energy, corrosion, waterproofing,

and Charities Act valuations, as well as RICS

matters. Go to http://surveyorsweb.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/2015-conference-programme.pdf

The Association of Chief Estates Surveyors plan to have their Annual

Conference in Salford on 17/18th.September

– see http://aces.org.uk/news/ IRRV

President Kevin Stewart attended their public

sector event in November 2014 – see his

President’s blog at http://irrv-president.blogspot.co.uk/

Valuers’AssociationMonthlyPageV@MP

Valuermagazine!

RATINGThe Valuation Tribunal Service has

published its latest newsletter, VIP 36 (Valuation in Practice) . As well as making

reference to the Court of Appeal decision

on repair in Newbiggin VO v SJ & J Monk,

the newsletter summarised the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decisions in

McDonough VO v O’Keefe concerning

costs on the VO’s withdrawal of their appeal,

R3 Products Ltd v Salt VO on beneficial

occupation during refurbishment works,

Hardman VO v British Gas Trading Ltd

reinstating a 2005 List £1+m RV for a gas

fired power station, and Pavlou VO Appeal, on a temporary MCC allowance which was

reported in May Insight. It also highlights

Valuation Tribunal decisions concerning

completion notice validity, the NIA of open

plan offices with escape routes, contiguity,

functional connection, and paramount

occupation of several units by a dairy, and the

rateability/agricultural exemption of an animal

field shelter. You can read the document

on http://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk/Libraries/VIP_Newsletters/VIP

IRRV Council Member Robert Brown is the new President of the Rating Surveyors’ Association (RSA), with the handover taking

place at the RSA members’ dinner in April,

hosted by outgoing President Ken McCormack

(on the left in this photo). Robert Brown (on

the right) is Head of Rating Services at

Sanderson Weatherall LLP and is based

in Harrogate. (Photo courtesy of Richard Guy)

Dates for your diary: 11 June IRRV Welsh Conference

17/18 June IRRV Revenues and Enforcement

Conference at Keele

19 June RSA House of Lords reception

23 June IRRV Northern Ireland Conference

in Belfast

30 June CPA Annual Conference in London

2/3 Sept IRRV Scottish Conference at

Crieff Hydro

24 Sept Rating Diploma Conference

at Loughborough

6-8 October IRRV Annual Conference

(7 October Valuer Day)

27 Nov Rating Diploma Lunch and AGM

Specialist VOA Rating

Surveyor Gerry Biddle is joining Deloitte

London, following

retirement from the

Agency. Gerry is well

known as the VO

expert on Heathrow,

and has the distinction

of agreeing that

multi-million pound

assessment prior to revaluations over the last 25

years. He is a Rating Diploma Holder, and has

assessed many unusual properties, including the

Channel Tunnel, the 02 and London Eye, and the

Shard viewing platform. He has also been involved

with the Upper Tribunal appeal on Peterborough

Power Station (see Hardman VO v British Gas Trading Ltd above).

New limitations on backdating on appeals and VO alterations

The VOA Rating Manual Volume 2 – Section 4 has a new para 5.3 re the new 2005 Regs – see http://manuals.voa.gov.uk/corporate/publications/Manuals/RatingManual/RatingManualVolume2/sect4/b-rat-man-vol2-s4.html and a new Appendix 4, with a

chart showing revised effective dates according

to reasons for alterations and as to IPPs or VONs.

Go to http://manuals.voa.gov.uk/corporate/Publications/Manuals/RatingManual/RatingManualVolume2/sect4/f-rat-man-vol2-s4-app4.html NB: Exceptions to this are a proposal served

within six months, against a VON or following a relevant Tribunal decision. The decision of

the Tribunal must have been made before 1st

April 2015, and the VON must have been served

before 1st April 2016.

Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 – Reg.7 amends the

provisions as to effective dates (including special

provisions for proposals made on the ground set

out in Reg. 4(1)), whilst Regs 3, 4 and 5 amend

various references to proposals being made/

not made and sent, to ‘served on the VO’. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/424/contents/made

Proposal receipt acknowledgmentSee also https://www.gov.uk/government/news/acknowledging-non-domestic-rating-appeals in respect of the VOA acknowledging receipt of proposals.

VO’s powers of entry to be changed

Following consultation, the DCLG is

proposing to amend legislation so that where

consent for the VO to enter is not given,

the VO or LO will be required to seek the

authority of the Valuation Tribunal to exercise

their statutory power, etc. See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/414588/150319_Council_Tax_and_Business_Rates_Powers_of_Entry_Response_to_Consultation_Final.pdf

The IRRV Revenues and Enforcement Conference and Exhibition is scheduled

for 17/18th June 2015 at Keele, and includes

the following presentations – Policy Review

by Nick Cooper (CLG), Prospects for the 2017 Revaluation by Mary Hardman (VOA),

Business Rate Retention: the future by

Roger Messenger (Wilks Head Eve), and the

Business Rate Review – the Discussion Paper by Richard Harbord (Immediate Past

President IRRV) and Christopher Grose

(Capita). Book on http://www.irrv.net/conferences/meeting.asp?Mid=1577

The Rating Diploma Holders’ Conference 2015, ‘Exploring the hypothesis – Rating

Valuation examined’, will take place on

Thursday 24th September 2015 at

Loughborough – details and a booking form

are now on the website (with an ‘early bird

discount’) on www.rics.org/rdhsconference

Reval 2017 – are you prepared?The AVD of 1st April 2015 is already past, and

rent reviews/lease renewals being settled and

new lettings made may contribute strong rental

evidence for the revaluation. Whilst the rent

may be fixed for the next five years, the tenant

may find the rates substantially increased/

decreased in two years’ time, depending on

the revaluation movement in rateable value

from the last List, the multiplier fixed, and any

transitional relief/restriction introduced. VOA ‘Forms of Return’ need to be carefully

completed, including any incentives of the

deal, and major changes in RV relativities are

expected when the new values are published

in September 2016.

NB: The England and Wales Central Lists

will also be subject to revaluation, with new

multi-million pound assessments for the many

‘Designated Persons’ included in the Lists (see

the article on the Central List in April Insight.)

Geoff Fisher recently led the

IRRV London and Home Counties

Association on one of his now much

sought after tours of the Olympic site.

The party (photographed) took in the

O2 Arena, then a high cable cabin ride

over the Thames and EZ Docklands

to see the Crystal building and Excel

Exhibition Centre.

Following a DLR ride to Stratford for

a walking tour of parts of the new

Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park (taking

in the Legacy features, Aquatic Pool,

Mittal Tower, the Main Stadium and

Velodrome), Institute Past President

Geoff highlighted the history of the

assembly and development of the site

for the Olympics and then Legacy.

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

18

INSI

GH

T JU

NE

201

5

19

Vulnerability in the world of debt recovery

and general assistance, including the Civil

Enforcement Association and an Occasional

Paper on Consumer Vulnerability prepared

by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

The FCA have put together a ‘Practitioner’s

Pack’, designed to aid organisations to start to

address the needs of consumers in vulnerable

circumstances. Within the document, there

are strong recurring themes highlighting

the importance for staff on the front line

to have sufficient training to facilitate an

appropriate conversation with potentially

vulnerable customers, actively encouraging

disclosure, recording of information and

how and when to refer or signpost a case.

In addition, close collaboration with the

advice and charity sector are considered

crucial in developing a positive approach

to vulnerability, advocating the use of

psychiatrists tools such as TEXAS and IDEA

as used by the Money Advice Trust and Royal

College of Psychiatrists.

So the updated guidelines are there for all

to see, but how do enforcement agencies

make sure that their agents are adhering

to the new standards? How can local

authorities be satisfied that the companies

they contract to undertake collections of

council tax, non-domestic rates, penalty

charge notices, etc. are not just treating the

guidelines and TCE statutory requirements

as a tick in the box exercise?

As part of Marston Holdings, Rossendales

has established a welfare team which

manages thousands of vulnerable cases per

year. The company has also enlisted the

support of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

to follow those very same best practice tools

and principles mentioned earlier, in terms

of treating customers fairly and sensitively.

This has formed part of our training and

development programme rolled out to all of

our staff.

In addition to the Enforcement Agent

Development Programme, Rossendales

“Computer says no..! ” Many of us are

probably familiar with this catchphrase

from the popular TV comedy series Little

Britain, in which a perpetually bored office

worker infuriatingly rejects the most basic of

requests from an exasperated customer on

the other end of a telephone line. Humorous

as this sketch may be, in the real world, such

lackadaisical demur can cause a whole host

of problems – not just to the reputation of

the organisation, but unnecessary grief, stress

and frustration to the customer trying to

communicate with the company and resolve

their query. An issue that can be exacerbated

if that customer is trying to come to terms

with a recent bereavement, job loss, financial

problems or other stress related conditions or

illnesses which may lead them to fall within

the scope of being considered vulnerable.

