Agenda item

To follow.

The Committee received a cover report and an accompanying presentation which provided an update on how the Council dealt with Council Tax debt, including the use of Enforcement Agents, and what support the Council offered to alleviate debt. The report and presentation were set out in the additional report pack at pages 1-28. As Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services, Cllr Carlin gave a general introduction to the agenda item. The presentation was introduced by; Kari Manovitch, AD Customer Services; Andrew Mackie, Revenues Manger; and James Straw, Benefits Manager as set out in the additional report pack. Cllr Seema Chandwani, Cabinet Member for Resident Services & Tackling Inequality was also present for this agenda item, as part of her portfolio included the Council Tax Reduction Scheme and the Ethical Debt Policy. As part of the Ethical Debt Policy, the Council had a policy position that no one who was known to the Council as; being vulnerable or having mental health concerns, or known as being in receipt of Council Tax reduction benefit would be referred to an enforcement agent. The policy also put in place a number of changes around how the Council engaged with residents to prevent payment defaults and debt, as well as offer support to those who were struggling financially.

 The following arose as part of the discussion of this agenda item:

1. The Chair sought clarification on slide 9, around the extent to how many of the four pathways led to a person being referred to an enforcement agent. In response, the Committee was advised that those who were in receipt of Council Tax Reduction benefit would never be referred to an enforcement agent. The same applied to those who were known to Adult Social Care as being vulnerable. In the third pathway, for those who were flagged by the Council’s Pathway software as being potentially in financial hardship, they would be sent an additional letter offering dedicated help from the Council’s Financial support Team and extra time to pay. Officers clarified that if that person did not engage with the Council, then ultimately a decision would have be made as to whether to refer the case to an enforcement agent or not.
2. The Chair commented that the deputation had put forward the argument that enforcement agent referrals were concentrated in the most deprived areas. The Chair sought clarification about whether this was reflection of the fact that the Council was failing to reach the people it need to help, or whether it was the case that the Ethical Debt Policy was aimed at helping a minority of the most vulnerable, or whether the Council was saying that Acorn’s assertion was incorrect. In response, the Cabinet Member for Resident Services and Tackling Inequality acknowledged that it was a fair challenge and that the Council needed to keep using data to try and understand why referrals may be higher in a particular area. It was suggested that one possible factor may be do with population density and HMO prevalence in particular wards. The Cabinet Member advised that the starting point for the Ethical Debt Policy was to try and do a bit more to see if the organisation could connect with people and offer support before going down the enforcement route. The Cabinet Member advised that around 25k people in Haringey either didn’t pay all together or received a significant discount on their Council Tax. The Council had also invested in a Financial Support Team and income maximisation officers to work with people who may be struggling but were not eligible for CTRS. The Cabinet Member acknowledged that there would still be people who were not supported under the scheme and emphasised the importance of local residents getting in touch with the Council in order that the Council could try to support them.
3. The Committee questioned whether there was a way to exempt eligible people from going through the 65 day process at the beginning of the process, in order to avoid them receiving letters that they ultimately wouldn’t have to pay. In response, officers advised that a liability order was required in order for the Council to pursue its right to recover an outstanding debt. So, removing people earlier in the process could result in people being removed who would be eligible to pay and the Council would have no legal recourse to recover it. Officers advised that they wanted to offer as much support as possible and it was acknowledged that the Council was perhaps not contacting all eligible residents at an early stage. Officers acknowledged that they would look at how the CTRS and vulnerable resident cohorts could be exempted at an early stage in the process in order to reduce the worry and anxiety caused to them.
4. In response to a request for clarification, officers advised that the slide in question related to 1464 referrals in one month, December 2024.
5. The Committee requested the data for bailiff visits broken down by ward, and any additional information that could be provide such as broken down by the types of case or types of households visited. (Action: Andrew Mackie).
6. The Committee queried what support was on offer to the presumably significant numbers of people who were not eligible for help but were still struggling to pay. The Committee sought clarification about what would happen in this situation on the whole and whether the Council would proceed to prosecution in this circumstance. In response, the Cabinet Member for Residents Services & Tackling Inequality reiterated that because of the checks that had been brought in as part of the Ethical Debt Policy, 25k residents would never receive a visit from an enforcement agent. The Cabinet Member set out that this was an iterative process and that the next step was to look at what our definition of vulnerability should be in this context. The Council was using technology to try and give it some insight into who may need help, but the Cabinet Member acknowledged that the Council needed to be able to improve the amount of data it had on its residents in order to plug the gap, in terms of people that were undoubtedly vulnerable but were not know to us. It was commented that only information on Haringey residents who were known to Haringey Adults Social Services would be held. By way of an example, it was suggested that vulnerable adults placed in Haringey from another authority could conceivably still be referred to an enforcement agent. In relation to those who could not afford to pay, the Committee was advised that the previous government had brought in a piece of legislation that allowed qualified legal advisors to formally request breathing space from debts for the people they were advocating on behalf of. This breathing space was unlimited for those suffering with mental health issues and for six months for those that did not. It was noted that the Council had received a number of these applications and had no choice but to accept them.
