the beneﬁts phoenix rises - the irrv · e [email protected] design and advertising tregartha...

The Journal for members of the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation

March 2002ISSN 1361-1305£5.50

• Local taxation and the EU

• Getting to knowcollection

• Errors overcommittal

Turning up the heat -the benefits phoenix rises

Insight March 2002 20/2/02 9:27 AM

2 Insight March 2002

Director David Magor

Director’s Notes 2Inside News 3Case Law Corner 5From Here and There 6Around the Associations 8Viewpoint 9Education Corner 10June Exams Timetable 11Rating & Valuation / Letters 12Legal Update part 2 13International 17Benefits Conference 18Revenues Collection 20Legal Corner 22IT Roundup 23Benefits Bulletin 24IRRV Conferences & Meetings / Members 26Recruitment 27Performance Awards 28

Subscription enquiriesIRRV Publications Dept.41 Doughty StreetLondon WC1N 2LFT 020 7691 8975F 020 7831 2048E [email protected]

Design and AdvertisingTregartha Dinnie Ltd.2 Christchurch RoadTring, HertfordshireHP23 4EE

EditorialT 01992 505529F 01992 505547E [email protected]

AdvertisingT 01442 890000F 01442 891886

In this issue

The time for management

March 2002 issueISSN 1361-1305No. 4.08

Director’s Notes

Editor Kate Miller 01992 505529 Art director Sam Brierley Design Tregartha Dinnie 01442 892613 Advertising Caroline Jones 01442 890000

President Gary L Watson, IRRV.

Vice Presidents Tom M Dixon, BSc(Est. Man), FRICS, IRRV. Miss Carol A Cutler,IRRV Director David Magor, OBE, IRRV Council Mrs Kate Adams, IRRV,Simon D Bailey, IRRV. Peter S Coles, IRRV. Mrs Barbara Culverhouse, CPFA,IRRV. Mrs Suzanne C Dean, IRRV, CPFA. Pat K Doherty, IRRV, CPFA. GeoffreyFisher, FRICS (dip. Rating), IRRV. Richard J Guy, FRICS (dip. Rating), IRRV, MCIArb.Richard L Harbord, MPhil, CPFA, FCCA, IRRV, FIDP, FBIM, FRSA. Brian Hardy, LLB,

FRICS, IRRV. Simon Horsington, IRRV. Bruce G Jones FRICS, IRRV. Bill D Lovell,IRRV. Kerry Macdermott, IRRV. Roger G Messenger, BSc(Est. Man), FRICS, IRRV.

Miss Julie Miller, IRRV, Andy Milner, IRRV. Ms Jane Ratcliffe, IRRV. John CRoberts, IRRV. Eric Rose, FRICS, IRRV. Alan J Titheridge, CPFA, IRRV. Bob Trahern,IRRV. Allan Traynor, IRRV. Barry Wheeler, BA, IRRV. Nigel Woods, FRICS, IRRV.Roger W Young, IRRV.

EnquiriesDirectors Office 020 7691 8971Policy & Research 020 7691 8977Education 020 7691 8979Accounts 020 7691 8986Commercial Services 020 7691 8992

© IRRV 2002. Reproduction in whole or in part of any article is prohibited without priorwritten consent. The views expressed in this magazine do not necessarily representthe views of the Institute. Whilst all due care is taken regarding the accuracy ofinformation, no responsibility can be accepted for errors. Any advice given does notconstitute a legal opinion. Manuscripts and illustrations are welcome but on theunderstanding that the IRRV cannot be held liable for their safe custody or return.

No one would deny that management

and leadership skills should be given

a higher profile, at an increasingly

competitive time for practitioners in

all sectors.

I recently represented the Institute at

a seminar sponsored by the Council for

Excellence in Management and

Leadership (CEML) and the Property

Services National Training Organisation

(PSNTO). The event brought together the

chief executives and heads of education

from several professional bodies,

including the RICS and the Chartered

Institute of Housing. The day revealed a

broad consensus about the importance of

management and leadership training.

The need to develop management and

leadership skills has been recognised by

IRRV Council and is to form a key

part of the Institute’s education strategy.

As well as the new routes to Corporate

membership, the Education and

Membership Committee will develop

and launch a management diploma that

will enhance the range of assessment

opportunities available to members.

The intention is to enter into a partnership

with a leading university and provide a

portable qualification.

The development of management

skills was also a significant topic in

a seminar hosted by Work and Pensions

Minister Malcolm Wicks. It focused on

the need for structured housing benefit

training – one of the recommendations

of the Institute’s Committee of Inquiry

into benefits administration. The inquiry’s

recommendations continue to influence

the housing benefit agenda, as was

apparent at last month’s IRRV Benefits

Conference in Harrogate (see pg18).

The full report is now available and is

essential reading.

Local taxation proposals in the white

paper Strong Local Leadership – Quality

Public Services were the theme of a

meeting hosted by the DTLR as part of

the Institutes’ National Rating Conference.

Discussion centred on the difficulties

in devising transition schemes for both

business rates and council tax. There was

considerable concern at the requirement

for the business rate scheme to be self-

financing and to unwind by the time of

the next revaluation. The Institute will

be putting forward proposals for the

structure of the new scheme and

welcomes a debate on this issue in both

Insight and Valuer. Senior council

members will begin the debate over

the next few months – your contributions

would help the Institute formulate

its response.

Another key topic for future debate is

introduced in a new paper from the

Department of Work and Pensions (DWP)

entitled State Pension Credit – Implications

for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

I believe this change in the law,

together with the associated proposals

on tax credits, will test the resilience of

those working in housing and council tax

benefit. More detail will appear in Benefit

magazine and on the Institute’s web site

in the next few weeks.

The implications are explained in the

following extract from the DWP paper:

“There will be a significant impact on

local authorities. From 2003, there will

be new rules to learn and apply, with

associated training and guidance, and

software changes. There will also need to

be a conversion exercise for existing

standard cases, to apply the new rules.

And because of the new, more generous

rules, we expect an increase of around

7% in people entitled to housing benefit

and council tax benefit. There may also

be a short-term increase in unsuccessful

claims when pension credit starts”.

All this and the new performance

framework – life couldn’t be simpler for

benefits practitioners! ■

This change in the law…will test the resilience ofthose working in housingand council tax benefit to the full


Welsh Assembly seeks simpler council tax billsThe Welsh Assembly is consulting on

how to improve and simplify thepresentation of council tax bills, thequality and accessibility of theinformation that accompanies the billand the use of electronic billing. Thedeadline for responses is 22 March. Thereview also aims to find a way to clarifyaccountability for the council tax.

Any regulatory amendments resultingfrom the Welsh consultation exercise willbe made in time for 2003-04. In England,amending regulations should enablechanges to the face of the council tax billto take place in time for the 2002-03billing round ■www.wales.gov.uk

Insight March 2002 3

Inside News

Inside News

Scottish LocalGovernment Billbrings local tax reforms

The Local Government Bill, scheduled to be

introduced to the Scottish Parliament in spring

2002, will give local authorities a general power to

promote and improve the well-being of their area,

provide a statutory underpinning for community

planning through a duty on councils and key

community planning partners, and introduce a

statutory duty of best value.

The Bill also includes a number of measures

affecting local taxation:

➔ Amendment of section 62(2) (and associated

sections) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 to

remove references to the district valuer as valuer.

This is to achieve better value for money and

ensure compliance with the relevant procurement

legislation;

➔ Exemption from rates of farm buildings used for

machinery rings, contract and shared farming

enterprises;

➔ Rate relief for new farm diversification enterprises;

➔ Extension of rural rates relief scheme to include

pubs, garages and petrol stations, automatic teller

machines and small food shops;

➔ A permissive power for the joint collection of rent

and council tax.

