appendix 1 east london shared services …democracy.towerhamlets.gov.uk/documents/s10594/the...

APPENDIX 1 East London Shared Services Partnership The Business Case for Shared Bailiff Services

The Business Case, & Implementation Outline A Report by Simon Horsington and Associates November 2008 Version 2.0, Final

East London Shared Services Partnership: Shared Bailiff Service

Commercial and In Confidence ©Simon Horsington and Associates, 2008

2

Contents 1 Introduction and Overview........................................................................... 3

1.1 Background ............................................................................................... 3 1.2 This Document........................................................................................... 3

2 Underpinning Assumptions........................................................................... 5 2.1 Overview.................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Underpinning Assumptions ........................................................................ 5 2.3 Council Drivers for Change and Requirements .......................................... 9

3 The Business Case for Change .................................................................. 10 3.1 Introduction and Overview ....................................................................... 10 3.2 The Sequence of the Model ..................................................................... 12 3.3 Key Behaviours: The Final Model. ........................................................... 12 3.4 Part 1: Collection and Performance Baseline ........................................... 13 3.5 Part 2: Collection Performance ................................................................ 14 3.6 Part 3: Cost of change ............................................................................. 14 3.7 Part 4: Cost of Joint Service..................................................................... 14 3.8 Part 5: Modelling Fee Income .................................................................. 16 3.9 Achieving the Full Potential of the Model ................................................. 17 3.10 Business Case: Summary Propositions ................................................... 18

4 Operational Matters ..................................................................................... 19 4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 19 4.2 Legal Framework ..................................................................................... 19 4.3 Risk and Mitigation................................................................................... 20 4.4 Decision Making Matrix............................................................................ 20

5 Recommendations ....................................................................................... 22

Appendix 1: Communications Protocols .......................................................... 23



3

1 Introduction and Overview 1.1 Background The East London Group of four Councils have now been co-operating on the development of public sector owned Shared Services for 18 months. As the Councils plan for further developments that are to be operational for April 2009, the Councils have commissioned this Business Case to determine the financial basis for the implementation of a shared Bailiff service. As the Business Case has been completed, we have determined that it is, in key regards different from the two other Business Cases which have so far been prepared. The three may be considered as follows:

• The Business Case for shared Rates (completed by Havering and Barking and Dagenham) is characterised by the need to profile and share costs;

• The Business Case for offsite resilience is characterised by the need to demonstrate savings within a procurement exercise; and

• In the Business Case for shared Bailiff Services it has been necessary to not only profile costs, but also to profile income streams.

The profiling of the costs and income streams within the business case has also been characterised by:

• The need to develop and approach which potentially meets the needs of all four Council partners, recognising that different Councils have different requirements, and motivations for considering this Shared Service; and

• That Councils currently using private sector Bailiffs enjoy the usual “free” bailiff service, which is financed by the private sector entirely by fee recovery from the debtor;

• Consequently, all Councils must be able to demonstrate that the Shared Service will be achieved at no additional cost, and will demonstrate savings from the first year; and

• The volume, and quality of the debt profile that each Council puts into the Shared Service will have a direct relationship with the potential yield and rewards which are derived.

1.2 This Document This document is set out under the following subsequent section headings:

Section 2 - Underpinning Assumptions; Section 3 - The Business Case for Change;



4

Section 4 - Risk; Section 5- Operational Matters; Section 6 - Next Steps; Section 7 - Recommendations and Conclusions.



5

2 Underpinning Assumptions 2.1 Overview The Business Case has been developed with a number of assumptions and caveats which are detailed within this section, before in section 3 below the business case itself is considered. 2.2 Underpinning Assumptions The underpinning assumptions are explained in this section. 1. Cost profiling The Business Case is completed with the following underpinning assumptions:

• All costs within the modelling for the whole five year business case are using 2007/8 budget costs. This is to allow true, like for like comparison of costs and savings.

• No inflationary allowance has been applied to the cost benefit model.