The issues and challenges surrounding

vulnerability are of course nothing new. In

fact, prior to the inception of the regulatory

changes introduced under the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement (TCE) Act in

April 2014, the laws of distress had always

provided a clear set of rules for Enforcement Agents (EAs) to follow when levying distress,

but nothing that explained how to treat

people found to have physical or mental

health problems. In addition, the National Standards for Enforcement Agents (NSEA)

made specific reference to the treatment of

vulnerable people, stating that both agents

and creditors have duties to protect the vulnerable and socially excluded and are

expected to have procedures in place to deal

with such cases swiftly and appropriately.

The TCE Act has sought to incorporate into

statute, many of the best practice principles

supported by the previous laws of distress

and NSEA issues surrounding vulnerability.

So what do we actually mean when we

talk about ‘vulnerability’ and its impact

on revenues collection? For clarification,

Regulation 10 of The Taking Control of

has developed a half day training course

for local authorities and front line staff,

which is tailored to managing vulnerability

in a revenues environment. The aim of the

course is to provide an overview of the

requirements needed to address vulnerability,

when collecting revenues, both statutory

and advisory and to assist local authority

staff in understanding the different types

of vulnerable people, including the medical

terminology and behaviour. The course also

aims to empower staff in their dealings,

negotiations and information gathering when

speaking with customers, be that face-to-face

or over the telephone. Some of the areas that

the course outlines include:

• revenues collection and vulnerability

– the legal background

• definitions of vulnerability

• conditions and characteristics

of vulnerability

• assessing vulnerability

• mental incapacity

• using IDEA with the vulnerable

• vulnerable people and debt

• independent money advice

• mental health awareness and the

collection process

• using TEXAS for collection staff dealing

with the vulnerable

• signposting

and

• how to handle difficult situations.

The course also aims to encourage delegates in

attendance to share their own experiences at

work when dealing with vulnerable customers,

discussing points under key headings such

as personal characteristics, personal circumstances and external factors.

The course has already been delivered to

over 426 delegates across 25 local authorities

across the country. It has been proven to be

popular, with many authorities scheduled to

attend during spring and summer.

Goods Regulations 2013 states that:

“The EA may not take control of goods

of the debtor where the debtor is a child

or vulnerable person (whether more than

one or a combination of both) is the only

person present in the relevant or specified

premises in which the goods are located;

or

(c) the goods are also premises in which a

child or vulnerable person (whether more

than one or a combination of both) is the

only person present.”

Regarding recovery of fees from vulnerable

debtors, Regulation 12 of the Taking Control

of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 states:

“Where the debtor is a vulnerable person,

the fee or fees due for the enforcement

stage and any disbursements related to

that stage (or stages) are not recoverable

unless the enforcement agent has, before

proceeding to remove goods which have

been taken into control, given the debtor

an adequate opportunity to get assistance

and advice in relation to the exercise of the

enforcement power.”

It is now a year after these changes were

introduced under the TCE Act, and since

the new regulations came into effect,

Rossendales, part of Marston Holdings

(Marston), has been paying particular

attention to how we handle cases that

involve potentially vulnerable customers

(debtors). In addition to there now being a

statutory obligation for an EA to be proactive

in identifying vulnerable customers when

seeking to take control of goods, an EA

must now hold the relevant certification

and possess sufficient knowledge of the law and procedures, particularly

when identifying a potentially vulnerable

customer. A great example of training and

building knowledge on vulnerability is seen

in the Enforcement Agent Development

Programme which was introduced by

Marston in 2014. It consists of a three part

learning scheme that equips agents with the

confidence, knowledge, skills and attitudes

towards ethical and proficient conduct. It is

methods of such training that play a vital role

when helping us to handle vulnerability in the

world of debt recovery.

It must be noted that the word ‘vulnerable’

has not been defined in the new regulations.

In April 2014, The Ministry of Justice produced

a document entitled ‘Taking Control of Goods:

National Standards’, effectively updating the

previous National Standards for Enforcement

Agents. Within the document, reference is

made to vulnerable situations, making it

clear that enforcement agents/agencies and

creditors must recognize that they each have

a role in ensuring that the vulnerable and

socially excluded are protected, and that the

recovery process includes procedures agreed

between the agent/agency and creditor

about how such situations should be dealt

with. It goes on to say that the appropriate

use of discretion is essential in every case

and no amount of guidance could cover

every situation. The standards cite some

examples of groups who might be considered

vulnerable. Care should of course be taken to

assess each situation on a case by case basis,

but examples could include:

• the elderly

• the disabled

• the seriously ill

• the recently bereaved

• single parent families

• pregnant women

• unemployed people, and

• those who have obvious difficulty in

understanding, speaking or reading English.

As well as vulnerability guidelines being

provided by the Ministry of Justice, there are

other organizations and agencies that provide

good practice guides, codes of conduct

“ How can local authorities be satisfied that the companies they contract to undertake collections of council tax, non-domestic rates, penalty charge notices, etc. are not just treating the guidelines and TCE statutory requirements as a tick in the box exercise?”

“ It must be noted that the word ‘vulnerable’ has not been defined in the new regulations.”

James McKillop tackles the management of vulnerability in a revenues environment

Cover story

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

20

INSI

GH

T JU

NE

201

5

21

A full day course is also available, which

delivers training around the TCE Act

Regulations, looking at the impact it has

had on the enforcement industry and local

authorities since implementation in April

2014. Other topics include the collection

initiatives and strategies at the compliance

and enforcement stages, taking control of

goods and the challenges that we have faced

under the new regime. This is then followed

by addressing vulnerability.

We acknowledge that vulnerability is a

complex area, and our course oversees

the characteristics and circumstances of a

vulnerable person so that cases are managed

with knowledge and handled impartially and

sensitively where required.

If you would like to find out further details

about our course please contact Shirley

Baird, Rossendales Training, on sbaird@rossendales.com or 0844 701 3965

“The course also aims to empower staff in their dealings, negotiations and information gathering when speaking with customers, be that face-to-face or over the telephone.”

Cover story

Fraud: still outthere, but help isat handThe future of fraud fighting in local authorities

is far from encouraging. The advent of the

Single Fraud Investigation Service (SFIS)

is already draining away skilled investigators

from local authorities, who could otherwise

be used to investigate the myriad of non-

benefit frauds that are being targeted against

councils. The two year funding provided by

the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) to tackle tenancy

fraud ceased in March 2015. The £16million

challenge funding provided by the DCLG late

last year to tackle non-benefit fraud, although

helpful, runs out next year and is unlikely to be

repeated. Many councils were not successful

in their application for this funding. As a result,

there is now the very real risk that councils

in some parts of the country, through no

fault of their own, will soon have little or no effective fraud fighting capacity.

Previously, the Audit Commission was

available to turn an independent spotlight on

such national developments and their local

impact through the Protecting the Public Purse (PPP) reports, annual detected fraud

and corruption survey, and individual fraud

briefings for all councils. As the Head of

the Audit Commission Counter Fraud Team

until the abolition of that organisation earlier

this year, I was proud and encouraged by

the way local authorities responded to the

transparency and accountability that PPP

brought to the issues, refocusing counter

fraud activities towards areas of greatest risk

and harm.

Unfortunately, and rather unexpectedly, in

late 2014 the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) withdrew

from an agreement to continue the counter

fraud activities of the Audit Commission,

including the annual PPP reports and annual

detected fraud and corruption survey. This

leaves a potentially significant gap in the

sector’s understanding of national and local

trends in fraud detection.

A combination of these and others factors

have prompted concerned stakeholders across

the public, private and voluntary sectors to

join together to create a new body to fight

against fraud. Called The European Institute for Countering Corruption and Fraud, or

TEICCAF for short, this Institute was launched

on 22nd April 2015. It is an independent, not-

for-profit organisation committed to providing

greater choice, value for money and

quality in the products and services members

can draw upon to assist the fight against fraud.

More information on TEICCAF can be obtained

from our website (see below).

TEICCAF already includes member

organisations such as the IRRV, the Local Authority Investigation Officers’ Group

(LAIOG) as well as the former Audit Commission Counter Fraud Team. As the

former head of that team, and now as Chair

of TEICCAF, I am keen for this new Institute

to actively engage with and support local

authorities in the fight against fraud. That is

why I was pleased to announce that the first

initiative by TEICCAF has been to launch a

new detected fraud and corruption survey

for 2015. This was sent to local authority

Directors of Finance on 24th April. The

deadline for submission was the end of May.