Under the small business rates relief scheme,

measures will include:

➔ Relief for any business, with a rateable value up to

and including £10,000, that occupies only one

property;

➔ Relief of 50% for properties with rateable value of

less than £3000. The percentage of relief available

will be on a sliding scale – in five bandings – for

properties with higher rateable values up to and

including £10,000;

➔ A ‘buffer zone’ for properties with rateable values

greater than £10,000 and up to and including

£25,000, which means they will pay no

supplement on the poundage rate;

➔ A supplement on the poundage rate for those

properties that are not eligible for rate relief, and

whose rateable value does not fall within the

‘buffer zone’ ■

Guidance issued on council tax implementation

Code of practice on obtaininginformationThe Social Security Fraud Act 2001

introduced powers for authorised

Department for Work and Pensions

(DWP) and local authority officers to

obtain information from listed

organisations about their customers, in

order to help combat fraud against the

benefit system. Version one of the

code of practice on obtaining

information relating to benefit fraud

was published on 28 January. It is

intended for local authority officers

authorised by the chief executive or

principal finance officer under Section

110A of the Social Security

Administration Act 1992.

The code sets out how they should

exercise their powers ■

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications

/dwp/2002/fraud_act/index.htm

Reading BC – revenues and benefit services (report issued 24 January, judged fair [one star] with promising prospects for improvement).

Oxford City Council – local taxation and credit income (24 January, poor, uncertain prospects for improvement).

Bolton MBC – local taxation service (24 January, fair, will probably improve).

www.bestvalueinspections.gov.uk

Best value inspections

The DTLR council tax information letter 1/2002 provides a question and answer

section on the need to show percentage changes on – and include best value

performance plan summaries with – council tax demand notices. It gives advice on

the treatment of payments in euros; authorities are reminded that it is entirely a

matter for each of them to decide whether or not to accept payment for council tax

in a currency other than sterling. If euros are accepted, care needs to be taken to

ensure that the fluctuating pound/euro exchange rate does not result in

underpayments ■

http://www.local.dtlr.gov.uk/finance/ctax/ctil/ctil24.doc


IBS Open Revenues

The Revenues & BenefitsManagement Solution

for Modern Government • Web Enablement

• Integrated Workflow & DIP• Call Centres / CRM

• Executive Information• Best Value Initiatives

To find out more about the latestdevelopments to IBS Open Revenues,

please call Claire Edwards on 01635 550088 or contact [email protected]

Inside News


Inside News continued

Inside News is compiled by Moira Hepworth,

IRRV Policy and Research Projects Officer

Enforcement reviewreport greeted withdisappointmentThe Lord Chancellor’s Department report of the advisory group on

enforcement service delivery proposes little or no change to theenforcement process for at least five years – a stance that has beenmet by criticism from some bodies, including the Association of CivilEnforcement Agencies.

The report concludes that the mix of both public sector and privateenforcement should be maintained for at least five years as it is goodfor creditors. It did not at this stage recommend any radicalrestructuring, merging or privatisation of civil court enforcementwork. It also confirmed the enforcement review’s basic principlesthat information is the key to effective enforcement.

It proposed that the work currently done by sheriffs should, intime, be open to other enforcement agents, subject to their attainingthe necessary standards, qualifications and performance.

However the report added that all creditors – including localauthorities and magistrates’ courts committees – should have to payup-front fees in all enforcement cases, not just county and high courtenforcement. “We believe it is the expectation of work being done fornothing which has driven down standards... and has led to asituation where disreputable bailiffs rely on exploitation and themanipulation of the fees structure”, the report says.

Institute Director David Magor is quoted in the report as saying,“The only way forward is to ensure that the enforcement agent istreated like any other contractor and is given every opportunity todeliver quality services, with a client-provided specification that isnot solely based on price”.

Chris Tye, Secretary of Association of Civil Enforcement Agenciessaid: “We are deeply disappointed in the report. It proposes noradical change in jurisdictions for five years. We were hoping forsomething more speedy. The government had promised that therewould be no jurisdictional monopolies within the courts and we havenow got to wait five years”■

http://www.lcd.gov.uk/enforcement/enfadgp/warrep.htm

NNDR billing calculationfiguresNNDR figures for England and Wales from 1990 onwards (the

multiplier/poundage, RPI, AF factor and rates of interest) andfigures for Scotland from 2000 onwards are available athttp://www.local.dtlr.gov.uk /finance/busrats/usefulnn.doc. Thenational rate multiplier for England for the year beginning 1 April 2002has been provisionally set at 43.7 pence in the pound. For Wales thefigure is 43.3 pence and for Scotland the provisional rate poundage is47.8 pence ■



Case Law Corner

Case law cornerThe following cases have been provided byLawtel, the UK’s leading online legalinformation service. For more information or for a free trial call 020 7970 4818,e-mail [email protected] or visit www.lawtel.com.

R v S P BLISS (VALUATION

OFFICER, LONDON

WESTMINSTER GROUP

INLAND REVENUE), EX PARTE

CURZON BERKELEY LTD (2002)

QBD Administrative Court (James

Goudie QC) 19/12/2001

Any hereditament, including a

composite hereditament, had to

be in single rateable occupation

or ownership, and could not be

described in the non-domestic

rating list so as to embrace

different parts of the hereditament

that were in different ownership

or occupation, whether domestic

or non-domestic. A freeholder was

not the “relevant person” for the

purposes of s.66 (2C) Local

Government Finance Act 1988,

which contained a patent

drafting error.

Application by the claimant

ratepayer (Curzon), an operator of

self-contained serviced short-stay

apartments, to quash decisions of

the defendant valuation officer

(VO) on 20 March 2001 to vary

the non-domestic rating (NDR)

lists for the years 1995 and 2000

for buildings at 39 Hill Street

(No.39) and 56 Curzon Street

(No.56) in London.

Curzon was the freehold owner

of No.39 but the long leasehold

owner of No.56. Each building

consisted principally of residential

apartments of various sizes, some

of which were let to third parties

on long leases, with the

remainder being used by Curzon

in its business. Both kinds of

apartment were interspersed over

each of the floors of the two

buildings. Before the decisions

complained of, the only

hereditament shown on NDR lists

for either building was for

administrative offices at No.56.

The VO decided that non-

domestic rates should be paid by

Curzon for the apartments

retained by it and the NDR lists

were amended for each building,

describing them as composite

“serviced apartments and

premises”. Curzon challenged the

VO’s decisions on the grounds

that:

(i) the new descriptions were

invalid and incapable of being

cured; and

(ii) it was not the “relevant person”

in respect of No.39.

The VO contended that Curzon

was not entitled to relief on the

grounds that:

a) Curzon had an alternative

remedy available to it, namely an

appeal to the Lands Tribunal; and

b) delay, in that Curzon’s claim

form was issued more than four

months after the decisions

complained of.

HELD:

1. Any hereditament, including a

composite hereditament, had

to be in single rateable

occupation or ownership, and

could not be described in the

non-domestic rating list so as

to embrace different parts of

the hereditament that were

in different ownership or

occupation, whether domestic

or non-domestic.

2. It followed that the new

descriptions given by the VO

were incorrect. However, the

error was capable of remedy

pursuant to Reg.4A Non-

Domestic Rating (Alteration of

Lists and Appeals) Regulations

1993 SI 1993/291.

3. In its capacity as freeholder of

No.39, Curzon was not the

“relevant person” for the

purposes of s.66 2C) Local

Government Finance Act 1988.

The court was satisfied that

that section contained a patent

drafting error, in that words

should be implied into it such

that the “property in question”

was defined not only as “a

building” but also as “a self-

contained part of a building”.