• The approach taken to the cost base of each Council’s service is underpinned by the “Zero based” approach, and unless there is a clear basis for inclusion and comparison, costs have been left out. This means that the costs of the service (and of the business modelling) are based upon:

o Staff costs; o ICT costs o Supplies and services costs; and hopefully, o Accommodation.

• Other internal recharges which do not allow comparison have been omitted from the modelling, including recharges for financial support, HR support, and for internal management overheads.

• Unlike the business model for the Shared Rates service, which was possible to develop based upon savings in costs, as two of the Council partners are currently using external bailiffs (at no cost) the savings derived are based upon income levels derived, from the first instance, from the collection of enforcement fees.

2. Income Profiling One of the key principles that has enabled the successful development of the Business Model is the identification of, and the separation of the two different income streams that are available within the Shared Service. This approach allows for the separation of and individual profiling of, firstly, fee income, and secondly increased tax yield from both Council Tax and sundry income. These are, together, the key financial income inputs to the business model.



6

The completion of the assignment over the summer of 2008 has also revealed that it would be inappropriate to include increased yield from Business Rates within the model. The reasons for this are firstly, that the Business Rate is, in contrast to those income streams included in the model, not the Council’s to spend, as the Rate is collected on behalf of the Government. In order for the increased collection of Business Rate to be a financial benefit to each Council, the financial advantage in cashflow terms between the collection of the Rate, and the payment of that tax to the Government would have to be examined. As each Council performs well in Business Rates collection terms, it is unlikely that significant advantages in cashflow terms for Rates could be argued. 3. Operational Behaviours Operationally, we have suggested that the work of the Shared team should be characterised by the following behaviours:

• The extent to which the use of a “two centre” model is appropriate, to hardwire into the proposition:

o Tower Hamlets and Havering’s’ experience of managing and administering Bailiffs; and

o Explore the extent to which we can access the project management experience and toolkit of Havering

• That notwithstanding the “two centre” approach, a single line manager is responsible for both;

• Managing the Service: o Regular, planned rotation of work areas, to mitigate against individual staff familiarity with caseload, and the regular client base;

o In so doing, to take steps to mitigate against irregularity, and against weak decision-making or enforcement because of inappropriate factors;

o The use of regular, planned and co-ordinated audit amongst the partners, and to ensure and demonstrate financial proprietary and Best Practice.

4. The Member Decision Process Discussions have been completed with each Council’s Democratic Services teams, and it would appear that the process for decision making is summarised as follows:



7

LBBD LBH LBN LBTH

1. Internal briefing of Directors, etc

From 16th September onwards

2. Forward look list 17/10 17/10 TBA, Nov TBA, Nov 3. Internal Member pre-approval process

n/a n/a n/a TBA, Nov

4. Finish Business Case and signed off by all partners

31/10 31/10 31/10 31/10

5. Internal sign-off process by HR, Finance and Legal departments, or similar)

31/10 TBA TBA, Nov TBA, Nov

6. Final reports to Legal or Democratic services

12/11 24/11 TBA, Dec TBA, Dec

7. Leader Briefing n/a 3/12 n/a n/a 8. Committee meeting date and name of meeting

16/12 Executive

17/12 Cabinet

Jan Mayoral Procedures

Jan Cabinet

9. Final Approval (LBBD only)

January Assembly

n/a n/a n/a

Notes: • LBN: Two options are present, either Cabinet, or Mayoral Procedures meeting. On first pass, it is thought that the mayoral procedures meeting will be appropriate.

• LBH: Will attempt this time to avoid a further “Form A” process after the Autumn decision round. Further liaison in the autumn with Head of Legal and separately with Head of Finance.

• Tower Hamlets: New internal process means that either CMT or LAB or both may come before the formal Committee process. Key to which applies is the Director discussion. If applicable, lead in time is 6 weeks.

• LBBD: Needs to go to both Executive and also to Assembly. Summary of contact points for Democratic Services:

• Barking and Dagenham: Sola Odusina; • Havering: Ian Buckmaster; • Newham: Barry Ray; and • Tower Hamlets: Angus Taylor



8

5. Project Management The two centre approach will allow the Councils to develop an effective implementation process, and which includes the project management “toolkit” and expertise of the London Borough of Havering.