In addition to a new summary PPP report,

all participating local authorities will also

receive a summary benchmark report

analysing their fraud detection performance

with similar councils. This is all completely

free of course to local authorities. I hope this

provides a clear indication of the value for

money services we will be offering members

in the future. I encourage you and your local

authority to support this important initiative

and provide the data requested.

Please feel free to contact me at

alanb@teiccaf.com or

asbryce17@gmail.com if you want

to know more about TEICCAF.

“ A combination of these and others factors have prompted concerned stakeholders across the public, private and voluntary sectors to join together to create a new body to fight against fraud.”

Counter fraud

Alan Bryce explains how The European Institute for Combatting Corruption and Fraud (TEICCAF) aims to fill the hole left by the demise of the Audit Commission

Alan Bryce is Chair of the European

Institute for Combatting Corruption and Fraud

(TEICCAF). Alan is the former Head of the

Audit Commission’s Counter Fraud team. Go

to www.teiccaf.com

James McKillop is Business Development

Executive with Rossendales, part of key IRRV

sponsor Marston Holdings

IRRV Performance Awards 2015

Watch out for details on

www.irrv.net

IRRV Revenues

& EnforcementConference

17/18 June, KeeleStill time to book – go to

www.irrv.net

Collection & enforcement

...Adrian Lardner fears

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

22

INSI

GH

T JU

NE

201

5

23

“The upshot is that no-one at HMRC can tell me if supporting documents I sent in February have been received, until they are due to be looked at two months later.”

“ However, there is little doubt that headline-grabbing numbers of this magnitude further increase the pressure from the media and elected members for councils to be seen to be doing more.”

Use of descretion

Yet further budgetary challenges in a period of political uncertainty

upshot is that no-one at HMRC can tell me if

supporting documents I sent in February have

been received, until they are due to be looked

at two months later.

Imagine if we operated like this on council tax reduction/housing benefit (CTR/HB).

Revenues leaders would be brought before

that Commons Select Committee horseshoe

and made to explain such performance.

Words like ‘incompetent’ and ‘resign’ would

fill the room.

Linked with my instinct to defend revenues

and benefits, I do find myself shouting at

the radio when Jeremy Vine does his topical

phone-ins. Topics are the stuff of “Why is

our confidential medical information being

sold for 5p? ” or “Should David Cameron be

speaking about a third term already? ” Great

stuff. I also love the chap Terry Walton from

the Rhondda allotment with his hints about

lettuce, but that ’s the tip of the iceberg

(ouch... Editor!).

But when the topic switches to the review of business rates or the mansion tax it

leaves me exasperated. Take the phone-in

around the March 2015 budget about the

announcement to review business rates.

“The problem with business rates,” said one

so-called expert, “is that small businesses are

hit hardest and rates are not linked to the

state of the economy.” Bringing a whole new

meaning to ‘talk radio’, I am yelling “but what

about SBRR and inflation liked multipliers”. At

this point the dog stares at me awkwardly.

I know what you are saying – ring Jeremy

and put him straight! Nope, time to take the

dog for a walk. You see, I do get out.

You might also suggest that had I informed

HMRC about my AVC in 2010, I wouldn’t

be having an issue. Reporting a change of

circumstances for CTR/HB is in the news

lately following the recent DWP initiative

I am writing this article as the media frenzy

builds up to the election on 7th May. What is

clear is that regardless of the outcome, both

central and local government face continued financial pressures to cut costs, and in

the case of local taxation professionals, to

collect more.

Whichever party or parties hold the

balance of power, the era of cuts and austerity seems set to continue in some

form or another.

As a result, the focus on income collection will be even greater, as every

pound collected will be a pound less to be

saved. The Audit Commission published

figure of £4.55 billion outstanding council tax

and business rates at 31st March 2014 will

increase the perception that local authorities

should be doing more.

Simplistically, if 50% of this debt could

be collected, what difference could £2.25

billion mean for local authorities? Of course,

those of us who have spent a lifetime in the

collections world know that it is not quite

as simple as this! However, there is lit tle

doubt that headline-grabbing numbers of this

magnitude further increase the pressure from

the media and elected members for councils

to be seen to be doing more.

At Ross and Roberts we believe that

the introduction of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations last year has been

a success, as we have received fewer complaints and increased our collection

performance, particularly at the compliance

stage. We have introduced new processes and initiatives to meet the challenges and

these innovations will continue to benefit all

clients large and small.

Now is the time for local authorities to be

reviewing their own performance, and

what they expect or demand from private

sector partners, for example:

• how can developments in the efficiency

of their tracing process help reduce the

number of ‘gone away’ cases

• what collection options are available for

small balances created by the council tax

reduction scheme

• what innovation in delivery of proactive

contact with customers outside of the

traditional nine to five time window is

out there?

All of these measures can improve proactive management of the arrears.

Investment is often the driver for

improvement in these areas, but we

believe a customer centric vision is

equally important. Talking to and working

in partnership with council officers is at the

heart of our approach. This approach has

seen us launch a new tracing service working

with external data experts. We have designed

a new small balance collections process

that delivers good results and high levels of

customer care and all of our staff now have

shift patterns to cover seven days a week,

providing a highly flexible service.

The Enforcement Agent industry is now

better trained and equipped to help deliver

improved collections and the compliance

period enables customers who genuinely

want to pay to have access to efficient

and effective services, without the need

to receive an Enforcement Agent visit. Our

locally based and trained Enforcement

Agents maintain daily contact with our

clients to ensure locally focused service

delivery. We know that this combination of

innovation and good old fashioned case management is delivering results and is

already helping councils recover that extra

percent to reduce that headline arrear.

My revenues and benefits contributions

usually follow two themes. One is that I

press the case for creative eye catching revenues and benefits information. My

second is unrestrained appreciation for the

enormous challenges that IRRV people have successfully delivered since the days

of the General Rate.

As the latter takes in legislation, new technology, KPIs and standards, public/private delivery, tremendous customer improvement , channel shift, efficiency

and partnership based structural change,

etc., I could go on about this as much as I do

when writing about Direct Debit!

Linked to this second theme is my

frustration when the government criticises

IRRV practitioners for perceived below par effort, for example the 97% collection rate

commentary.

I can take criticism if we are slouching,

but we are ahead of the game. As Gordon Heath of the IRRV Council has commented,

government agencies can only dream of

reaching this level of debt collection.

Ministers could take a look at HMRC. Since

I took early retirement and self-assessed my

income tax for 2012/13, I picked up that the

tax man had no record of my Additional Voluntary Contributions (AVC) payments

from 2010/11 onwards. The technology to

self-assess online is brilliant, but it soon broke

down when my ‘but what about the AVC’ jabs

tried to penetrate the portal. Any follow up of

this nature has to be sent the ‘old fashioned

way’ to the self assessment centre in

Birmingham. Here the HMRC service standard

for correspondence is two months.

More disturbing than this is that any

documents sent to support the claim, i.e. the

original annual schedule of AVC payments,

are not copied immediately and returned. The

Adrian Lardner is Sales and Marketing

Director at Ross and Roberts. You can contact

him on alardner@rossandroberts.co.uk

Collection & enforcement

Andrew Burton can be contacted on

andyrichburton@gmail.com

...Andrew Burton suggests, as he reflects on life, radio chat shows and revenues and benefits

Fair comment? Well, you’ll just have to judge for yourself

called FERIS. This stands for Fraud and Error Reduction Incentive Scheme.

This made me wonder if there is any

other central advice which sounds like

fairground activity. What about the imaginary

welfare reduction (bound to happen after

the election) and the unlikely empty rate

concession title of ‘Welfare Amendment

and Local Taxation Zero Empty Rates’...

or WALTZER?

Fair play to the DWP for taking the wheel

on FERIS. One of the many initiatives that a

local authority can engage in is a targeted

campaign to educate HB/CTR claimants to

report a change in circumstances.

The early 2015 bid fund for FERIS may

explain why there has been interest in some

of the creative leaflet work we do, in addition

to the Direct Debit material. The Aardman

based ‘Never Forget to Tell Us’ is one of

the few benefits changes of circumstances

leaflets out there. If all you rely on are a

few lines on the reverse of complex benefit

letters, you might be in for a roller coaster ride with FERIS.