Inco Europe v First Choice

Distribution (2000) 1 WLR 586

applied. It followed that

Curzon’s second ground of

challenge succeeded.

4. The Administrative Court,

and not the Lands Tribunal,

was the appropriate forum

for determining the legal

and constitutional issues

about whether or not words

should be implied into a

taxing statute.

5. Although there was no good

reason for Curzon’s delay,

because of the public interest

in the point decided in

Curzon’s favour, the delay did

not constitute a reason for

denying it the relief to which it

was entitled.

VO’s decisions about No.39

quashed.

LTL 15/1/2002

T HUMPHREYS-JONES

(T/A CATHEDRAL FRAMES)

v ANTHONY WELSBY

(VALUATION OFFICER) (2002)

Lands Tribunal (P R Francis)

21/3/2001

Although the subject shop

premises were in a separate mode

or category of use from some of

the comparables upon which the

respondent relied, the evidential

value of those comparables was

undiminished. However, it was

appropriate to make an end

allowance in respect of shared

toilet facilities.

LTL 8/1/2002 ■



From Here and There

The recent publication by the Local

Government Association (LGA) Managing

the Public Face of Inspections is an informative

and helpful document that helps to guide

local authorities through the media maze

following an inspection by any one of the

numerous inspectorates.

But I cannot agree with the advice given on

page 11 under the heading of “Putting your

case on the day”, which relates to the issue of

providing information to the media following

an inspection report. The LGA advice is that

local authorities should “try to resist the

temptation to criticise the inspectors or to use

excuses such as poor resources”.

It is clear that the object of the advice is to

persuade local authorities to be more positive

about the inspection process. I agree – but it

must be a two way process in which the

inspectorate plays its part. What is missing

from the document is advice on what local

authorities should do when inspectors are

simply wrong about the facts, or unfair in

their criticisms.

I know of a number of local authorities,

including my own, which have criticised the

inspectors for getting things wrong. Indeed, on

a number of occasions, inspectors have had

errors of fact pointed out to them but have

declined to make corrections. That is in part

a process issue but nonetheless it leaves the

local authority no alternative but to “criticise”

at least the inspection process, in order to

support its own officers.

Unfair criticism has a serious effect on

morale. Local authorities that believe the

inspector’s criticism is misplaced are, in my

view, honour bound to defend their staff.

If this is seen as criticising inspectors so be

it – they are, after all, big boys and girls.

On the question of “poor resources” being

an excuse, many councils make decisions

between services that sometimes result in

reduced resources for a particular service.

Where the failure to resource a service

improvement plan is predominantly a political

decision, there is no reason why the council

should not give that as a reason. It is certainly

not for inspectors, as paid officials, to criticise

the democratic process.

The paper implies that lack of resources can

never be a legitimate answer to criticism from

any outside inspectorate. Yet that surely

cannot be so, unless a local authority clearly

has the resources but is failing to make the

best use of them.

In spite of the above comments Managing

the Public Face of Inspections is a useful paper

and can be downloaded from the LGA website.

Does inspection achieve itsobjective?Some interesting reports published by the

National Bureau of Economic Research from

Cambridge, Massachusetts, on the question of

audit and inspection of public sector bodies in

the USA indicate that an audit and inspection

regime may not have the desired effects of

driving up standards. It may even have the

opposite effect.

According to the reports, external audit

and inspection, particularly of police,

immigration and tax administration, can lead

to bureaucrats changing their behaviour to

achieve the objectives of the inspection,

which in turn leads to risk avoidance,

inefficiency and a worse overall service to

the public.

Interestingly, for American based research,

the researchers dismiss private sector solutions

and suggest that trusting the professionals

may lead to more effective public services.

Code of practice on obtaininginformationThe Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)

will be issuing shortly a code of practice on

obtaining information under Section 109A of

the Administration Act, from persons set out in

Section 109B(2A). The code will set out how

authorised officers will exercise the powers.

It is also intended that the code may prove

useful to persons from whom information may

be required and to members of the public who

wish to know more about the powers.

The Administration Act powers are wide

ranging and should prove effective in the

fight against fraud; however, they are also

potentially contentious and must be used

wisely. Local authorities must ensure that

proper arrangements are in place for

authorising requests for information and fraud

officers must make themselves conversant

with the law and use it properly. This is not a

charter for obtaining information in a cavalier

manner. Some fraud officers did not always

use correctly the previous authority for

obtaining information.

The courage to criticiseCouncils should defend theirstaff when inspectors getstheir facts wrong, says Pat Doherty

“You’ll make a mistake if you think I’ll correct them”

“It has its critics”



From Here and There

Extending the Sol Prosecution Service Since the closure of the local authority

prosecutions pilot, there appears to be an

acceptance that the government’s Sol

Prosecutions Service should offer a legal

service to local authorities to prosecute

for housing and council tax benefit

fraud offences.

This could:

➔ Ensure that Sol Prosecutions’ judgement,

knowledge and expertise was maximised,

which could potentially increase

success rates;

➔ Provide uniformity in the application

of sanctions;

➔ Ensure a cost effective service to those

local authorities – principally the smaller

ones – which are not geared up to fund

their own legal teams and consequently

use high street solicitors – often with little

expertise of prosecuting benefit fraud;

➔ Assist the wider government agenda of

joint working, currently being developed

through the joint regional board structure.

Clearly the key to this proposal is adequate

resources. Since Sol regularly uses high street

solicitors to appear in court, is the service

resourced to undertake local authority work?

My own authority currently refers

approximately 25 cases per year for

prosecution to the police and other local

authorities are in a similar position. Allowing

for some regional variation, if 200 local

authorities took up the Sol option, a

conservative estimate of local authority cases

being referred for prosecution could be in

the region of 5000. This would represent

an increase of nearly 50% in the Sol

prosecution workload.

Funding of this initiative will need to be

thought out. There must be no top slicing of

the current incentive scheme, which could

work to the detriment of those local authorities

that currently have satisfactory arrangements

in place for undertaking prosecutions.

Many local authorities are already well

down the road to prosecuting for benefit

fraud. Handled in-house, the local authority

keeps control and ownership of the cases and

they are progressed to court in a relatively

short time scale. This is not the situation at

present with Sol. Local ownership enables

queries and requests for further information

to be directed to the correct source and

resolved reasonably quickly. I suspect that

local authorities which take the Sol route

will find themselves having to deal through

a third party.

This proposal is, in principle, a good idea

and should be explored as it may help some

local authorities to get into the prosecution

arena. But it must be adequately resourced

and those local authorities that already have

arrangements in place must not suffer as a

result of top slicing the present subsidy.

Statutory InstrumentsSI 2001/3910 The Non-Domestic Rating

Contributions (Wales) (Amendment)

Regulations 2001

Under Part II of Schedule 8 to the Local

Government Finance Act 1988 billing

authorities in Wales are required to pay

non-domestic rating contributions to the

National Assembly for Wales. Rules for the

calculation of those amounts are contained

in the Non-Domestic Rating Contributions

(Wales) Regulations 1992.

These Regulations amend those by

substituting a new percentage in paragraph

3(1)(b) of Schedule 1 (deductions from gross

amount), a new multiplier in paragraph 2(12)

of Schedule 2 (assumptions as to gross

amount) and a new Schedule 4 (adult

population figures).

SI 2001/3916 The Non-Domestic Rating

(Designation of Rural Areas) (England)

Order 2001

The Local Government Finance Act 1988

provides for mandatory relief from non-

domestic rates for public houses, petrol filling

stations, general stores, food stores and post

offices, and discretionary relief for

hereditaments used for purposes beneficial

to the local community, in certain rural

settlements in areas designated as rural areas

by order of the Secretary of State. This order

designates further areas in England only,

in addition to those designated by SI

1997/2792, SI 1998/393, SI 1998/2836

and SI 1999/3158. This order provides for

all of England outside of the local authority

areas listed in the Schedule and the urban

areas shown on the maps to be designated

as a rural area.