9

2.3 Council Drivers for Change and Requirements One of the matters that has come sharply into focus as the Business Case has been developed over the summer, is the extent to which there are different drivers for the consideration of this initiative, and the following table therefore suggest some of the key matters that we suggest are currently present for each Council partner.

LBBD LBH LBN LBTH Provides investment to make existing Bailiff function sustainable, and more effective

� � Fee income from Business Rates � � � �

Fee income from Council Tax from year 1

�

No net cost from year 1 � � � �

Increased Fee Income � � � �

Increased tax yield from Council Tax � �

Increased yield from General Income � � Protection from the possible “Up Front” fee � �



10

3 The Business Case for Change 3.1 Introduction and Overview This section should be considered together with section 2 above. The Business Case for change was finalised over the summer 2008, and in an active dialogue with all possible East London partners to the project. The methodology for finalising the assignment can be summarised:

• That onsite data and evidence has been gathered from each site, and to establish the service baselines for the financial modelling; and

• That at the East London Board completed in August 2008, an outline paper for the Business Case was presented, and to enable debate about that possible solution; and

• That subsequently to that joint meeting, individual site by site based meetings were completed to enable the determination of each site’s requirements, and to establish whether or not a joint proposition could be determined for mutual benefit.

Having worked through this process, it is very much within the Partnership’s grasp to establish such an approach. The approach that has now been designed, with the above information gathered is summarised:

• That the financial modelling of the Business case will fully account for the income streams to be derived from a joint service; together with the cost of change and the cost of the ongoing service; and

• In accordance with the assumptions at section 2, the income steams included within the modelling are:

o Fee income, derived from the enforcement of NNDR, and separately, from Council Tax; and

o Improvements in the collectable tax yield from the Council Tax; and

o Improvements in the collectable yield from General Income. o It is to be noted that the Business Model is not based upon potential improvements in the yield of Business Rates. Again, section 2 explains the reasons for this approach.

• The model that has, therefore been developed, is summarised: o That in the first year,:

� All activity will beat least cost neutral, and will be structured to achieve modest excess income over expenditure which will be demonstrated from year 1;



11

� That in service delivery terms, each Council will receive Shared Bailiff services for Business rates.

� On balance, this first year is about making sure that for no extra cost, that we continue to deliver services to all Council partners at the right levels and to the desired and agreed standards of service. This is not, in short, where we realise your full potential.

o That in years 2-4: � We begin to build the proposition. This will be characterised by:

� The extent to which we can maximise, but while still adhering to all agreed policy statements in relation to the recovery of fees, Fee enforcement income; and

� The extent to which, in this four year period, Council Tax collection rates in Barking and Dagenham and in Newham can be driven up to the Tower Hamlets benchmark; and

� The extent to which, for all four partners, increased general income collection may be achieved.

• The sums of money associated with the increased yield of Council Tax and general income are potentially very significant indeed. Increased tax and income yield is a direct benefit to the Councils, and is a meaningful, genuine, and credible reason for implementation. In summary:

o That the income to the Councils which is achieved from increased local taxation enforcement fee incomes deliberately separated from, and managed independently from, increased Tax and Income yield;

o That it is the fee income which feeds directly into the “excess income over expenditure” calculation to determine the Business Case, and therefore, that the core Businesses Case is NOT predicated upon the much larger prizes to be achieved from increased yield;

o In short, this means that the headline Business Case profiles more modest savings, rather than over-stretching initial targets;

o However, the increased maximisation of income for all partners is possible, and must be maintained in view.

o Two partners have potential to increase Council Tax yield, and we believe all four will have common potential to increase general income yields. In both cases, any increased yield in the collection of these incomes that can be



12

established, and maintained, is of direct benefit to the Council partners, in perpetuity. There is, in short, a direct “pound for pound” financial benefit.