Time to shout at the radio again, as I hear

from the hustings that one of the parties will

give rate relief to small businesses. As Terry

might say, that ’s shallot for now!

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

24

INSI

GH

T JU

NE

201

5

25

Studying canbe fun!

By the time that you read this, it will all be

over. ‘It ’ being the General Election, and

by now either Ed will have scrapped the

‘bedroom tax’, Dave will have reduced the

benefit cap to £23,000, Nicola will have

declared independence... or Nigel will be

having ‘forthright discussions’ with our

European partners. Whatever the outcome, the

harsh reality is that we will still have to make

sure that the day-to-day aspects of housing benefit (HB) administration continue as

smoothly as they can do.

One of these aspects is the use of

Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) to

support those claimants that have additional needs that just aren’t accommodated for

in mainstream HB. Over the past couple of

years there have been some innovative and

imaginative uses of DHP and many authorities

have sought solutions that do more than just

cover the gap that may have been created

by a cap or spare room subsidy. Authorities

were also quick to identify that the funds they

had at their disposal had to be carefully managed if they were to last.

It is therefore disappointing that these

efforts have been frustrated somewhat by the

decision in R (on the application of Hardy) v Sandwell MBC 2015. The press releases

that came out reported that the discretionary

award granted to Mr and Mrs Hardy amounted

to ‘disability discrimination’. The releases

also quoted a very bullish solicitor stating that

the decision had “far reaching consequences”

for a number of authorities. What was equally

telling was the quote from the authority – it

“welcomed the judgement” – so there is

unlikely to be any further challenge.

So what was it that Sandwell apparently did

so wrong?

It was all down to the policy that took

DLA (Care) component into account when

assessing whether to award a DHP. Mr Hardy

challenged Sandwell’s DHP policy of taking

DLA (Care) into account as a matter of

For any student whose studies involve a

traditional style of examination, June

is a crucial month in the educational year.

Even qualifications that include elements of

controlled assessment, such as some GCSE subjects, are likely to involve sitting a written

examination. This holds true of GCE Advanced Level, commonly known as A-Levels, and

for much of higher education, including

professional qualifications. The month of June

has long been a favourite time for many bodies

to hold their written exams and although

students might say they find it hard to look

forward with pleasure to the examinations,

June does become a favourite month for

people who have been studying hard in the

weeks and months running up to the exams

and who suddenly find that they have got their life back for the summer. For IRRV

students taking summer exams, this is just as

true as it is for college and university students.

The well-deserved period of relief and

relaxation after sitting an exam brings with

it time to enjoy the long light evenings, the

warm weather and more time for family and

friends, but there is a small cloud on the

horizon. At some point later in the summer,

usually in August, the results will arrive!Long before that, though, on leaving an

exam room clutching the exam paper, it is

too easy to get depressed, as you realise

that there were other things you could

have included in your answers. Almost all

students have this experience to varying

degrees when they review their study notes

or text books or exchange a few words with

others who took the same exam. But the

first thing to remember in IRRV exams, as in

many other exams, is that you don’t have to

get 100% marks to pass. The pass mark for IRRV examinations is 50% , so you

can be half wrong and still pass in that

subject! That one fact alone should cheer up

any student quite a lot and perhaps make it

easier to enjoy the summer.

course in assessing the award of DHP, which

it was claimed was counter to the DWP Guidance Manual as well as being unlawful discrimination arising from disability.

I would suspect that many local authorities

now take account of DLA (Care) when

assessing DHP payments, which is presumably

what Mr Hardy’s solicitor meant when she

referred to “far reaching consequences”.

However, I would argue that the counter to

this would be whether this is done “as a

matter of course”. It needs to be pointed out

that the case revolved around DLA (Care) as

legislation already provides for the treatment

of DLA (Mobility) under Section 73(14) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, viz we ignore it.

What Sandwell did was to rely, in part, on

the findings of Turner v LB Barnet Housing Benefit Review Board 2001, which

confirmed that DLA (Care) could be taken into

account as an income for DHP purposes. Note

the date – it preceded the Equality Act 2010

by nine years.

I should say that even where a piece of

legislation discriminates against a particular

group, that in itself is not unlawful if, as

in an earlier bedroom tax case, R (MA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2014, there is an objective and reasonable

justification for the discriminatory effect of the

legislation (which in this case happened to be

increased funding for DHP!).

That in a way is a bit of a hospital pass to us

in local government! The DWP has fought off

challenges to the bedroom tax, on the basis that

it has provided extra funds to address the needs

of disabled claimants that have been affected

by the decision. It is just the use of those

additional funds that has fallen foul of the law.

In reading the judgement, I feel as though

Sandwell had approached the situation with

the best intentions. The underlying principle

for all of us determining DHP is that the award,

if any, is fair and reasonable and is made

Let’s now move on and look at how the marks are earned and how the

examiner marks the papers.

Each exam paper contains

questions set by an

examiner, someone

who is an expert in that subject . But

even experts must be monitored and checked, so the questions proposed by

IRRV examiners are subject to scrutiny

by an independent Examination and Assessment Board. The Board ensures that

the questions are of the appropriate level and within the scope of the syllabus.

Crucially, when examiners submit their

questions to the Board, they must also

provide the intended ‘marking schedule’.

Examination answers are not marked simply

at the whim of an examiner, but are

marked in a structured way by comparing

a student’s answer to a predetermined set

of criteria as to relevant factors which allow

the student to show their knowledge and

understanding of the issues in each question.

The marks to be awarded for each aspect

of an answer are determined in advance

by the marking schedule. In many subjects,

each question may carry equal marks –

for example, where a paper requires six

questions to be answered in a three hour

session, the overall total of marks is likely to

be 300 and so each question would be set

at 50 marks. A total of 150 marks earned on

such a paper would achieve a pass level. It

follows, therefore, that it is possible to get

one question completely wrong and still earn

enough marks from the other questions to

reach the pass mark overall. Not all subjects

do involve questions with equal marks per

question, but where some questions are of

a higher value that will have been shown

on the examination paper, so that in such

subjects students can try to earn the most

marks available.

after taking full account of all the individual circumstances.

Sandwell attempted to address the

question of the treatment of DLA (Care)

by taking into account any disability related

expenditure “without proof or query”. To do

otherwise it argued would amount to double

counting. I have to admit that I have sympathy

for this approach.

The judge decided that this amounted to

indirect discrimination, as the needs and

related expenditure of a disabled person

are not consistent and regular and can

change at short notice. By virtue of that,

to treat the income in exactly the same way

as it treats others and their non-disability

incomes, gives rise to unfavourable treatment

to disabled applicants.

The judgement confirms the inclusion of

DLA (Care) as income in determining a DHP

but it also states that: “(he) does not contend

that it would be wrongful for an authority,

which excluded DLA (Care), to also exclude

expenses related to the provision of care up to

the amount of DLA (Care) received.” I see that

as being some consolation.

Finally, what is almost as important as the

treatment of DLA (Care) in this case was the

public sector equality duty the authority

is required to fulfil. Sandwell argued that

they met this duty and provided an Equality Impact Assessment, undertaken in 2009,

relating to the DHP policy existing at that time.

What I see as a further contributory factor

was the fact that the DHP policy had not been

reviewed since and certainly has not been

adapted to account for changes to HB in 2013.

So, it appears that not only is it time, like it

or not, to revisit your DHP policy but also to

dust off those Equality Impact Assessments

and ensure that they too remain relevant.

As August approaches there is one small

group of people who will not have quite

as much free time to enjoy the summer.

Students may find it hard to sympathise

with this group, but these people are the examiners themselves ! In the weeks

following the examinations the examiners in

each subject must mark the writ ten scripts

produced by the students in the examination

rooms. The marking must be undertaken

carefully and in accordance with the per-determined marking schedules, which

ensures that all students are treated equally.

Each script must be read carefully to make

sure that everything the student has writ ten

is properly taken into account. But that is

not the end of it. The marks awarded to

students in each subject must be submitted

to the Examinations and Assessment Board,

which has the power to consider how well a

student has performed over all the subjects

sat and to moderate decisions on passes or

failures where there are marginal decisions

to be made.

If you are a student waiting for results af ter

sit ting an exam this year, you are now free

to enjoy your summer and hopefully you will

be able to enjoy August and September just

as much!

“ Mr Hardy challenged Sandwell’s DHP policy of taking DLA (Care) into account as a matter of course in assessing the award of DHP, which it was claimed was counter to the DWP Guidance Manual as well as being unlawful discrimination arising from disability.”

