Report of the Deputy Chief Executive and City Treasurer attached

This report provides an update on the activity of the Revenues and Benefits Unit, including details of how the service was affected and maintained during the pandemic and includes performance data for the 2019/20 and 2020/21 financial years.

The Committee considered the report of the Deputy Chief Executive and City Treasurer, that provided an update on the activity of the Revenues and Benefits Unit, including details of how the service was affected and maintained during the pandemic.

Key points and themes in the report included:

• Benefits administration, including Council Tax Support and the management of the Welfare Provision Scheme as well as other discretionary schemes;
• The financial support provided as part of the Test and Trace 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 including the support that has been made to businesses during the pandemic.

Some of the key points that arose from the Committee’s discussions were:

• Welcoming the comprehensive report and recognising the positive contribution the service made to the residents of the city;
• Noting that 79% of applications to the Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) funding were successful, what alternative support was provided to those application that were not successful;
• Noting the increased pressures experienced by residents as a result of a reduction in Universal Credit and the freeze in Local Housing Allowance (LHA), was it anticipated that the LHA rate would increase;
• Was the budget allocated to deliver support to residents sufficient to meet the demand;
• Were the incidents of evictions increasing;
• Are there any figures available to indicate how many households were seeking to move to more affordable accommodation;
• What measures had been introduced through the Council Tax scheme to encourage owners of empty properties to bring them back into use;
• Was data available at a ward level that detailed the numbers of long term empty properties;
• Were officers confident that all residents that were eligible for Council Tax support during the pandemic had accessed this;
• What was the approach taken to the assessment of applications to the Welfare Provision Scheme;
• An explaining was sought as the to the changes in the reported figures of 4,331 children who received Free School Meals – Alternative Support during the Easter period and 6,709 for the autumn half-term;
• How had the findings of the Manchester Poverty Truth Commission been communicated to staff administrating support;
• With reference to Council Tax collection rates, how did Manchester compare to other cities; and
• What modelling was done to predict future Business Rates levels in the city;
• Was the Director confident that staff were capturing all of the larger families who were potentially eligible for support under our Council Tax Support Scheme, whose third and subsequent children were potentially not eligible for benefit support under national government criteria?

The Deputy Leader (Finance) said that the report represented and reflected the important work that the service provided to protect the most vulnerable residents across the city. She paid tribute to the staff working in the service who continue to strive to improve the outcomes for residents. She highlighted that this was in the context of continued austerity, cuts to Universal Credit and a freeze to the Local Housing Allowance. She gave reference to the Council having passed a motion deploring the cut to Universal Credit and said that Manchester would continue to lobby the Government on this issue. She said that despite the financial challenges placed on the city as a result of unfair funding settlements, Manchester had taken the decision to fund this discretionary scheme.

The Director of Customer Services and Transactions said that all staff assessing an application for a discretionary award took a holistic approach to the circumstances of the individual. She said that each case was treated on its own merits with the priority to keep people safe and to maintain the occupancy of their home. She stated that this could be complex and challenging and regrettably not all applications would be successful. She added that for those that were unsuccessful appropriate sign posting to alternative support was provided.

The Head of Corporate Assessments commented that a written decision notice would be issued following a DHP application and if an application had been refused the individual could request that decision was reviewed and the applicant had the opportunity to submit any additional supporting evidence to assist the decision maker. He commented that the decision to extend any existing DHP award during the pandemic without the need to reapply was a positive step, noting that as the lock down restrictions began to be lifted people would be invited to reapply, with the budget being used to support the most vulnerable residents and prevent homelessness. He described that systems had been established to support those residents at risk of being evicted from their property.

The Head of Corporate Assessments said that weekly reporting on the DHP budget was undertaken to understand the pressures and trends and to flag any concerns if necessary.

The Head of Corporate Assessments also said that following his previous experience when dealing with the with the Valuation Office Agency who determine Local Housing Allowance rates, he was not optimistic that the rates would be reassessed.

The Director of Customer Services and Transactions said that the service did not have the time or resources to be able to collate data on the numbers of households across the city wanting to move to more affordable housing at any one time.

The Director of Customer Services and Transactions explained that Officers and Members from the Council were involved in the recent Manchester Poverty Truth Commission that was published earlier this year. This included the commissioner role and to take part in a specific session on how the collection of council tax could be improved. She made reference to principles that had been agreed following this process and said that these had been shared across the service to reinforce the requirements of council staff to support and inform the dialogue that staff had with residents.

The Director of Customer Services and Transactions informed the Committee that having listened to the wishes and preferences of the management team at the Oasis Centre it had been agreed that access to four named individuals in the council tax back office had been given as a contact to deal with any enquiries and resolve issues brought up by the local community who visit the facility.

The Head of Corporate Revenues advised the Members that the numbers of empty properties (empty for 2 years) had reduced from c1400 properties in 2013 to c400 currently. He stated that those properties empty for over ten years attracted a 400% Council Tax charge. He also said that they worked closely with colleagues in Strategic Housing with the intention to work with owners to bring properties back into use. In terms of empty property data at a ward level, he advised this could be provided to Members following the meeting.

The Director of Customer Services and Transactions addressed the comments regarding Council Tax collection rates by stating that compared to other cities Manchester’s performance was not as good in terms of in year collection rates, noting the particular challenges presented by the pandemic. She said it was important to understand why people on a limited income or benefits struggle to pay their arrears or were reluctant to engage on this issue. She said that the intention was to engage with people who have arrears, understand their particular circumstances and establish a realistic and sustainable repayment plan. The Head of Corporate Revenues commented that for those people who were working and earning a reasonable income yet refused to pay their Council Tax an attachment to earnings could be applied to recover debts.

The Head of Corporate Assessments advised that the take up of the Free School Meals – Alternative Support had been promoted by using the eligibility information retained by schools. He stated that as Universal Credit was administered by the DWP the Revenues and Benefits Unit no longer maintain a list of all those that were eligible, however by working with the schools the FSM offer was promoted and as knowledge of this scheme became known amongst families the uptake figures were seen to increase.

The Deputy Chief Executive and City Treasurer explained that he modelling for the predicted levels of Business Rates to be collected in future years was conducted by Finance Officers using a range of metrics. He also confirmed that the Service believed that they were capturing all relevant larger families for the Council Tax Support Scheme.

Decision

To note the report.