3.2 The Sequence of the Model The overall Business Case for change is considered in a series of tables that are outlined at section 3.3 below. In addition to the “hard copy” format which is outlined here, we have also agreed with the Council that the series of spreadsheets which underpin these calculations will also be made available and deposited with the Council in Microsoft Excel format. The business case have been profiled over an initial five year period, and is subject to the caveats and assumptions explained elsewhere within this report.

• Part 1: Collection and performance Baseline (Tables 1a- 1c); • Part 2: Profiling collection performance (Table 2); • Part 3: Cost of Change (Table 3); • Part 4: Cost of Shared Service (Table 4) • Part 5: Business case for change (Table 5)

3.3 Key Behaviours: The Final Model. Within the final version of the model, the key variables which are used to profile the relationship between workload throughput and excess income over expenditure are:

• The percentage applied to the overall Bailiff referral debt, and which derives each Council’s overall fee income; and

• The total volume of liability orders; and • The costs of the service.

Final amendments made to the model, in theses areas are: • The charging structure for the sharing out of the costs of the service is now based upon the workload throughput, calculated by the share of the total number of liability orders processed;.

• Costs of service have been amended to match the Service directly to the needs of enforcement of Business Rates only, and to include higher ICT costs to enable the implementation of the specialist ICT enforcement application; and

• Set-up costs of £69,000 will be shared equally between the three partner Councils that will use the Service in year 1.

Behaviours this encourages: • Fee Income retained: Means that each Council is incentivised to push good quality material into the model, and to derive direct financial reward that is in proportion to fee income raised and throughput; and



13

• Share of costs based upon volume of LO’s: encourages Councils to put instructions into the model and which are capable of enforcement.

3.4 Part 1: Collection and Performance Baseline Tables 1a to 1c explain the current performance of the Council partners for Local Taxation income and for sundry income. It should be noted that while direct comparisons are possible for local taxation, significant differences are present in the sundry income figures. Firstly, table 1a below shows for each Council the value of NNDR debit managed through the Bailiff process, together with the cash collected, and for Havering and Tower Hamlets, the fee income achieved. It should be noted that all Councils experienced some difficulty extracting this information from the ICT solutions, and improved control of income and pee performance management will be expected within a Shared Service. Table 1a: Performance and Fee Income, NNDR Tower Hamlets Havering Newham LBBD Total Bailiff Value 4,226,181 1,577,576 3,321,838 517,004 9,642,599 Cash Collected 2,188,458 1,238,425 1,314,820 290,000 5,031,703 Collection Performance 51.78% 78.50% 39.58% 56.09% fees 120,000 92225 0 0 212,225 Fees Performance 5.48% 7.45% 0.00% 0.00% No instructions to Bailiff 1706 873 1077 0 3656 Share of workload 46.66% 23.88% 29.46% 0.00% 100.00% Table 1b below shows for each Council the value of Council Tax debit managed through the Bailiff process, together with the cash collected, and for Havering and Tower Hamlets, the fee income achieved Table 1b: Performance and Fee Income, Council Tax

Tower Hamlets Havering Newham LBBD Total

Bailiff Value 8720467 2595434 10144726 5296827 26757454 Cash Collected 2877754 884297 1687011 1186036 6635098 Performance 33.00% 34.07% 16.63% 22.39% fees 0 85081 0 0 85081 Fees Performance 0.00% 9.62% 0.00% 0.00% Table 1c below profiles the increased fee income which can be projected from the 2007/8 Bailiff instruction caseload, and assuming increased performance through investment in new ICT and Management. Table 1c: Projected Fee Income, NNDR Tower Hamlets Havering Newham LBBD Total