SI 2001/3944 The Non-Domestic Rating

Contributions (England) (Amendment)

Regulations 2001

Under Part II of Schedule 8 to the Local

Government Finance Act 1988, billing

authorities are required to pay non-domestic

rating contributions to the Secretary of State.

Payments in respect of a provisional amount

of the contributions are made during the

financial year, final calculations and any

adjustments of payments being made after the

year ends. These regulations amend the rules

for calculation of contributions contained in

the Non-Domestic Rating Contributions

(England) Regulations 1992, with effect from 1

April 2002.

SI 2001/4022 The Social Security

(Loss of Benefit) Regulations 2001

These regulations relate to restrictions in

payment of certain benefits which apply

where a person has been convicted of one

or more benefit offences in each of two

separate proceedings and one offence is

committed within three years of the

conviction for another such offence – the

“two strikes” proposal.

Part I contains provisions relating to citation,

commencement and interpretation. The

regulations come into force on 1 April 2002.

Parts II to IV relate to various social security

benefits. Part V makes provision regarding

reductions in housing benefit and council tax

benefit during the disqualification period or

the relevant period and when those benefits

remain payable during those periods. Part VII

amends the Social Security and Child Support

(Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999

(SI 1999/991) so that no appeal to the

tribunal lies on the ground that a conviction,

which led to the restriction, was erroneous.

SI 2002/117 (c. 2) The Social Security

Fraud Act 2001 (Commencement No. 3)

Order 2002

This Order provides for the coming into force

of section 3 of the Social Security Fraud Act

2001, which makes provision in relation to a

code of practice about the use of information

powers. Section 3 came in to force on

28 January 2002 ■

Pat Doherty is Deputy Director of Finance at Harrogate

Borough Council and a Past President, IRRV

“Funding of this initiative will need to be thought out.

There must be no top slicing”



IRRV Council member Suzanne Dean was delighted to present a

certificate of service to Chris Swain, long-standing officer and

former President of the East Midlands Association.

Starting out in local government as a tea boy with Derby City

Council in 1966, Chris became Chief Revenues Officer with South

Derbyshire District Council in 1974, later becoming Assistant

Treasurer (Revenue) and now holding the position of Head of

Revenue and Revenue Divisional Manager.

A member of the Institute for 35 years, Chris has twice been

President of the East Midlands Association, Secretary for six years

and Membership Officer for five years. He was presented with his

award to the strains of “The Best” by Tina Turner! ■

Metropolitan and HomeCountiesWednesday 20 March

Venue: Alliance House, Caxton

Street, SW1

Speaker: John Kruse

Topic: Use of county courts for

recovery

Northern CountiesTuesday 12 March

Venue: Crowtree Leisure Centre,

Sunderland

Speaker: Steve Chamberlain

Topic: Benefit fraud

South WesternThursday 21 March 5pm

Venue: Moorland Links

Hotel, Yelverton

AGM

Sussex and SurreyThursday 21 March AGM

Venue: The Barn, Horsham

Council Offices.

Speaker: David Magor

AGM

West MidlandsTuesday 19 March 6.30pm

Venue: Old Royal Public House,

Birmingham

AGM and quiz

12 Association Diary

Around the Associations

Honours in East Midlands

Top Technicians: Lee Anderson, President of the Lancashire and Cheshire Association, presented certificates to students who passed their Technician exams (left to right) –Caroline Cope from Macclesfield BC, Fleur Vickery of Rossendale CB Ltd and Paul Manning of Macclesfield BC, while Lee Phanco of Wigan MBC received a letter of credit.

The Lancashire and Cheshire Association’s revenues andbenefits weekend refresher course, which has been running

for well over 20 years, has again been a success. Held inBlackpool in January, the weekend attracted 60 delegates fromWales and the north west of England.

Delegates heard from John Giblin of the Benefit FraudInspectorate about the topical issues of fraud and inspections. At the close of the course, IRRV Director David Magor presentedcertificates to the delegates.

“The weekend is made possible by the efforts of the 15national and local speakers who give up their time to make thecourse a success”, said Lee Anderson, Lancashire and CheshireAssociation President ■

Refresher course is fresh as ever



FREEDOMIN THE AIRRichardHarbordwonders ifthe whitepaper signalsa return toindependentlocalgovernment

ViewpointAgainst my entire nature, I detect

an air of optimism in local

government. There are signs that

the controls of central government over

local authorities – which have steadily

increased over the years (and years!) that

I have been in local government – may

be receding.

The most significant change is that

surrounding capital expenditure. This has

been well prepared for by local

authorities and should lead to an era

where capital expenditure needs no

specific approvals. It all depends on the

code of practice drawn up on prudential

guidelines, which have been constructed

to ensure that local authorities can only

invest in capital expenditure if they can

afford to do so, depending on

calculations from local authority

accounts and balance sheets.

Other areas in the local government

white paper need to be worked up

before any judgement can be made

about their effect. In particular, there are

the proposals for a new performance

framework for local authorities. It is good

news that the number and diversity of

performance indicators is to be reduced

and consolidated. On the other hand, if

additional freedoms and flexibility are to

be given to those authorities who are put

in a category called ‘high performing’,

with less to those ‘striving’ or ‘coasting’,

then they need to be got right.

Performance indicators measure

performance in the delivery of services

and also, at a higher level, the overall

financial health and governance of an

authority. It is important that the correct

mix be found for the performance

framework and that the process be

transparent and open, so it can be seen

how these judgements are made.

There is some nervousness about the

comprehensive spending review and

changes to the standard spending

assessment system for 2003-04. In my

authority, this year’s budget has not

been too traumatic, especially after we

resolved our little difficulties over the

calculation of the area cost adjustment.

But I am aware that even within London

there will be quite a wide spread of

council tax increases.

The central argument around the white

paper is whether local authorities

continue in the role of agents of central

government, mere local administration,

or whether they can return to being real

local government.

The white paper contains a promise

to make fewer ring-fenced and targeted

grants, although I think certain

government departments will find this

difficult. There is also an end to capping

in any name or guise, which is

very welcome.

Regular readers will know that I am

not entirely convinced that it is possible

to produce a grant distribution system,

which is robust, simple and fair. The last

few years have been littered with failed

attempts. The white paper promises a

new system based on “trends of

spending need” rather than “historic

patterns of spending” and states that the

new system will be “more intelligible and

transparent”. We shall see.

The other area, which had some early

action, is council tax discounts and it

will be interesting to see if any

additional funds generated will be

available for general use or ring-fenced.

For all these reasons the air of

optimism remains – perhaps after a long

period of close regulation and control we

can look forward to a more independent

and exciting future. However, long

experience tells me that I will need to

see the detail of the grant and

performance framework before I

actually remove the cork from the

champagne bottle ■

“I will need to see the detail of the grant and

performance framework before I actually

remove the cork from the champagne bottle”

Richard Harbord is Managing Director

of Hammersmith and Fulham LBC

and a member of IRRV Council

Viewpoint



EDUCATION Education Corner

The draft revised syllabus was completed before

Christmas and circulated to members of the

Education and Membership Committee for

comments, as well as to a limited number of

examiners and subject specialists. Following

feedback, a revised version was circulated at the

beginning of February and was considered by the

syllabus review sub-committee in the second week of

February. As Insight went to press, final changes were

being made and the draft was put to the whole of

the Education Committee and Council at the February

meeting for approval, in principle.

The draft syllabus will now made available for

further general comment by members and full

details of the syllabus and consultation process will

appear on the Institute’s web site.

Since the review process commenced in October

we have attempted to ask for comments at all stages

of the process.

