Agenda item

Report of the Head of Customer Services

The Strategic Director of Housing and Customer Services presented the report to Members.

Councillor V Richichi asked if income was lost regularly due to the arrears of vulnerable customers. The Strategic Director of Housing and Customer Services reported that the collection rate was approximately 97.5 percent, which indicated that the vast majority of customers did pay their council tax.  Each case that involved a vulnerable customer in arrears would be assessed to determine the best plan of action.  Vulnerable customers in this situation were often given longer timeframes to make repayments before any further action was taken.  He assured Members that enforcement agencies were only used as a last resort in all cases.

Councillor A C Saffell entered the meeting at this point in the discussions.

Councillor T Eynon raised concerns regarding recommendation 2 of the report.  She felt it was difficult to agree that the council’s use of enforcement agents was proportionate and reasonable without any accompanying data.  She asked for the following information:

-     The percentage of people in arrears that were classed as vulnerable.

-     The percentage of people that were in arrears with no further action taken as yet, who had been assessed for vulnerability.

-     The percentage of people in arrears that received Universal Credit.

Councillor T Eynon was also aware of other authorities that allowed arrears to be carried forward into the new financial year, and instead of using enforcement to collect money owed, they put rigid payment plans in place for a longer period.  The Strategic Director of Housing and Customer Services responded that he was happy to look into this method of dealing with arrears and would provide the information requested to Councillor T Eynon outside of the meeting.  He informed Members that the Council’s current working practises were not out of balance with what other authorities did.  Councillor T Eynon requested that the report be brought back to the committee to include further details, plus the information that was provided to the Revenues and Benefits Joint Committee in January regarding the Money Advice Service Creditor Toolkit.

The Chairman proposed that the Strategic Director of Housing and Customer Services provide the information as requested outside of the meeting and if Councillor T Eynon still felt that it should be brought back for consideration at Committee, then arrangements could be made for it to go onto the work programme.  Councillor T Eynon did not agree as she felt the whole committee should consider the information for effective scrutiny.  The Strategic Director of Housing and Customer Services did not feel that any further data would add value to the report, especially as the initial issue with the (incorrect) comparison with Chesterfield Borough Council had been clarified.  Regarding the report coming back to committee, the Strategic Director of Housing and Customer Services explained that ultimately it was a decision for the Members when considering the current heavy work programme.

Councillor N Clarke raised concerns regarding the fees added to the debt once it was passed to the enforcement agents.  He felt that if the customers were already struggling to pay what was owed, the addition of fees would make matters worse.  The Strategic Director of Housing and Customer Services agreed to look at the issue further and report to Councillor N Clarke outside of the meeting.

In reference to the ‘six steps for local authorities’ recommendations from the Money Advice Trust, Councillor S Sheahan felt that the actions being taken by NWL were very woolly and he would like to see a public commitment made.  He asked for clarity on what was actually being done so that the groups could have a political impact.

The Strategic Director of Housing and Customer Services went through each step and clarified the authority’s’ position.

1.     Make a clear public commitment to reduce bailiffs over time – it was clarified that this was not something that would be committed to at this time, as it was important that the Council had all collection enforcement options at their disposal, and fulfil their statutory duty to maximise collection rates.

2.     Review signposting to free debt advice, including phone/online channels – it was clarified that this was something that was done already and was detailed within the report.

3.     Adopt the Financial Statement to objectively assess affordability – it was agreed that this step did need some further investigation and clarification.

4.     Put in place a formal policy covering residents in vulnerable circumstances – it was clarified that there was already a policy in place and it was applied.

5.     Exempt council tax support recipients from bailiff action - a commitment was not being made now, as there was a duty to maximise collections.  In addition, there was always a danger of having one rule for one and not for others.

6.     Sign the Council Tax Protocol and examine the Money Advice Service toolkit for working with debt advice agencies – It was clarified that there was an intention to sign the protocol.

Councillor S Sheahan agreed that it was important to protect the income but he believed there needed to be a more humane way to collect it.  He felt strongly that the Council should commit to reducing the use of bailiffs in the future as the process should be improved enough to not need them.  He did not believe that enough was being done to commit to the public.  The Strategic Director of Housing and Customer Services reiterated that there was no plan to make the commitment at the moment as it was a necessary part of the collection process and without it, there could be a detrimental impact on collection rates. If collection rates were to fall then there would be an impact on services elsewhere. 

Councillor V Richichi felt that taking a softer approach as suggested might end up costing the council more money due to officer time.  He felt strongly that as a statutory authority with a duty to collect council tax, bailiffs should be used as part of the process if required.

Councillor S Sheahan clarified that he was not implying that the income should not be collected.  He wanted the high collection rates to be maintained but wanted other options to be explored. 

The Chairman reminded Members that as detailed within the report, enforcement agencies were only used as a last resort.  Councillor S Sheahan felt that it would be helpful if a public statement was made to reflect this.

Councillor R Ashman felt that it would be a mistake to dismiss the use of enforcement agencies when it was necessary and therefore would not support a total exemption.  He understood that they were used in a small minority of cases and he believed it was important to have this enforcement option available.

It was moved by Councillor M Specht, seconded by Councillor V Richichi and

RESOLVED THAT:

a)     The Revenues and Benefits Partnership’s response to the recommendations made by the Money Advice Service in respect of the use of enforcement agent services for the non-payment of council tax and business rates be noted.

b)     The assurances from the Head of Customer Services that the Council’s use of enforcement agents is proportionate and reasonable be noted.