14

Bailiff Value 4,226,181 1,577,576 3,321,838 517,004 9,642,599 Cash Collected 2,188,458 1,238,425 1,314,820 290,000 5,031,703 Fees Performance 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% fees 175,077 99,074 105,186 23,200 402,536 3.5 Part 2: Collection Performance Within this group of tables, the necessary preparations to consider the impact of increased taxation yield are considered. The base information for collection performance is as published through the returns made by each Council to the DCLG for local tax, and based upon each Councils explanation of sundry income collection. Table 2 below explains the current performance for each Council against published DCLG returns. Table 2: Collection Performance, 2007/8 Council Tax NNDR Debit Total Cash % Debit Total Cash % Tower Hamlets 66,293,000 62,783,000 94.71% 262,077,000 261,112,000 99.63% Barking and Dagenham 48,649,000 45026000 92.55% 44,681,000 44,308,000 99.17% Havering 111,434,000 108057000 96.97% 61,742,000 60,882,000 98.61% Newham 61,968,000 56542000 91.24% 69,506,000 68,914,000 99.15% 3.6 Part 3: Cost of change The approach that has been taken to the possible cost of change is a cautious one, and in which high allowance has been made for possible costs that may be incurred within the set-up of the project. Should it in fact be the case that less cost is incurred within the implementation of the project, then clearly the financial benefits derived are directly increased accordingly. Table 3: Cost of change Annual Cost of Change Baseline ICT costs, oneoff 10000 Project management costs, Joint Service implementation 23000 Consultancy support 35000 Legal fees 1000 Total 69000 3.7 Part 4: Cost of Joint Service The cost base for change is based upon Council costs for 2007/8. We remind the Councils that as a key assumption to enable direct comparison and effective financial modelling, that the cost base before and after



15

change is modelled using 2007/8 costs only This device has been used in order that costs, and benefits of change may be compared like for like. That does NOT mean that all costs, staff included, are assumed to remain static over the course of the five year period, Clearly, and in real terms, costs will increase by an inflationary amount, including increases in the costs of staff on a year by year basis. The cost of the joint service is based upon a team of four Bailiffs, whom are supported by an improved management and administrative support structure. Table 4: Costs of Service, Business Rates Fee Income Service only Staff Manager 1 45000 45000 Team Leaders, x 2 0 40062 0 Bailiffs 4 32388 129552 Clerical/Office Staff 3 30000 90000 Sub total, staff 264552 Supplies and Services Vehicle fuel cost 5 2500 12500 Essential user allowances 5 1095 5475 Supplies and Services 10000 Certification process 5 670 3350 ICT 30000 61325 Total cost of service 325877



16

3.8 Part 5: Modelling Fee Income Finally, the next two tables profile the cost and benefits of the Shared Service, in table 5 below. Table 5: Five Year Business Case, Rates Fee Income Only LBTH LBH LBN LBBD Total

2009/10 Fee Income, NDR 175,077 99,074 105,186 0 Total Fee Income 175,077 99,074 105,186 0 379,336 Less cost of service 152,064 77,815 95,998 0 325,877 Net Excess/Benefit 23,013 21,259 9,187 0 53,459




2013/14 Fee Income, NDR 175,077 99,074 105,186 0 Total Fee Income 175,077 99,074 105,186 0 379,336 Less cost of service 152,064 77,815 95,998 0 325,877 Net Excess/Benefit 23,013 21,259 9,187 0 53,459 Total Benefit, five year case 267,296 Less cost of change 69,000 Net Benefit 198,296



17

3.9 Achieving the Full Potential of the Model The design of the Shared Bailiff Service has deliberately been constructed to enable lower risk, achievable service efficiencies in the initial implementation. The model therefore focuses on the yield to be derived from Business Rates fee income, and offsets calculated set-up costs against that yield only. At one level, and based only upon the declared yield from Business Rate fee income only, the returns from the model are modest. While the model certainly surpasses (as it must) the so-called “free” services provided by commercial bailiffs, the real potential of the service lies beyond the enforcement of Business Rates alone. Some Shared Services that the Partnership has been involved in cannot achieve further efficiency savings without expansion to other Council joiners. Business Rates is a good example in this regard. Those Shared Services in which service expansion (and therefore additional yield) is only possible by further joiners are unlikely to see that expansion in the first few years of their life. However, the Shared Bailiff service is different, in that further service expansion, and therefore financial gain is possible not through additional partners, but through the use of the Shared Service for different services. Once the Service is up and running, and as experience of the operational matters s gained in year 1, the partners can consider from year two which additional enforcement services are offered through the Shared Service, and to mutual benefit. In summary, we believe that the income yield of the Shared Bailiff Service can be maximised by:

• Using the service to generate additional income yield, and fee income, from the enforcement of Parking Income;

• Using the service to generate additional income yield for some Council partners, and that separately, fee income can be achieved for all partners from the enforcement of Council Tax; and

• Using the service to generate additional income yield for all partners from the collection of General Income.

Finally, the service might also minimise Council expenditure if published Government plans to re-invent the local taxation enforcement process with the use of the so-called upfront fee payable by Councils to private sector enforcement agents, and from which in house teams would be exempt. While it is clear that the potential yield from some of these initiatives would be potentially very significant, we do not believe this is the place to start. Rather, we commend that the Council Partners begin with lower impact changes to fee income from Business Rates before turning their attention to the possible maximisation of the model from year two onwards. We also recommend, in that regard, the use of the product and services framework that we have illustrated at section 5 below as practical



18

means by which each Council may remain fully in control of which services are managed within the Shared Service. 3.10 Business Case: Summary Propositions The approach that has been developed with the Partner Councils has been constructed carefully to respect the wishes, drivers for change and service and financial outcomes of all four possible partners. Tower Hamlets and Havering will require service continuity which delivers, in Tower Hamlets, collection services for General Income, and in Havering, enforcement of Council Tax. All four Council partners are interested in the collection of Business Rates through the Shared Bailiff Service. Barking and Dagenham and Newham have the potential for significant financial benefits is Council Tax collection can be increased, and sustained. There is the potential for all Councils to increase yield through effective Bailiff services applied to General Income, including Parking enforcement. This complex pattern of different possible requirements demands that the Shared Service is predicated upon a service level business model, in which each Council specifies which income streams will be the subject of enforcement action by the joint team. We return to the framework for that decision-making at section 5 below. The model must also deliver, for all Council partners, from year 1. It is with that requirement in mind that we have concluded that a two stage approach be recommended for the implementation of the Shared Bailiff service. In the first phase, all partners will implement the shared approach to Business Rates, and income to the Shared Service will be derived from the fee income achieved from enforcement of Business Rates. Once this experience has been achieved in year one, then the possible significant gains to be achieved form increased collection of Council Tax and from General Income can be planned, and achieved for those Councils that agree b to implement those service streams from year 2 onwards.



19

4 Operational Matters 4.1 Introduction This section discusses the key operational matters that are to be considered in the successful implementation of the shared Bailiffs service. 4.2 Legal Framework The approach that is proposed applies the model developed with Havering and Barking and Dagenham for the shared Business Rates service that has been successfully implemented from April 2008. That approach establishes a mutual partnership contract between both Councils, and under which agreed services are delivered between the partners Councils. This approach is recommended for the initial implementation of the shared Bailiff service. In so doing, the Council partners to the shared Bailiff service would, following the above model:

• Agree, through the service model developed at section 5.3 to this report, which services would be required and for which Councils;

• Determine the partnership agreement to be signed by each Council partner to the shared service;

• Determine the Councils that would deliver the service, and what each Council would pay for that service;

• Determine the service levels to be delivered, under a Service Level Agreement; and

• Finalise, agree and sign-off the completed partnership agreements and service level agreements.

In adopting this approach, the shared Bailiff service has the advantage of applying the successful service Governance model that has already been developed for the London Boroughs of Havering and Barking and Dagenham. The legal powers under which this approach has been developed are under Sections 101, 102, 103, 111 and 113 of the Local Government Act 1972 and Sections 19 and 20 of the Local Government Act 2000. In the longer term, and as possible expansion of the Shared Service is considered (through the development of other services to the partner Councils, or through the adoption of other Council partners) other models of governance maybe considered more appropriate. A particular model to be considered at a later date, is the extent to which (as opposed to the above public contracting model) the determination of an independent entity, wholly owned by the Council partners, may be more appropriate that the use of the Council itself.