I am extremely grateful to all those people who

have replied – their contributions were very valuable.

Further details will appear in the next edition

of Insight ■

Syllabus reviewmoves forwardGood progress is being made with this important initiative,says Peter Brown

Peter Brown is Chair of the Syllabus

Review Sub-committee

Examinationsannouncements

Discretionary housing payments (DHPs). It is recognised that DHPs are not payments of housing benefit. Since, however, they are generally administered in conjunction with housing benefit, the Examining Board has decided that questions on DHPs may be set in housing and council tax benefitspapers from June 2002.

New Preston centreThe Manchester examination centre is no longer available. A new centre in Preston will operate from June 2002. This will be at the Sharoe Green Building,University of Central Lancashire. Full details will be sent to all candidates wishing to attend the centre ■

Distance learning dispatchExam results are out and a number

of you have already been in touch.

By the time you read this you may well

have your new modules and already be

studying for the next examination.

We wish you well and assure you of our

support at all times.

It is always good to get letters (or

e-mails these days) where you can tell

that the writer is obviously pleased and

excited by the achievement. However,

there are also those who have not done

so well and their disappointment is

equally as evident. Again, we can help

all who fall into this category. In almost

every case, no matter how dire you feel

the situation to be, we can assist. If you

need help and have not been in touch

yet – don’t delay, we’ll be pleased to

hear from you.

Have you checked out the new

website yet? Look it up at

www.dlc.newport.ac.uk. I know there

have been a few hits and I have been

directing people to it. Through the

website you can now get all the forms

you need to enrol for the next level,

directly into your own PC. But if there is

some difficulty with this electronic

access, just let me know and we can

revert to the old steam method and put

an information pack in the post. Any

suggestions or comments about the

website will be most welcome.

As Easter approaches we are gearing

up for the Caerleon revision week. There

will again be a Distance Learning Desk

in the UWCN Boardroom with someone

from DLC in attendance at most times.

This is one of the few opportunities that

we get to meet many of you, so please

come and introduce yourself. I can’t at

this stage promise any freebies but I am

working on it.

If you want to make sure of seeing

someone you can always make an

appointment in advance by contacting

the office in whatever way is most

convenient to you.

I hope that the studying is going well

and that you are enjoying what you are

learning as well as finding it useful ■

Les Tuckwell, Manager, IRRV Distance

Learning Centre



CORNERJune Exams Timetable

MORNING SESSION (9.30am-12.30pm) AFTERNOON SESSION (2.00-5.00pm)

DATE LEVEL I LEVEL II LEVEL I LEVEL II

AND TECHNICIAN AND LEVEL III AND TECHNICIAN AND LEVEL III

Monday 10 June Level I Level II Level I and Technician Level IIUK Constitutional Framework Local Taxation Law and Practice* Introduction to Housing Law of Property

and Council Tax Benefits LawTechnician VOA/IRRV Qualification Pt.1 Level II (Scotland)Office Practice and Procedure Valuation Theory & Practice Scottish Law of Property

(Paper 1) (9.30am-12.45pm)VOA/IRRV Qualification Pt.1Valuation Theory & Practice (Paper 2) (2.00-5.15pm)

Tuesday 11 June Technician Level II Level I and Technician Level IIHousing and Council Tax Financial Management in Introduction to Non-Domestic Principles and Practice of

Benefits Administration the Public Sector Rating Law* Valuation for Local Taxation

(Paper 1) (9.30 to 11.30am)

Revenues Administration Level I and Technician(Paper 1) (9.30 to 11.30am) Introduction to the Prevention and

Valuation Tribunal Procedure Detection of Housing & Council

and Practice (Paper 1) Tax Benefit Fraud

(9.30 to 11.30am)

Wednesday 12 June Level I and Technician Level II Technician Level IIIntroduction to Council Tax Law* Housing Law Housing and Council Tax Housing and Council

Benefits Administration Tax Benefits Law and Practice

Level III (Paper 2) (2.00 to 4.00pm)

Business and Service Planning Revenues Administration Level IIIand Plan Management (Paper 2) (2.00 to 4.00pm) Revenues Administration

(9.30am – 12.45pm) Valuation Tribunal Procedure Benefits Administration

and Practice (Paper 2) Valuation Tribunal –

(2.00 to 4.00pm) Administration and Practice

Thursday 13 June Level I Level III Level I Level IIIBusiness Law Human Resource Management Principles of Accountancy Valuation for Local Taxation

(9.30am – 12.45pm) and Audit Welfare Benefits

Level I (Scotland)Business Law in Scotland VOA/IRRV Qualification Pt.2

Valuation Case Study

*Separate England/Wales and Scotland papersCandidates for Valuation papers should bring their own (clean) copies of Parry’s Valuation Tables, or similar

Timetable for examinations – June 2002


LETTERS LETTERS LETTERS

Rating & Valuation


On 12 December 2001 the Department of

Transport, Local Government and the

Regions (DTLR) published a green paper

entitled Compulsory Purchase and

Compensation – the Government’s proposals

for change. This should also be read in

conjunction with the planning green paper

published at the same time. Full details of the

proposals can be found on the DTLR website

at www.dltr.gov.uk/

The government accepts that the current

system is often slow and somewhat unfair.

Its new proposals are intended to make the

system “simpler, fairer and quicker”. Prior to

the publication of the paper, the DTLR had

issued five new information booklets on the

compulsory purchase order (CPO) system and

a Compulsory Purchase Procedure Manual,

published on 29 November 2001.

The government says: “A system which is

simple, fair and quick needs to have a clearly

defined legislative basis. It also has to strike a

balance between the objective of assembling

land quickly and efficiently for its future

purpose and protecting the interests of those

whose land is affected”.

The proposals are to provide a new clearer

and consolidated legislative base and to

widen the powers of planning authorities to

make CPOs. The legislation will clarify the law

on the requirements for the justification of the

orders. It will also include new procedures

for dealing with unopposed orders and

public inquiries.

The simplification of the system will

include a clear and unambiguous basis of

compensation, overcoming the previous

conflicts in case law or its application.

Furthermore, it will make a clear provision as

to the dates from when the various elements

of compensation are payable and will provide

for a fairer basis of compensation, to ensure

that the claimant is no worse off as a result of

the order, including:

➔ providing for an additional ‘loss payment’

in recognition of the compulsory nature of

the acquisition;

➔ a clear statement of the principles for

assessment of disturbance;

➔ compensation payable for actual losses

even if the scheme does not proceed;

➔ compensation for betterment offset only

against severance/injurious affection;

➔ improved provisions for buying the whole

site even if only part is required;

➔ improved advance payment arrangements,

including for mortgaged land;

➔ introducing an interim update of home-loss

payment thresholds rationalising statutory

blight provisions.

An initial reaction is that the proposals are

to be welcomed. They overcome many

criticisms of the current system, especially

with regard to the clarification and widening

of the compensation base. The new

procedures will also be welcomed by many

acquiring authorities and we should see a far

more effective and efficient compulsory

purchase system where the rights of both the

public and private citizens are taken into

account ■

I’d like to respond to the

comments (Insight, December

2001) on my earlier letter

concerning the merits of regular

revaluations of domestic

properties for council tax

purposes.

Michael Blank wonders where

I could have been living

throughout the 1970s and 1980s.

The answer is Scotland – that part

of the UK in which Margaret

Thatcher chose to try out the poll

tax before spreading the good

news to the rest of the country.

This part of the UK, unlike

England and Wales, has also had

the experience of regular

revaluations, whether we need

them or not. For that reason we

may know a wee bit about the

consequences.

In response to Tony Vickers’

view that the more frequently

assessments are carried out, the

more acceptable rating systems

become, I have a sneaking feeling

that an element of job creation is

emerging. The important issue in

determining council tax liability

is the banding of properties.

