Agenda item

The Committee considered a report by The Assistant Director of Revenues and Benefits, which provided an update regarding the performance of the revenue and benefits service for the 2021/22 financial year.

During discussion, the principal points were noted:

·         One member expressed concern regarding the costs incurred by the local authority, when taking legal action against those residents who did not pay Council Tax.

·         Members queried whether local authority officers visited residents in-person to notify them of owed debt.

·         Members noted that the allocated Grant from central government amounted to £546k yet acknowledged that the local authority had only spent £411k. They queried whether this could be picked up by central government, who may seek to reduce this funding.

·         One member queried whether residents could fall into bad credit through court cases.

·         One member queried where debt would fall, should a resident owe monies to the local authority and pass away.

·         Members queried how the local authority’s collection rate of Council Tax compared with that of other neighbouring councils.

·         Members queried what percentage of the total energy tax rebate had been awarded and when officers expected rebates to be fully paid out to residents.

In response, The Assistant Director of Revenues and Benefits clarified that:

·         Residents were given warnings and presented with opportunities to communicate with the local authority before they were summoned to court. Recovery procedures were ultimately not too costly and recovery methods depended on the owed amount. Court and officer time costs were calculated to ensure there were no additional costs. Businesses generally respond at a higher rate than residents regarding their arrears.

·         Sufficient resources were not in place to allow for officers to make in-person visits to residents. The local authority relied on contact through letters.

·         The local authority always set out its full intended spending. The £546k sum had been inherited from the sovereign authorities prior to unitary reorganisation. Officers would continue to liaise with central government regarding required funding however, the government could potentially make a decision to reduce this amount.

·         The local authority did not issue County Court Judgements for debt (CCJs) and residents could not fall into bad credit, directly through dealings with North Northamptonshire Council through court. If bailiffs were also unable collect debt, they would return it to the local authority as ‘uncollectable’. 

·         In the event of death, owed money would pass on to the executor of the estate. If there was no estate, then the debt would be written off.

·         Compared with West Northamptonshire Council, North Northamptonshire Council’s collection rate of Council Tax was lower by 0.06%. The difference in collection rates was marginal.

·         The discretionary housing payment scheme funding did not apply to homeowners and was only made available to residents who rented their properties.

·         The local authority began to issue rebate payments on the 11th May to direct debit holders. 82,221 of these cases had been paid out. 8,000 cases had been mismatched, over 3,000 of which had since been reviewed and paid out. Letters had also been sent out to non-direct debit payers, to invite them to apply online for the rebate. At the time of meeting, the local authority had seen only a 50% return rate from residents, which was much lower than anticipated. North Northamptonshire Council had been allocated £20m for the £150 rebate - £13.3m of which had been paid out.

The Chairman of the Committee suggested that the local authority should issue a press release, to inform residents of their entitlement to rebate funding. The Executive Member assured the Committee that he would contact communications to advertise this information.

RESOLVED that: The Committee noted the report.