“ The well-deserved period of relief and relaxation after sitting an exam brings with it time to enjoy the long light evenings, the warm weather and more time for family and friends, but there is a small cloud on the horizon.”

Benefits bulletinStudent focus

Just how discretionary are Discretionary Housing Payments, questionsPhil Adlard

Bill Lovell is here to unwravel the examination marking procedure and once again illustrates how...

Phil Adlard Tech IRRV MInstLM MCMI

is a member of the Institute’s Council, and

Vice-Chair of the IRRV Benefits Faculty

Institute Honorary Member Bill Lovellis a former examiner and member of the

IRRV Examinations and Assessment Board.

He is now a freelance local government

consultant and trainer

It’s time to revisit your DHP policy

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

26

INSI

GH

T JU

NE

201

5

27

I have just been reading an interesting

article on Universal Credit (UC) by Amelia

Gentleman1 (who regularly writes thoughtful

pieces on benefits issues). She illustrates

what is becoming a familiar contrast – upbeat

celebration of UC by Iain Duncan Smith and

Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)

spokespersons, and worrying feedback from

advice agencies and claimants.

A good part of the article concerns the often

harsh, arbitrary and counter-productive nature

of sanctions. Steve Cullen, the District Citizens’

Advice Bureau Manager for the Warrington

area, is quoted, commenting astutely that:

“If you’re left without any money, no phone,

no internet access, unable to bathe, feed

yourself, pay for the bus fares to interviews,

you’re looking dishevelled, how can you fulfil

the job search requirements? ”

Quite. And since the publication of

Amelia Gentleman’s article, we have also

had the House of Commons Work and

Pensions Committee’s report on sanctions2,

recommending among other things:

“...that DWP commission a broad

independent review of benefit conditionality

and sanctions, to investigate whether sanctions

are being applied appropriately, fairly and

proportionately (recommendation 1);

“...that DWP clarify, in its response to

this Report: the extent to which Housing

Benefit (HB) payments have been incorrectly

impacted by Jobseeker’s Allowance sanctions,

as identified by the Oakley Review; the steps

it has taken — beyond advising claimants

themselves to inform their local authority

when they are sanctioned — to address the

issue; and whether robust systems are now in

place to ensure that the issue no longer arises

(recommendation 5); and

“...that the government does not proceed with

in-work sanctions beyond the existing pilots

until robust evidence is available from the pilots

to demonstrate that in-work conditionality can

be effectively applied (recommendation 7).”

This month, Insight, in tandem with the DWP,

brings readers an update on Universal Credit

(UC) through the eyes of Damon Venning,

Rents Manager with Oxford City Council.

“We’ve been helping tenants in Oxford get

ready for the arrival of UC by making direct

payments normal practice.

We’ve established a triage-type service

to assess who needs support. This includes

asking our social housing tenants to

complete a questionnaire when they first

begin renting a council property, which tells

us whether they are ready to manage their

own rent payments or if they need extra

support. So far, we’ve assessed around

2,500 tenants.

The most important lesson we have learnt

is to provide more support early on. When

we first made it policy for tenants to be in

charge of their own rent, we changed our

We can be fairly confident that any ‘broad

independent review’ worth its salt would

conclude that in a large number of cases

sanctions are not currently “being applied

appropriately, fairly and proportionately”. We

can only hope that the next government rises

to the Committee’s challenge.

In this respect, Insight readers have the

advantage over us contributors in that, at

the time of writing, we do not know what

the outcome of the General Election will be,

whereas you now do. Will the complexion of

the new government suggest a continuation

of punitive sanctions policies? Or will there be

some hope of a re-think?

The rental costs problem to which the

Committee refers in recommendation 5 could,

in theory, readily be solved by UC, as and when

claimants with rent to pay are brought into a

centralised system, but vigilance will be needed

– and anyway, HB looks likely to be around for

a long time yet.

As for in-work sanctions, the hazards have

been aired by, among others, Pat Doherty and

me in recent issues of this journal3.

In fairness to UC, though, the intensification

of sanctions to the point of their present

excesses is nothing to do with UC as such.

The new benefit has inherited this aggressive

approach from Jobseeker’s Allowance. A

government that wanted to rein it in could do

so, without touching the design of UC at all.

Another striking observation in Gentleman’s

article comes from Tom Rowlands of the

Golden Gates Housing Trust in Warrington.

Commenting on the impact of payment of the

rental element of UC to the claimant as the

default position, rather than to the landlord,

he reports that collection rates (previously

98%) have fallen to 88-90%, implying an

unsustainable £4m annual loss.

Again, this is not an intrinsically necessary

feature of UC. Claimants can and should be

given the choice as to whether benefit is paid

to them or to the landlord.

expectations of them but we didn’t provide

the accompanying help. As a result, rent

arrears went up. We could see from our

assessment of the questionnaire that people

fell into arrears because they were not used

to managing payment for rent and other

outgoings – so we followed up with a phone

call to help them set up a payment schedule.

Once people knew exactly when each

payment was due, they were able to

make them independently. We also began

arranging home visits to provide face-to-face

support to people who we had assessed as

being especially vulnerable to falling into

rent arrears. This took up more time but was

extremely effective.

We’re often contacted by other local

authorities and partners looking for advice

on how best to support tenants with their

own rent payments.

Yet more contrastSimilar contrasts between the official line

and the word on the ground comes from the

publication of Newcastle University’s study of

the health impacts of the extension of the HB

size restrictions (‘bedroom tax’) to the social

rented sector, conducted by Suzanne Moffatt

and her colleagues4.

Once again, the Guardian (Patrick Butler, this

time) did an interesting feature on this5. He

found the DWP characteristically upbeat:

“The DWP told the Guardian that it

considered the policy was ‘restoring fairness to

the system’ and saving £1m a day.”

However, Newcastle upon Tyne City Council

saw it differently. Deputy Leader Joyce McCarty

told Butler that:

“The bedroom tax had created problems

where none [had previously] existed. There

were no families in Newcastle living in

overcrowded conditions, no social housing

shortage and no homelessness [but] it now

had to manage a surfeit of empty larger

properties because families would not move

into bigger houses in case they too became

subject to the bedroom tax.”

Rent arrears have mounted and the council

is now considering evictions, although [Joyce

McCarty again]:

“If we evicted households the City would

have to provide them with accommodation,

putting them up in a similar but more costly

home. It’s total madness.”

Which all goes to show that you should leave

housing management to housing managers,

rather than attempt social engineering by

means of simplistic benefit cuts. Or at least,

that is what it would show if you believed that

the ‘bedroom tax’ was ever about under-

occupation in the first place, rather than a

benefit cut thinly disguised as a housing policy.

1 ‘Testing times for Universal Credit: but can the ambition ever match reality? ’ Guardian, 11/3/15.2 Benefit sanctions beyond the Oakley review, 5th. Report of Session 2014/15, House of Commons Work & Pensions Committee, 18/3/15.3 ‘Doherty’s Despatch’, Insight, Jan/Feb. 2015; and ‘Credit Notes’, Insight, May 2015.4 ‘A qualitative study of the impact of the UK ‘bedroom tax’’, S. Moffatt & others, Journal of Public Health, March 2015.5 ‘Isolation, anxiety, depression: study reveals true cost of the bedroom tax’, Guardian, 16/3/15.

Social landlords in the Oxford area are

largely positive about being paid rent

directly by their tenants and simply want the

assurance that tenants have the support they

need to make the behaviour change. Under

UC, claimants are offered budgeting support

from the very start of their claim, which is

really important, as we’ve learned.

We’re doing all we can to get the support

right. In return, we ask our social tenants to

do all they can with that support to move

towards the labour market and eventually

financial independence. We work closely with

Jobcentre Plus and some of our tenants are

referred to employment support, such as

training courses or work experience to help

get them ready for work.

The most important outcome is that our

tenants are ready for UC when it comes to

Oxford in April.”

“ In fairness to UC, though, the intensification of sanctions to the point of their present excesses is nothing to do with UC as such. The new benefit has inherited this aggressive approach from Jobseeker’s Allowance.”

“We also began arranging home visits to provide face-to-face support to people who we had assessed as being especially vulnerable to falling into rent arrears.”

Credit notesWelfare reform

Unnecessary baggage? Universal Credit could be an opportunity to ditch a few problems, rather than carry them over from the old benefits, says Geoff Fimister

The Department for Work and Pensions highlights the work of Oxford City Council in preparing for Universal Credit

Geoff Fimister is Campaigns Officer

(Incomes) with the Royal National Institute of

Blind People and a writer on benefit issues.