Whether a current value or one

related to an earlier date is used,

is irrelevant, to a certain extent,

as long as the basis is consistent.

Since valuation for council tax

seldom matched market value

(the only value a lay person can

readily understand), revaluation

will not help the process.

With regard to the concern

both correspondents have for the

idea of a local income tax, I do

not share the view that the

concept is misguided. It may not

have been tried in the UK, for a

variety of reasons, but any tax

which is based on the accepted

concept of ability to pay – and

which can also automatically take

into account changes in that

ability – may have some merit.

Tom Ogilvie

Haddington, East Lothian

Scotland

More on revaluations

Peter Brown is Professor of Property Taxation,

Liverpool John Moores University

Majorchanges putforward forcompulsorypurchaseReforms will be welcomedby acquiring authorities,says Peter Brown



Legal Update

LANDLORD AND TENANT –COMMERCIAL

AssignmentASHWORTH FRAZER LTD VGLOUCESTER CITY COUNCIL(CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT)[2001] UKHL 59Reasonableness of refusal ofconsent and likely breach ofuser covenant.

AUBERGINE ENTERPRISESLTD V LAKEWOODINTERNATIONAL LTD[2001] EGCS. 29Licence to assign butlandlord’s entitlement torescind prior to completion.

SCOTTISH MINISTERS VTRUSTEES OF THEDRUMMOND TRUST2001 SLT 665Consent of landlord.

CovenantsBHP PETROLEUM GREATBRITAIN LTD V CHESTERFIELDPROPERTIES LTD[2001] 3 WLR 277Landlord’s powers and duties– liability upon transfer offreehold reversion.

FLUOR DANIEL PROPERTIESLTD V SHORTLANDSINVESTMENTS LTD[2001] EGCS. 8Repair covenants – landlord’spowers and duties and theliability of the tenant for cost.

LONDON BAGGAGE CO(CHARING CROSS) LTD VRAILTRACK PLC (NO.2)[2001] L&T.R 19Entitlement to compensation.

LUMINAR LEISURE LTD VAPOSTOLEApplication for change of use.Consent withheld by landlordand consideration of thereasonableness of such refusal.

OCEANIC VILLAGE LTD VSHIRAYAMA SHOKUSAN CO LTD[2001] EGCS 20Lease implied terms –landlord restricted fromcompeting with tenant.

PETERSSON V PITT PLACE(EPSOM) LTD[2001] EWCA Civ 86Repair covenants – overlappingobligations to repair.

ForfeitureBLAND V INGRAM’S ESTATES LTD (NO.1)[2001] 2 WLR 1638Relief from forfeiture.

BLAND V INGRAMS ESTATES LTD (NO.2)Relief from forfeiture.

FULLER V HAPPY SHOPPERMARKETS LTD[2001] 1 WLR 1681Distress – demand for returnof overpayment.

Rent reviewsMCDONALD’S PROPERTY COLTD V HSBC BANK PLC[2001]36 E.G. 181Time limits – effect of lateservice of rent review notice.

STARMARK ENTERPRISES LTDV CPL DISTRIBUTION LTD[2001] EWCA Civ 1252Notices – review clausespecifying time limit forservice of counter notice andpresumption that time is notof the essence.

Lease renewalSUN LIFE ASSURANCE PLC V THALES TRACS LTD(FORMERLY RACAL TRACS LTD)[2001] EWCA Civ 704Statutory compensation.

Service chargesSTAPEL V BELLSHOREPROPERTY INVESTMENTSLTD (NO.2)[2001] 20 EG 231Construction of lease.

LANDLORD AND TENANT –RESIDENTIAL

CovenantsPEIRCE V CITY OFWESTMINSTERMeasure of damages due todisrepair and subsidence.

IBRAHIM V DOVECORNREVERSIONS LTD[2001] 30 EG 116Repairs to roof terrace of flat– considered part of “mainstructure” of building.

OBARAY V GATEWAY(LONDON) LTD[2001] L&TR 20Landlord’s powers and duties– charge on rent deposit.

Assured tenanciesGOODMAN V EVELY[2001] EWCA Civ 104Automatic continuation oftenancy. Definition of term of lease.

RAZACK V OSMANPossession orders –application for housing benefitdelayed. Discretion to adjournproceedings.

STIRLING V LEADENHALLRESIDENTIAL 2 LTD[2001] EWCA Civ 1011Agreements determined bycourt order – discharge of rent arrears – creation of new tenancy.

Breach of covenant

MOWAN V WANDSWORTHLBC[2001] 33 HLR 56Negligence – landlord’s liability to third party for actsof tenant.

Defective premisesTILLOTT V JACKSONHouse purchaser allegingnegligent installation of boiler– whether Defective PremisesAct 1971 s.1 applied.

EvictionR V KHAN (JAHINGER)[2001] EWCA Crim 912Unlawful eviction fromproperty – attempt to pervertthe course of justice.

Leasehold enfranchisementR V LONDON LEASEHOLDVALUATION TRIBUNAL ex p.DAEJAN PROPERTIES LTD[2001] EWCA Civ 1095Leasehold valuation tribunals– service charges. Jurisdictionto consider reasonableness.

SPEEDWELL ESTATES LTD V DALZIEL[2001] EWCA Civ 1277Tenant’s notices – proceduralrequirements.

LicencesEDWIN SHIRLEYPRODUCTIONS LTD V WORKSPACEMANAGEMENT LTD[2001] 23 E.G. 158Agreement for lease – withoutprejudice negotiations.

PossessionAMOAH V BARKING ANDDAGENHAM LBC(2001) 82 P&CR D6Possession orders –imprisonment of tenant.

LAMBETH LBC V HOWARD[2001] EWCA Civ 468Possession orders – right toprivate life. Harassment ofneighbour.

MARSHALL V BRADFORDMDC[2001] EWCA Civ 594Secure tenancies – paymentof arrears and the resumptionof tenancy.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OFMORRIS) V LONDON RENTASSESSMENT COMMITTEE[2001] EWHC Admin 309Termination of assuredtenancy – validity of notices.

ST ERMINS PROPERTY COLTD V PATEL (NO.2)[2001] EWCA Civ 804Termination – division ofdemised premises and validityof notices.

Secure tenanciesISLINGTON LBC VDEMETRIOUOccupancy – failure to resideat rented premises.

KNOWES HOUSINGASSOCIATION LTD V MILLAR2001 SLT 1326Transfer of interest fromqualifying to non-qualifying

landlord – alteration to statusof tenancy.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OFHARTLEY) V KENSINGTONAND CHELSEA LBC RENTOFFICER[2001] EWHC Admin 291Fair rent – supply of incorrectinformation on applicationform by landlord.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OF HAYSPORT PROPERTIESLTD) V WEST SUSSEXREGISTRATION AREA RENTOFFICER[2001] EWCA Civ 237Fair rent – redeterminationfollowing repair.

