Report of the Deputy Chief Executive and City Treasurer.

This report provides an update on the activity of the Revenues and Benefits Unit as set out in the March 2023 Scrutiny Report, including final details of recently completed Covid schemes and ongoing cost of living schemes delivered by the service.

The committee considered a report of the Deputy Chief Executive and City Treasurer which provided an update on the activity of the Revenues and Benefits Unit since March 2023, including final details of recently completed Covid schemes and ongoing cost of living schemes delivered by the service.

Key points and themes within the report included:

• Benefits administration, including Council Tax Support and the management of the Welfare Provision Scheme and other discretionary schemes;
• The financial support provided by the Household Support Fund scheme;
• The financial support provided by the Council Tax Support Fund;
• The financial support provided by the Energy Bills Support Scheme Alternative Funding programme;
• The financial support provided by the Alternative Fuel Payment Alternative Funding scheme;
• Performance in the collection of council tax and how we balance collection, whilst working in an ethical way and supporting those residents on a low income; and
• Performance in the collection of business rates in the 2022/23 financial year and between 1 April and 31 July of the 2023/24 financial year.

Key points and queries that arose from the committee’s discussions included:

• Welcoming the report;
• Querying whether any extra and more innovative communications could be used to highlight the support available and to reiterate that contacting the Council would not have a detrimental impact on a resident’s case;
• Suggesting that Appendix 4 could be shared with members and advice agencies for distribution in their communities;
• The purpose of passing cases with a debt less than £150 to Enforcement Agents given that these cases are returned without an in-person visit;
• Whether there was a legal requirement to ask residents to pay their entire council tax bill in full if they missed one payment;
• How effective the Council was in receiving council tax debts in cases passed to Enforcement Agents;
• How a holistic approach was undertaken;
• Noting that Enforcement Agents were not used in 1 in 7 cases where a resident was vulnerable and/or qualified for CTSS and querying why this could not be rolled out fully;
• Noting the low take-up level of the Energy Bill Support Scheme Alternative Funding;
• The real cost to residents of using Enforcement Agents; and
• Whether the Council was currently involved in any government pilot schemes.

The Head of Revenues, Benefits and Customer Services explained that the report set out the significant work undertaken by the Revenues and Benefits Unit since the last update to the committee in March 2023 and detailed the continued delivery of core functions and services and the role played in providing critical financial support to residents and businesses through local and government grants and schemes. He stated that the Unit would continue to ensure that any available funding had the best impact for residents and communities.

In response to a question around effective communications, the Head of Revenues, Benefits and Customer Services stated that work was ongoing with colleagues in the Communications team to identify new ways to engage with residents. He advised that a working group had been established to undertake a review of council tax correspondence in response to representations by ACORN. It was also stated that there had been a significant reduction in call waiting times in recent months.

The Head of Corporate Revenues explained that cases with a debt less than £150 to were passed to Enforcement Agents in an attempt to recover the debt without Enforcement Agents needing to visit a property, and this minimised the fee charged to residents. This was an automated process with no cost incurred by the Council. In circumstances where this would not be possible, the case would be returned for the Council to identify alternative methods to recover the debt.

It was further explained that when a payment is missed, the resident would receive a reminder and would only be required to pay their council tax bill for the year in full if this reminder was ignored. It was reiterated that, if a resident contacted the Council to advise that they were unable to pay the missed payment, officers could implement a payment plan to spread the cost over the year.  A case would only be passed to Enforcement Agents if non-payment continued and a Liability Order was obtained from the Magistrates Court.  

In response to a question regarding the efficacy of using Enforcement Agents to collect money owed, the Head of Corporate Revenues stated that around 14% of cases passed to Enforcement Agents resulted in the recovery of money and he recognised that Manchester was a deprived area compared to areas where Enforcement Agents were likely to collect a higher level of money owed. He stated that these were cases where the ratepayer had not engaged with the Council and where the Council did not have additional information to support their case, or the recovery of money owed and so there was no alternative means to retrieve the debt.

With regards to the holistic approach taken by the Revenues and Benefits Unit, the committee was advised that officers identify the most appropriate method for recovery based on the information they have. The Head of Corporate Revenues explained that the Council’s role was to maximise the collection of council tax which required implementing sustainable arrangements. He stated that there were flexibilities to make it easier for residents to pay their council tax, such as providing breathing spaces and improving access to the Discretionary Council Tax Payment scheme.

The Head of Corporate Revenues advised that Enforcement Agents were not used to collect missed payments where the ratepayer is on the maximum level of CTS. These residents would be sent reminders to pay but were not issued with a summons and were not pursued further if payments continued to be missed.

In response to a query regarding the low take-up level of the Energy Bill Support Scheme, the Head of Corporate Assessments stated that Manchester achieved the greatest level of spend through the Energy Bills Support Scheme Alternative Funding programme than other GM authorities which responded to officers’ enquiries. He stated that the Council had done all it could to communicate about and encourage take-up of the schemes. This was a government scheme for which Manchester was responsible for issuing payments to eligible applications received through the government portal. Other local authorities had advised that take-up of the Alternative Fuel Payment Alternative Funding scheme was higher in rural areas.

The Deputy Chief Executive and City Treasurer emphasised the need for the government to design funding schemes collaboratively with local authorities.

The committee was further advised that Enforcement Agent fees were prescribed by the government and that there were 3 basic charges which included a £75 fee for passing a case to Enforcement Agents to collect through phone calls and letters, a £235 fee for home visits and a £110 fee for the removal of goods from a property, although this was a rare occurrence. The Head of Corporate Revenues endeavoured to provide an addendum to the report to detail these charges further.

The Deputy Chief Executive and City Treasurer confirmed that the Council was involved in theGreater Manchester 100% of Business Rates pilot scheme, which allowed the Council to retain 99% of business rates growth over the baseline. This pilot scheme had been extended and discussions were underway with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) to extend by a further 10 years as part of the Devolution Trailblazer.

The Chair invited representatives from ACORN and Debt Justice to provide representations to the committee. They called on the committee to recommend that the Council ends the use of Enforcement Agents to collect council tax arrears and highlighted issues around mental health, the need for a more approachable method of collection and the importance of better engagement with residents. A representative of ACORN stated that the organisation agreed with the need to collect council tax to fund key services but expressed a need to be mindful of the human cost of using Enforcement Agents.

In response to these representations, officers stated that they could not comment on individual cases included in ACORN’s appendix but provided assurances that the Enforcement Agent sector had positively changed in the years since these cases. Members were also advised that Enforcement Agents would not be sent where a payment was two days late nor would a resident be taken to court without being informed. It was also stated that there were few complaints made regarding the conduct of Enforcement Agents and that thorough training was provided for those in the role.

The Executive Member for Finance and Resources commended the work and performance of the Revenues and Benefits Unit. He recognised the empathetic approach of officers in helping residents. He thanked the guests for their attendance and contributions. He explained that the use of Enforcement Agents had decreased in past years but that the Council would lose £2.3million if it ended this practice.

Decision:

That the committee

1. notes the report, and
2. requests that officers, in consultation with the Executive Member for Finance and Resources, undertake a feasibility study into ending the use of Enforcement Agents.