For 27 years Tim* has lived in social

housing owned by Oxford City Council. He

has never been in arrears and his account

is in credit. Tim has a history of alcohol

misuse, which has made it dif f icult for

him to get a job, so he is still living on

benefits.

He was keen to take par t in our direct

payments trial but he didn’t have a

suitable bank account. The council helped

him open a basic high street account.

Initially it was dif f icult, as Tim didn’t

always turn up for his appointments and

didn’t have the correct information he

needed. The council managed to help

him obtain the relevant award let ters

and he was able to open an account.

The council also put Tim in touch with

suppor t networks which are helping

him to manage his life bet ter. He is also

receiving help in addressing what he

needs to enter the job market.

Tim has a tendency to relapse into

old habits of alcohol misuse and that

af fects his progress. Despite this, he

has managed to keep on top of his

f inances. He now receives all his benefits

payments into his one high street bank

account and pays his rent on time to his

landlord. Having a bank account, get ting

used to managing his f inances, and

trying to deal with the barriers stopping

him from get ting into work, is great

preparation for UC’s arrival.

* Tim isn’t his real name

Case Study

IRRV Performance Awards 2015

Watch out for details on

www.irrv.net

INSI

GH

T JU

NE

201

5

29

It’s like beingback at school!Office space is expensive to hire or build,

and there are also the environmental costs

of heating and maintaining a building that

is not fully occupied. Many authorities have

introduced flexible working as a means

of reducing costs, as they search for ways

of dealing with their constrained financial

circumstances. One of the most controversial

aspects of this change is the now common

practice of ‘hot desking ’, with employees

sharing communal computers and desks

instead of being individually allocated a

workstation. It appears that for every positive,

there is an accompanying negative. Trades

unions have argued that any money saved

will be more than offset by higher sickness rates and lower office morale.

While the practice is designed to encourage

collaboration and break down workplace silos,

many have found the reality to be rather

counterproductive.

Where staff are out of the office the majority

of the time they are probably more used to

not having their own desk. But hot desking

is not for everyone. Some people find it

difficult to adjust and acclimatise to different colleagues and different locations on a

regular basis. Despite hot desking supposedly

being a way to promote collaboration within

the workplace, many feel it is hampering staff,

because without a desk they have a weaker sense of cohesion within a team. Many

employees also feel a sense of belonging and

desire to call a space their own.

Some identify the system with being back at school, in that at the end of the day

they pack up their books and papers and go

home. Some find there is no longer space

to hang up their coat. While the idea is to

move around a lot to mix

and mingle with their

colleagues, many just

want their own space.

Research conducted by

the University of Sheffield

found that staff who

moved from desk to

desk felt less connected

to their colleagues and

communication was

affected. Where staff

need to set up their

phone every time they

enter the office, they may

feel rootless. At worst,

this dissatisfaction may

lead to a perceived loss of status and a

feeling of being undervalued.

Research on information processing

suggests employees need space to

concentrate without distractions, and

interruptions inhibit creativity. Frequent

desk relocations can also waste time and

generate additional work and the noise

associated with more open work spaces can

increase distraction, mental workload,

fatigue and stress, all of which can

negatively impact productivity.

One of the major criticisms of hot

desking is that it reduces the oppor tunity

for employees to express their identity and personality at work, which in turn

can decrease job satisfaction, commitment

and engagement, factors that have been

shown to be positively associated with

per formance. It has also been suggested

hot desking may contribute to a sense of

loss and marginalisation, thus negatively

impacting mental wellbeing. When managers

take control of an individual’s work

space, employees can feel psychological

discomfor t and begin to identify less with

the organisation.

There have been some studies that suggest

people find working without the ability to

personalise their space quite a stressful event.

This emphasises how important perceived

control is in being able to cope with stress.

The worst case scenario is that it could lead

to people having time off work. If there is a

reduction in people’s satisfaction with the

environment and job, then that can impact on

people’s commitment to the organisation. In

extreme cases they start searching for a job elsewhere.

There are also health and safety issues

relating to hot-desking. Trades unions point

to the fact that workstations should be

adapted for the height and reach of

individual workers but in practice it is

claimed that this rarely happens with hot

desking. Neglecting this increases the risk of

repetitive strain injury as well as back and

lower limb problems.

In theory, hot desking is a great idea, but

when implementing it, it is a mistake to

think about hot desking purely in terms of

the office and the desk. For this reason, I

will look in my next article at the things that

organisations should do to overcome the

problems identified above and which should

help ensure that hot desking is a success.

“Despite hot desking supposedly being a way to promote collaboration within the workplace, many feel it is hampering staff, because without a desk they have a weaker sense of cohesion within a team.”

Management

In the first of a two part analysis of the pros and cons of hot desking, Ian Nisbet focuses on the negatives

Ian Nisbet is Subsidy and Overpayments

Officer with Agilisys’s Enhanced Revenue

Collection programme, in partnership with LB

Hammersmith and Fulham. Contact him on

ian.nisbet@hfbp.co.uk

IRRV Publications

E: publications@irrv.org.uk

T: 020 7691 8977

W: www.irrv.net

Council Tax Law and Practice is an essential reference for anyone working in the field, designed to make the legislation easier to understand.

The book includes comprehensive footnotes to assist in the cross-referencing and location of the legislation itself. It is kept fully up to date by annual updates.

Council Tax Law and Practice is supplied in hard copy format

together with an electronic PDF version.

Fees:

New Subscription . . . . . . . . .£195.00 plus VAT and £6.00 p&pUpdate Fee . . . . . . . . . . . .£145.00 plus VAT and £4.40 p&p

Please Note:

Postage fee is for UK only. Additional postage costs will be charged for the rest of the world.

Council Tax Law and Practice (Published April 2015)

•

IRRV Training Days

E: conference@irrv.org.uk

T: 020 7691 8987

W: www.irrv.net/trainingdays

• IntroductiontoBusinessRates Janet Alexander IRRV (Hons) 21 September, London

• IntroductiontoCouncilTax Janet Alexander IRRV (Hons) 22 September, London

• BusinessRatesMasterClass Janet Alexander IRRV (Hons) 16 & 17 November, London

• CouncilTaxMasterClass Janet Alexander IRRV (Hons) 23 & 24 November, London

Fees: Introduction MasterClassIRRV Member £125 plus VAT £240 plus VATBAS/Forum/Organisational Member £155 plus VAT £300 plus VATNon Member £185 plus VAT £360 plus VAT

SpecialOffer:

3for2onmultiplebookings** Delegates must be from the same organisation in order to receive this offer

INSI

GH

T JU

NE

201

5

31

Take a fresh look at the success of ‘gov.uk’ It may now be a little while ago, but in the

Budget on 18th March 2015, alongside the

headline announcements on ISAs and savings

interest, there was an announcement hidden

away as a single paragraph in the 124-page

Budget Book regarding a digital initiative.

The Budget Book said, ‘Budget 2015

announces that the digital ambition will

extend beyond central government and arms-

length bodies, to consider local services. HM

Treasury, the Department for Communities

and Local Government and the Government

Digital Service (GDS) will collaborate with

partners in local government, as the sector

develops a set of proposals that will enable

more customer-focused, digitally-enabled and

efficient local services in time to inform future

budget allocations.’

So what does this mean and what impact

will it have on local authorities? Firstly, it might

be helpful to explain who the GDS are and

what they have done. The GDS is a unit of

the UK government’s Cabinet Office tasked

with transforming the provision of government

digital services. Formed in April 2011, its remit

was to implement the ‘Digital by Default ’ strategy proposed by a report produced for

the Cabinet Office in 2010 called ‘Directgov

2010 and beyond: revolution not evolution’.

The GDS define their role on their own

website as, ‘We help government make digital

services and information simpler, clearer and

faster. We put users’ needs before the needs

of government’.

One of the successes of the GDS has been

to start moving central government websites

to one site called ‘gov.uk ’, which contains the

citizen and business-facing material previously

found on Directgov and Businesslink, and

corporate content published by all government

departments. Eventually more than 300

agencies and other government bodies will be

moved over to the site. Although I was initially

sceptical of the gov.uk website, it is easy to

use and navigate and has obviously been

designed with the end user in mind rather

than government departments.

The reason for the success of the GDS

is best described by Richard Copley in

his blog. He sees the success being due to

the following:

• it is supported at the highest level

of government

• it has authority to tell departments

what to do

• it is adequately resourced, and

• it does not respect the status quo.

From my own perspective the GDS appears

to have ‘bulldozed’ its way through significant

amounts of red tape, departmental silos and

bureaucracy. The result of their hard work is a

better service for the customer.