SPATH HOLME LTD V NORTHWESTERN RENT ASSESSMENTCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN[2001] EWHC Admin 541Fair rent – assessment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENTStatutory instruments –England and WalesLocal Authorities (AlcoholConsumption in DesignatedPublic Places) Regulations2001, SI 2831

Local Authorities (Alteration ofRequisite Calculations) (England)Regulations 2001, SI 216

Local Authorities (AlternativeArrangements) (England)Regulations, SI 1299

Local Authorities (CapitalFinance) (Rate of Discount for2001-02) (England)Regulations 2001, SI 384

Local Authorities (CapitalFinance, ApprovedInvestments and Contracts –Amendment) (England)Regulations 2001, SI 723

Local Authorities (ChangingExecutive Arrangements andAlternative Arrangements)(England) Regulations 2001, SI 1003

Local Authorities (Companies)(Amendment No. 2) (England)Order 2001, SI 3042

Local Authorities (Companies)(Amendment) (England) Order2001, SI 722

Local Authorities (Conduct ofReferendums) (England)Regulations 2001, SI 1298

Local Authorities (ElectedMayors) (Elections, Terms ofOffice and Casual Vacancies)(England) Regulations 2001, SI 2544

Local Authorities (Goods andServices) (Public Bodies)(England) Order 2001, SI 243

Local Authorities (Goods andServices) (Public Bodies) (England)(No. 2) Order 2001, SI 691

Local Authorities (Goods andServices) (Public Bodies) (England)(No. 4) Order 2001, SI 3347

Local Authorities (Members’Allowances) (England)Regulations 2001, SI 1280

Local Authorities (Model Codeof Conduct) (England) Order2001, SI 3575

Local Authorities(Referendums) (Petitions and Directions) (England)(Amendment) (No. 2)Regulations 2001, SI 1310

Local Authorities(Referendums) (Petitions and Directions) (England)(Amendment) Regulations2001, SI 760

Local Authorities (StandingOrders) (England) Regulations2001, SI 3384

Local Authorities (ArmorialBearings) (Wales) Order 2001,SI 1869

Local Authorities (Executiveand Alternative Arrangements)(Modification of Enactmentsand Other Provisions) (England)Order 2001, SI 2237

Local Authorities (ExecutiveArrangements) (Modificationof Enactments and FurtherProvisions) (England) Order2001, SI 1517

Local Authorities (Functionsand Responsibilities) (England)(Amendment) Regulations2001, SI 2212

Local Authorities (Goods andServices) (Public Bodies)(England) (No. 3) Order 2001,SI 1823

Street Works (Charges forUnreasonably ProlongedOccupation of the Highway)(England) Regulations 2001, SI 1281

Street Works (Inspection Fees)(Amendment) (England)Regulations 2001, SI 788

Street Works (Inspection Fees)(Amendment) (Wales)Regulations 2001, SI 2681

Local Authorities (Alteration ofRequisite Calculations) (Wales)Regulations 2001, SI 559 (W.24)

Local Authorities (AlternativeArrangements) (Wales)Regulations 2001, SI 2284 (W.173)

Local Authorities (ApprovedInvestments) (Amendment)(Wales) Regulations 2001, SI 3731 (W.308)

Local Authorities (CapitalFinance) (Rate of Discount for 2001/2002) (Wales)Regulations 2001, SI 1287(W.75)

Local Authorities (ExecutiveArrangements) (Decisions,Documents and Meetings)(Wales) Regulations 2001, SI 2290 (W. 178)

Local Authorities (ExecutiveArrangements) (Discharge of Functions) (Wales) ‰

Legal update 2002 Part 2 of Insight’s pull-out guide to case law andlegislation over the past year, compiled by Peter Brown



Regulations 2001, SI 2287 (W. 175)

Local Authorities (Members’Allowances) (Amendment)(Wales) Regulations 2001, SI 2781 (W.234)

Local Authorities (Proposalsfor Alternative Arrangements)(Wales) Regulations 2001, SI 2293 (W. 181)

Local Authorities (Proposalsfor Executive Arrangements)(Wales) Order 2001, SI 2277(W. 167)

Local Authorities(Referendums) (Petitions andDirections) (Wales) Regulations2001, SI 2292 (W.180)

Local Authorities ExecutiveArrangements (Functions andResponsibilities) (Wales)Regulations 2001, SI 2291(W.179)

Local Government (Best ValuePerformance Indicators) (Wales)Order 2001, SI 1337 (W.83)

Local Government andHousing Act 1989 (ElectronicCommunications) (Wales)Order 2001, SI 605 (W. 28)

Local Government Elections(Wales) Order 2001, SI 3540(W.287)

Local GovernmentInvestigations (Functions ofMonitoring Officers andStandards Committees)(Wales)Regulations 2001, SI 2281 (W. 171)

Local Government Act 2000(Commencement) (No. 2)(Wales) Order 2001, SI 1471(W.97)

Local Government (Best Value)Performance Indicators andPerformance Standards Order2001, SI 724

Local Government (Magistrates’Courts etc.) (Amendment)Order 2001, SI 612

Local Government Act 2000(Commencement No. 6) Order2001, SI 415

Local Government Act 2000(Commencement No. 7) Order2001, SI 2684

Local Government andHousing Act 1989 (ElectronicCommunications) (Wales)Order 2001, SI 605

Local Government Best Value(Exclusion of Non-commercialConsiderations) Order 2001, SI 909

Local Government OverseasAssistance (London PensionsFund Authority) Order 2001, SI 3618

Local Government PensionScheme (Amendment No. 2)Regulations 2001, SI 3401

Local Government PensionScheme (Her Majesty’s ChiefInspector of Schools inEngland) (Transfers)Regulations 2001, SI 2866

Local Government PensionScheme (Miscellaneous)Regulations 2001, SI 770

Local Authorities(Arrangements for theDischarge of Functions)(England) (Amendment)Regulations 2001, SI 3961

Local Authorities(Referendums) (Petitions and Directions) (England)(Amendment) (No. 3)Regulations 2001, SI 3915

Local Elections (Declarationof Acceptance of Office) Order2001, SI 3941

Local GovernmentCommission for England(Transfer of Functions) Order2001, SI 3962

Northern Ireland

Local Government(Discretionary Payments)Regulations (Northern Ireland)2001, SR 279

Local Government (GeneralGrant) Order (Northern Ireland)2001, SR 395

Local Government PensionScheme (Amendment No. 2)Regulations (Northern Ireland)2001, SR 64

Local Government PensionScheme (Amendment)Regulations (Northern Ireland)2001, SR 63

Local Government PensionScheme (Management andInvestment of Funds)(Amendment) Regulations(Northern Ireland) 2001, SR 62

Local Government PensionScheme (Pension Sharing onDivorce) Regulations (NorthernIreland) 2001, SR 61

Scotland

Local Government Finance(Scotland) (No. 2) Order 2001,SI 260

Local Government Finance(Scotland) Order 2001, SI 96

Local Government PensionScheme (Pension Sharing onDivorce) (Scotland) Regulations2001, SI 23

Case lawBEDFORDSHIRE CC VFITZPATRICK CONTRACTORSLTD (INTERIM PAYMENT)[2001] BLR 226Powers and duties – invalidcontracts. Tendering process.

BHATT V HOUNSLOW LBCEmployer’s duties –victimisation.

CAMDEN LBC V SONKOR[2001] EWHC Admin 41Licensing restaurants – openinghours – operating premisescontrary to condition in licence.

CLYDE SOLWAY CONSORTIUMV SCOTTISH MINISTERS2001 SC 553Contracts – tender procedure.

DELAWARE MANSIONS LTD V WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL[2001] UKHL 55Private nuisance from trees –land heave resulting from treeroot encroachment prior to

acquisition – freeholder’sentitlement to recoverremedial expenditure.

DOWNIE V FIFE COUNCIL2001 SC 793Reorganisation – transfer ofdelictual liability to successorauthority.

FAZENDA PUBLICA VCAMARA MUNICIPAL DOPORTO (C446/98)[2001] STC 560Car parking fees – localauthority acts coming underSixth Directive 77/388 Art.4(5)European Union.

FU V CAMDEN LBC[2001] IRLR 186Disability discrimination –employer’s failure to makereasonable adjustment.

IPSWICH BC V MOORE[2001] EWCA Civ 1273Moorings – no right for localauthority to grant licence orimpose fee overriding powerof port authority.