7. The Committee sought assurances around the process for residents to get in touch if an error had been made and the extent to which these channels were properly monitored. In response, officers advised that there was a backlog in Council Tax over January and February, with additional temporary resources brought in to resolve it. Officers advised that cases that had outstanding correspondence wouldn’t get issued a summons, because there was something in the software that stopped it. There was also a further check for a liability order, where a case wouldn’t go to an enforcement agent if there was outstanding correspondence that the council had not dealt with.
8. The Committee sought clarification around what the process was when the bailiff was at someone’s door and what safeguards were in place for residents. In response, officers advised that the enforcement agent would knock on the door and identify themselves. They were not allowed to force entry at all. Enforcement agents abided by a set of standards set by the Enforcement Conduct Board, as well as the specification laid down by the Council, which included behaviours and when they should return cases to us. They were contracted to go by these standards. Officers set out that the Enforcement Conduct Board would investigate all complaints.
9. In response, the Committee queried how would a resident know how to complain and whether the organisation advertised this appropriately. In response officers advised that the process for complaining should be on the paperwork that was handed over to the resident. The Cabinet Member for Resident Services & Tackling Inequality acknowledged the point and commented that she was happy to accede to the deputation request that information about how to complain should be put on the website. Cllr Chandwani also agreed to look at the letters that were sent out in order to make sure the process for making a complaint was really clear. (Action: Cllr Chandwani).
10. The Committee also sought assurances around contacting the financial support team, given wider concerns about it being difficult to contact the Council and the length of call waiting times. In response, the Cabinet Member for Resident Services and Tackling Inequality advised that the financial support team were separate to Council Tax queries and they had separate telephone lines. The Cabinet Member advised that to her knowledge there weren’t a lot of complaints about call response times to this line and the calls were generally answered pretty quickly. The Cabinet Member acknowledged concerns about call waiting times for other services in the Council and offered to comeback and discuss how to improve these more generally.
11. The Committee sought an example of a typical case where someone would legitimately receive a visit from an enforcement agent. In response, the Cabinet Member for Finance & Corporate Services referred to one of the examples put forward as part of the deputation. It was explained that in this case there was a shared household with a joint tenancy, the tenants were paying the Council Tax to a nominated lead tenant. That lead tenant failed to pay Council Tax and ignored all of the letters that were sent to them. This resulted in the case being referred to an enforcement agency. The Cabinet Member advised that following an exercise of using Pathway to undertake data checks, 17% of visits by an enforcement agent were found to be households who were in financial difficulty, but that had not been picked up by any of the other previous checks. In contrast, around 40% of households were found to be financially stable. 
12. In reference to a point made by the deputation party, The Cabinet Member for Finance & Corporate Services advised that a landlord was responsible for paying the Council Tax in an HMO where the rooms were let individually.
13. In response to a question about the case study in the papers, the Committee was advised that the household had a member of the family who was identified as being vulnerable by Adult Social Services and so they were never going to receive an enforcement visit. However, the salient point was around the fact that they had received a number of confusing letters, stating that they had a differing levels of entitlement.
14. The Committee queried whether support to residents from the Household Support Fund was still available and for how long it would be available. In response, the Cabinet Member for Resident Services and Tackling Inequality advised that all of the support mechanisms set out in the agenda papers were still available to residents, including the Household Support Fund, and would be for 2025-26. It was noted that the government had recently made an announcement about planning to reform the Household Support Fund, but that no further details had been made available at this stage.
15. The Committee requested a written response to in relation to further information on why the costs of bringing enforcement of Council Tax debt in-house were prohibitively high. (Action: Kari Manovitch/Cllr Carlin).
16. The Committee agreed to give some further consideration around further scrutiny of this issue, once it had received the further information it had requested in relation to a ward-by-ward breakdown and the financial case for saying that an in-house model was too expensive.
17. Officers advised that in relation to Hammersmith & Fulham, they did cease use of enforcement agents but that this resulted in a backlog of Council Tax arrears. Hammersmith and Fulham were now using private enforcement agents to collect outstanding Council Tax arrears from non-vulnerable residents. In relation to Southwark, officers advised that they had an in-house team that collected Council Tax arrears. These officers operated to the same standard as private companies. Southwark also used external enforcement agents to complement their in-house service, due to cost pressures on the in-house service.

RESOLVED

That the Committee noted the information contained in the cover report and presentation.