Interestingly, in the summer of 2013

the GDS was brought into the then failing

Universal Credit (UC) project to handle

the front end of the system and how it

interacted with users, with the Department

for Work and Pensions (DWP) being left to

look after the many legacy systems involved in

supporting UC. However, by December 2013,

disagreements over the new approach to IT

development announced by DWP caused GDS

to step back from direct involvement, with all

the new IT work being handled by the DWP. In

my opinion this might have been one of the

worst decisions taken in respect of UC.

So could a local GDS work? It would have its

work cut out, with all local authorities having

their own priorities and political structures.

However, if provided with the right authority,

funding and remit it would stand a chance. It

has been suggested that a start could be to

look at creating a single website for all local

authorities similar to gov.uk.

There are hundreds of local authority

websites which vary in quality enormously.

By implementing a single site which features

the beautiful design principles of gov.uk, it

would be easy to standardise content and

quality, thereby vastly improving the user

experience. A suggestion has been made to

call it local.gov.uk.

Visitors to council sites are mainly looking for information rather than wanting to

interact/transact with the council. This is

also true of gov.uk which is largely about

information dissemination and consumption.

When the GDS took on board various

departmental websites they got rid of a lot

of unused content, then re-presented the

important information in an accessible way.

A single website would also be cheaper.

If you need an example of the costs of running a website, look no further than

Birmingham City Council, where it was

reported in 2013 that a website for the new

Library of Birmingham had cost the council

£1.2m to set up and launch and will also cost

£190,000 a year to run. This was just the

website for the library!

Websites would be only a start. Just think,

if you could standardise systems such as

email, payroll and revenues and benefits

over all local authorities, what would the

economies of scale be? Consider the number

of people and the hardware and software

costs it takes to run one system, such as

benefits, and then multiply that by the

numbers of authorities running it. What would

those costs be? Now imagine one benefits

system that is run centrally. I can see the

start of a very compelling business case for a

local GDS. Can’t you?

“ Although I was initially sceptical of the gov.uk website, it is easy to use and navigate and has obviously been designed with the end user in mind rather than government departments.”

Technology

...says Simon Bailey, and simplification of local authority service access might not just be a pipedream after all

Simon Bailey IRRV (Hons) is a Director of

ISCAS. Contact him on simon@iscas.co.uk

(www.iscas.co.uk)

IRRV Annual Conference & Exhibition

E: conference@irrv.org.uk

T: 020 7691 8987

W: www.irrv.org.uk

International Centre, Telford 6 – 8 October 2015This year’s Annual Conference (and Exhibition) will take place in Telford from the 6 October to 8 October. The first day will consist entirely of plenary sessions whilst three separate streams (Local Taxation & Revenues, Benefits 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 2015 will take place on the Wednesday evening where this year’s winners will be announced. There are a range of packages to suit individual needs. A limited number of bedrooms are also being held in the local area for delegates attending the conference. These can be reserved via the Conference Team when making a booking.

Fees:

Full conference passes available from only . . . . . . . . £445.50 plus VATFull day passes start at. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £175 plus VAT

Special Offer:

3 for 2 on all conference passes * This offer is valid on multiple bookings, with a minimum of 3 delegates from the same organisation.

Prices Held For Another Year

IRRV Conferences

E: conference@irrv.org.uk

T: 020 7691 8987

W: www.irrv.net/conferences

Revenues and Enforcement Conference & Exhibition, Keele 17 & 18 June 2015The conference will address all the key issues affecting practitioners today and look ahead to what the outcome of the General Election may bring. Accommodation on campus, within single en-suite study bedrooms, can be booked via the IRRV conference team. Dinner bed & breakfast (per person, per night) – £80 plus VAT.

Please visit our website to book your place.

Fees: One Day Two Days

IRRV Member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £155 plus VAT £220 plus VATBAS/Forum/Organisational Member . . £185 plus VAT £280 plus VATNon Member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £215 plus VAT £340 plus VAT

Special Offer:

3 for 2 on mutiple bookings** Delegates must be from the same organisation in order to receive this offer. The lowest fee will not be charged.

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

32

INSI

GH

T JU

NE

201

5

33

What’s to come in local government over the next five year term?

is not clear whether the appropriate tax rate on

high value properties should be higher if there

turn out to be fewer of them than expected, or

vice-versa.

There are problems with the structure of council tax. Neither the Conservatives,

Labour nor the Liberal Democrats appear to be

addressing them, and the mansion tax would

not solve those problems.

Other taxationBy far the biggest apparent revenue-raising

proposals from the Conservatives, Labour and

Liberal Democrats are ‘clampdowns’ on tax

avoidance and evasion. They claim they will

raise, in today’s terms, £4.6 billion, £6.7 billion

and £9.7 billion a year respectively from such

policies. Yet none of the parties has proposed

specific measures that would increase

revenues by these sorts of amounts.

There is strikingly little in the Conservative

or Labour manifestos about business taxation, perhaps reflecting a significant

degree of agreement and acquiescence with

recent reforms. Labour would like to raise

the main rate of corporation tax from 20%

and has committed to keeping the UK’s

main rate of corporation tax the lowest in the G7, though given that the next lowest

is Canada at 26.3%, this commitment is

not terribly constraining! One oddity of the

Labour proposal is that it would maintain

a small profits tax rate of 20%, such that

corporation tax rates would be 20% on

profits up to £300,000, 21.25% on profits

between £300,000 and £1.5 million, and 21%

on profits above £1.5 million. That is not a

sensible tax schedule.

Part of the £1 billion or so in revenue raised

from this increase is earmarked for a small reduction in business rates. After a long

period of stability, the business rates regime,

that lest we forget raises £28 billion a year for

As I write this we are, thankfully, only one

week away from the General Election (which

already seems to have gone on for ever!) and

all parties have now published their manifestos

– so what’s in those of the three major parties

in relation to the taxes and benefits that

impact on revenues and benefits compared

to the last five years? Well, the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) has undertaken a

detailed analysis (http://www.ifs.org.uk/events/1150) of the manifestos and gives us

the answer to this question.

Over the last five years, changes to

benefits have mostly been straightforward

cuts in generosity, with more significant

structural reform planned to come in the next

parliament, with the introduction of Universal Credit and the replacement of disability living allowance (DLA) with personal independence payment (PIP).

As for what is to come, there are important

areas of agreement between the main UK

parties. There is apparently a huge amount of

money to be extracted through a clampdown

on tax avoidance – clearly and mysteriously

missed by all previous clampdowns!

There is yet more money to be extracted

from those on very high incomes saving in a private pension. The main rates of income

tax, NICs and VAT will not be increased. The

‘triple lock’ on indexation of the basic state

pension will remain and most pensioner benefits will be protected.

There is also a shared lack of any attempt

to paint a coherent strategy for tax reform,

a shared desire to impose further, often

absurd, complications to the tax system and

a shared lack of willingness to set out specific

benefit measures, which chime with the

parties’ rhetoric.

On that latter point, on the one hand

the Conservatives have spent two years

promising substantial additional benefit

the exchequer, has seen a lot of change and

meddling in the last few years. A review of the

regime was announced in the Budget.

Benefit proposalsThere are fewer specific proposed changes to

the social security system in the manifestos

of the two main parties. This may reflect in

part in the very big scale of reforms due to be

implemented in

any case. While

Labour has said

they would pause

and review the

Universal Credit

programme,

they have given

no indication

that they would

abandon its

planned roll out.

While the SNP has

said it would want

to stop the move

from DLA to PIP, at

an estimated cost

of over £2 billion,

none of the three

major UK parties

have indicated any

such desire.

Labour (and

the SNP) propose

to abolish

the so-called

‘bedroom tax ’

(the reduction in

housing benefit

for social tenants

deemed to be

‘under occupying’

their property) at

a cost of £400

cuts of £12 billion a year, whilst failing to

come up with more than 10% of that figure

in actual cuts. On the other hand Labour’s

promised ‘toughness’ involves reducing

spending by almost nothing by taking winter fuel payments from the small number of

pensioners subject to the higher rates of

income tax and, most likely, literally nothing by

limiting the uprating of child benefit rates.

There are significant differences between

the parties too. The Conservatives are

promising significant income tax cuts

through further increases in the personal

allowance and an increase in the point at

which higher rate tax becomes payable. The

first of these ambitions is shared by the Liberal

Democrats, while the Labour manifesto is

silent on these points.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats

(and the SNP) share a desire to impose a

‘mansion tax’, not a policy adopted by the

Conservatives. Labour (and the SNP) would

return the top rate of income tax to 50%.