20

4.3 Risk and Mitigation This section details the key risks that have been identified, and the proposed steps to mitigate those risks.

Risk Mitigation Commercial Bailiff suppliers will begin take steps to position themselves for opportunities arising from the potential initiative, and to protect their existing clients

Use of common communication approach, including the draft statement. Explain that possible opportunities for group Bailiff resilience will exist

Initial savings fro fee income will not be sufficient to justify Business Case

Identification and separation of the fee income from increased tax yield streams.

Council Partners have different drivers for change, and core requirements

Determination of what the different drivers are, clearly explaining key differences in positions, and making the operational service model flexible rather than prescriptive.

4.4 Decision Making Matrix The decisions which will need to be considered by each Council partner and to effectively determine the way in which the Shared Bailiff Service can be implemented, are summarised within the following table. This matrix provides, effectively, a Shared Service “Product and Service “matrix with which each potential Council customer can consider which service may, or may not be considered apart of the offering. Effectively, and within the table, the services of realising fee income from tax streams are separated from the service of increased tax and income yield. This is because the service behaviours to deliver either service will be different; collecting fee income as result if effective enforcement action will require a set of operational enforcement actions. Responsibility for enabling effective and increased overall; tax yield will require in addition to that, different behaviours, including effective feedback of problems, and the ownership of, and correction of system blockages. In advance of each Council’s further consideration of this service options framework, we have populated the framework with some possible service delivery selections on each Council’s behalf.

LBBD LBH LBN LBTH Service Delivery Options, 2009/10



21

Business Rates Enforcement � � � � Council Tax Enforcement Sundry Income Collection Service Delivery Options, 2010/11 Business Rates Enforcement � � � � Council Tax Enforcement Parking Charge Enforcement Sundry Income Collection Improved Council Tax Collection Service Delivery Options 2010/11 Business Rates Enforcement � � � � Council Tax Enforcement Parking Charge Enforcement Sundry Income Collection Improved Council Tax Collection



22

5 Recommendations It is recommended that the Bailiffs Shared Service be taken forward within the following framework.

• That the final Business Case, and the methodology for developing the joint service is agreed;

• That the use of the Shared Bailiff service for Business Rates from April 2009 is agreed;

• That the governance of the Service through the systems and models developed for the London Boroughs of Havering and Barking and Dagenham for the Shared Rates Service are agreed; and

• That each Council signs-off the authorisation for this project through the appropriate Council committee process.



23

Appendix 1: Communications Protocols



24

Communication Protocols: Shared Bailiff Service As the Partnership begins to consider the possibly implementation of Shared Bailiff services, and with several commercial Bailiffs active in the East End, this note sets out some suggested principles for the common management of communications and messages. Some private companies have already been in touch with some of the partner Councils. This note therefore sets out some common elements of communications.

“ The East London Group of four Councils is exploring ways in which effective approaches to Shared Services can be delivered. Our work means that we are now at the leading edge of Shared Services in Revenues and Benefits. Our track record of success over the last 18 months has seen the development of effective approaches to shared service design, and the first implementation of a genuinely Co-owned public sector Shared Service which went live earlier this year with the implementation of the Shared Rates service for Havering and Barking and Dagenham. The four East London Councils are now exploring the next round of developments, and services under consideration include the implementation of a Shared Bailiff Service. During the Autumn 2008, the final strategy for enforcement services will become clear. When we are in a position to explain clearly what we have determined for the future, we will be in touch. In the meantime, it is worth bearing in mind that while we want to examine ways in which shared Bailiff services can be implemented, we are also considering ways in which public sector ownership can be managed together with successful partnership with the private sector to support effective bailiff services in the East End.”

Name Head of Service London Borough of XX

appendix 1 east london shared services …democracy.towerhamlets.gov.uk/documents/s10594/the...

Documents