The Conservatives are alone in saying they

would seek big cuts in benefit spending

and generosity.

The mansion taxBoth Labour and the Liberal Democrats

(and the SNP) say they want to introduce a

‘mansion tax’, an additional annual charge

on residential properties worth more than

£2,000,000. The Conservatives, in contrast,

would like to reduce the effective tax on

some owner-occupied homes by effectively

increasing the inheritance tax (IHT)

threshold to £1 million for married couples

whose main residence is worth at least

£350,000 and is bequeathed to their children

or grandchildren.

The IFS concludes that there are many

problems with the way in which housing is

taxed at present – one such problem is the

million or so, while the Liberal Democrats

would water it down significantly.

All in all, then, there are no specific

proposals for either substantive additional

reform to, or savings from, the £220 billion

annual social security budget over and

above the significant ones already in the

pipeline from the Conservatives, Labour or

the Liberal Democrats.

The Conservatives have, though, expressed

a very clear ambition to cut £12 billion from

the annual social security budget within the

two years up to 2017/18 – or £11 billion in

today’s terms.

ConclusionThere are large differences between the

Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal

Democrats in terms of how they propose

to deal with tax and benefits but they share

a lack of willingness to be clear about the

details, and an inability to resist the urge for

piecemeal changes that make the overall

system less efficient and coherent.

structure of council tax. As well as, ludicrously,

still being based on the relative values of

properties in 1991 in England and Scotland, it

is regressive in the sense that the amount of

tax due rises less than proportionally to the

(1991) value of the property.

In addition it is capped – no more is paid

on a property worth £10 million than on one

worth £2 million (assuming they were both

worth more than £320,000 back in 1991).

By increasing the annual tax on probably

around 100-150,000 high value properties,

though nobody knows for sure quite how

many, the proposed mansion tax could be

seen as a partial remedy to this deficiency

in council tax.

Setting up an entirely separate tax

is unnecessarily complicated – a sensibly

reformed council tax would entail much higher

bills for the most valuable properties, whilst

ironing out anomalies in the taxation of less

expensive properties in the process.

Labour’s intention to start bringing in

revenue from a brand new tax during this

financial year also looks less than cautious,

given the need to sort out the details of valuations, administration and so on.

Labour’s intention is to raise £1.2 billion

annually from the tax, of which £3,000

would come from each property worth

£2-3 million and the remainder from

more valuable properties. If there were,

for example, a total of 150,000 properties

worth more than £2 million and 55,000

of those were worth more than £3 million

(HM Treasury’s estimates, according to the

Liberal Democrats), that would imply raising

£285 million from £2-3 million properties,

and properties above £3 million would face

an average tax charge of around £16,600 to

make up the rest of the revenue.

The IFS believes that setting a revenue target is not a sensible way to make policy. It

“ Setting up an entirely separate tax is unnecessarily complicated – a sensibly reformed council tax would entail much higher bills for the most valuable properties, whilst ironing out anomalies in the taxation of less expensive properties in the process.”

“ There is apparently a huge amount of money to be extracted through a clampdown on tax avoidance – clearly and mysteriously missed by all previous clampdowns!”

Doherty’s despatch

Pat Doherty fears that nothing coherent is emerging yet

Pat Doherty FIRRV CPFA is a Past President

of the IRRV. Any queries or comments

on this article can be sent to him on

pkd@pkdconsultancy.co.uk

IRRV Performance Awards 2015

Watch out for details on

www.irrv.net

INSI

GH

T w

ww

.irrv

.net

34

The world of business rates is set to changeCourtesy of the Chancellor’s Autumn

Statement and Budget, the business rates

system is now subject to another review. Two

important limitations this time – firstly, we

can do what we like with the system provided

the yield of approximately £26 billion per

annum remains consistent and secondly,

nothing will be implemented until after the

next revaluation takes place with effect from

1st April 2017.

One might argue that this limits the

effective debate somewhat! Lots of

organisations have become vocal about the

current business rates regime in the build-up

to the May 2015 elections. Many refer to it

as archaic, outdated and almost all identify

the need for apparent radical reform. The

limitations on the review do not help with

delivering these desired outcomes.

If you stand back from the system, there

are two main problems which in my view

would answer most of the criticism. Firstly,

the amount of business rates, at nearly 50p

in the pound (and set to increase) is a high

rate of taxation. The government, seeking that

level of yield from a single tax, will inevitably

put the tax under pressure, both in terms

of perceived fairness and the fear of stifling

business activity.

If the yield is to be maintained, then either

there is a need to widen the tax base or

widen the number of people who pay it.

Retaining rates as a property tax has

limitations in widening the tax base, as

most commercial occupations are at least in

theory rateable. Assuming all rateable value

is captured (which is not currently the case)

would help.

Then what about widening the number

of taxpayers – including owners as well as

occupiers? Some say the owner’s cost would

in due course be passed on to the occupier

through a service charge, so the occupier

would be no better off – possibly but not in

every case, so there are options here.

The second main criticism is lack of reactivity

to what is happening in the economy and

therefore more frequent revaluations are

required. The current five year cycle (2010

and 2015) has been broken by the political

expediency of an election, exacerbating the

problem to seven years. We should look at a

deliverable three yearly cycle with perhaps

the first at four years, to avoid the next

election in 2020, so the next revaluation

following 2017 would be in 2021.

As to making the rest of the system work

better, reducing the number of appeals, a

quicker appeal system etc., what can be done?

Much of this is easily resolved by disclosure

of information by the taxing authority as to

the basis of the tax. In other words, remove

the restrictions apparently in place currently

from Customs and Excise legislation in the

VOA’s ability to disclose information to both

ratepayers and billing authorities.

We could then have an open and

transparent valuation system and many

challenges and pressures in the system would

dissolve. Challenges at present in the form

of appeals may be as much about getting

release of information the VOA has

used to arrive at an assessment as an

actual challenge to the assessment.

The green agendaValuers will know from previous

articles that they need to shape up to

this challenge – and get up to speed.

Green issues might one day be

reflected in the rating revaluation!

Discounts for green buildings?

Penalties for those not? Who knows?

Without the knowledge, how will

valuers be able to differentiate?

Mortgage lending value (MLV)More new excitement in the UK is the

importance of MLV and how to assess it.

Challenges exist from a multitude of different

practices in Europe. We should avoid the

temptation to adopt the method as seen

in Germany just because they are most

experienced at it. Even a cursory look will fill

most valuers with horror and put a bemused

expression on the face of UK PI insurers! What

is required is a clear definition of MLV without

too much prescriptive legislation and how to

implement it, leaving that discretion to the

valuer. We are not there yet, but The European

Group of Valuers’ Associations (TEGoVA) is

leading the change in that direction.

So it ’s all change for our traditional areas

of professional work and at least we have the

chance to influence the shape of our destiny.

In Europe we are using TEGoVA as the

conduit to get the most practical solution to

the European issues and for the rest, when

a UK government does a review, we should

at least respond with what we want, even if

cynically some believe our destiny is sorted

by the time we are consulted.

Maybe someone would be brave enough

to suggest a council tax revaluation? Now that

would be radical! Trouble is, I doubt the Daily

Mail would ever agree to such a proposal!

“ The government, seeking that level of yield from a single tax, will inevitably put the tax under pressure, both in terms of perceived fairness and the fear of stifling business activity.”

Viewpoint

...and Roger Messenger has some views on the way forward

Wilks Head & Eve’s Roger Messenger BSc

FRICS FIRRV MCIArb REV Hon CAAV RICS REV is

a Past President of the IRRV and past Chairman

and current Vice Chairman of The European

Group of Valuers’ Associations (TEGoVA)

PEOPLE AT OUR CORE

If your review services rely on risk-based verification you may be missing valuable results.

Our evidence-based approach is more accurate and lower impact because it avoids making predictions based on information about past events or circumstances, which can be unreliable.

To save you time and achieve the best results, we:

• Match your data with evidence compiled from multiple sources, live at the point of review.

• Identify exactly where your records need to be assessed.

• Deliver carefully designed processes that you control usingexperienced revenuesandbenefitsspecialists that operate as a natural extension to your team.

This is how we have been able to increase our customers’ non-domestic rated properties by an average of 1% and significantly reduce fraud and error in both Council Tax Reduction and Housing Benefits.

The evidence is in our results.

Call Jaya on 020 7378 3799jaya.ryall@capacitygrid.comcapacitygrid.com

Higher accuracy, less work, lower cost and minimal impact on your team...

Target using evidence not just risk

Fraud & Error Reviews