KEMPIN (T/A BRITISHBULLDOG ICE CREAM) VBRIGHTON AND HOVECOUNCIL[2001] EWHC Admin 140Street trading exemptions –ice cream vans. Meaning of“roundsman”.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OFARMSTRONG-BRAUN) VFLINTSHIRE CC[2001] 3 LGLR 34Procedure – requirement forproposer and seconderconsideration of democraticimplications.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OFBARRY) V LIVERPOOL CITYCOUNCIL[2001] EWCA Civ 384Public entertainments licences– registration scheme for clubdoormen.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OFDAVIES) V CRAWLEY BC[2001] EWHC Admin 854Property rights street – tradingschemes.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OFG) V BARNET LBC[2001] EWCA Civ 540Powers and duties with regardto local authority housing –foreign national with child “in need”. Duty to makeprovision.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OFLASHLEY) V BROADLAND DC[2001] EWCA Civ 179Councillors – misconduct –status of standards committeeproceedings.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OFLEMON LAND LTD) VHACKNEY LBC[2001] EWHC Admin 336Sale of land – obligation to obtain highest pricecommercial value ofconsideration.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OFLICHFIELD SECURITIES LTD) VLICHFIELD DC[2001] EWCA Civ 304Judicial review – delay.

ROBB V DUNDEE CITYCOUNCIL2001 HousLR 42Statutory nuisance – localauthority housing condensation,injury to health, causationsubsidence novus actusinterveniens, response tohazardous situation.

SEFTON MBC V UNITEDUTILITIES WATER LTD[2001] EWCA Civ 1284Sewers and drains – liability.Pipe built as a culvertedwatercourse.

WESTMINSTER CITYCOUNCIL V MENDOZA[2001] EWCA Civ 216Powers and duties with regardto sex establishments. Serviceof closure notice.

WIRRAL BC V EVANS[2001] 3 LGLR 30Occupational pensions –maladministration – advice to scheme beneficiaries –assumption of duty of care.

NON-DOMESTIC RATING

Statutory instruments

Non-Domestic Rating(Designation of Rural Areas)(England) Order 2001, SI 3916

Non-Domestic RatingContributions (England)(Amendment) Regulations2001, SI 3944

Central Rating Lists (England)(Amendment) Regulations2001, SI 737

Non-Domestic Rating (Alterationof Lists and Appeals)(Amendment) (England)Regulations 2001, SI 1271

Non-Domestic Rating (FormerAgricultural Premises)(England) Order 2001, SI 2585

Non-Domestic Rating (PublicHouses and Petrol FillingStations) (England) Order2001, SI 1345

Non-Domestic Rating (RuralSettlements) (England)(Amendment) Order 2001, SI 1346

Non-Domestic Rating (StudFarms) (England) Order 2001,SI 2586

Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) (England)(Amendment) Regulations2001, SI 846

Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) (Wales)(Amendment) Regulations2001, SI 2357

Rating (Former AgriculturalPremises and Rural Shops) Act2001 (Commencement No. 1)Order 2001, SI 2580

Central Rating (Wales)(Amendment) Regulations2001, SI 2222

Non-Domestic Rating(Alteration of Lists andAppeals) (Amendment) (Wales)Regulations 2001, SI 1203

Valuation for Rating (Plant andMachinery) (Wales)

(Amendment) Regulations2001, SI 2357 (W. 195)

Valuation Tribunals (Amendment)(Wales) Regulations 2001, SI 1439

Non-Domestic Rate (Scotland)Order 2001, SI 44

Non-Domestic Rates (Levying)(Scotland) Regulations 2001,SI 71

Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) (Scotland)Amendment Regulations2001, SI 115

Case lawCollectionMCMULLAN’S APPLICATIONFOR JUDICIAL REVIEW, RE[2000] NI 498Refunds of overpayment –sums paid under mistake oflaw – non exclusive nature ofrefund schemes.

ValuationASSESSOR FOR HIGHLANDAND WESTERN ISLESVALUATION JOINT BOARD V A2001 SC 473Valuation of dwelling houses.

ASSESSOR FOR HIGHLANDAND WESTERN ISLESVALUATION JOINT BOARD VMACLEOD2001 SC 476Valuation panel deletingproperty from council taxvaluation list Scotland.

BLISS (VALUATION OFFICER) V LAMB & SHIRLEY LTD[2001] EWCA Civ 562Retrospective legislation –alteration to rating list.Meaning of “hereditament”.

HUMPHREYS-JONES (T/ACATHEDRAL FRAMES) VWELSBY[2001] RA 67Valuation of shops – useclasses, existing use ofproperty on material day.

LA BOULANGERIE LTD VJACOBS (VALUATION OFFICER)[2001] RVR 167Retail premises – effect oftemporary closure of lanerunning past side entrance.

UNITED SERVICES & SERVICESRENDERED CLUB (TOOTINGAND BALHAM) LTD VTHORNELEY (VALUATIONOFFICER)[2001] RA 145Valuation basis of members’clubs.

WAR MEMORIAL HOSTELCOMMITTEE OF THEPRESBYTERIAN CHURCH INIRELAND V COMMISSIONEROF VALUATION FORNORTHERN IRELAND[2001] RA 166Exemptions – residentialaccommodation. Student hallsof residence, primary purposeof accommodation.

WARREN V CARSON(VALUATION OFFICER)[2001] RVR 35Valuation of retail parks,rateable value of retail unit atout of town shopping centre.

Legal Update



WILLIAMS (VALUATIONOFFICER) V SCOTTISH &NEWCASTLE RETAIL LTD[2001] EWCA Civ 185Valuation of shops and publichouses – relevance of existinguse of property, rebus sicstantibus.

PROPERTY

BARCLAYS BANK PLC V GOFF[2001] EWCA Civ 635Repossession – whether bankhad discharged duty to ensureindependent legal advice hadbeen taken.

BATT V ADAMS[2001] 32 EG 90Adverse possession – necessaryintention to possess.

BHULLAR V MCARDLE[2001] EWCA Civ 510Oral agreement for transfer ofland – all affected parties tobe heard.

CANALSIDE HOUSINGPARTNERSHIP V ALISquatting – interim orders –violation of Human Rights.

FRANCES HOLLAND SCHOOLV WASSEF[2001] 29 EG 123Party walls – repairs.

JA PYE (OXFORD) LTD VGRAHAM[2001] EWCA Civ 117Adverse possession – intention.

JONES (AGNES) V JONES(WILLIAM)[2001] N.I. 244Licences – right of residencegranted in return for transferof farm to son – exclusiveoccupation.

JONES V MORGAN[2001] EWCA Civ 995Mortgages – redemption –agreement to transfer interestin property to mortgagee.

KINGSALTON LTD V THAMESWATER DEVELOPMENTS LTD[2001] EWCA Civ 20Land registers – rectification.

LAMBETH LBC V BLACKBURN[2001] EWCA Civ 912Adverse possession –squatting – intention to remainin possession of property.

LEEMAN V MOHAMMED[2001] EWCA Civ 198Leases – overriding interests –evidence of occupation.

POWELL V CHELTENHAM BC[2001] RVR 144Closing orders – compensation.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OFBERESFORD) V SUNDERLANDCITY COUNCIL[2001] EWCA Civ 1218Commons – established use.

REES INVESTMENTS LTD V GROVESunreportedPossession orders – suspension.

Defective premisesTILLOTT V JACKSONHouse purchaser allegingnegligent installation of boiler– whether Defective PremisesAct 1971 s.1 applied.

Sale of landBIRCHAM & CO NOMINEES(NO.2) LTD V WORRELLHOLDINGS LTD[2001] EWCA Civ 775Pre emption rights.

GROSSMAN V HOOPER[2001] EWCA Civ 615Contract terms – agreement todischarge third party debt.

HANSON V SOUTH WESTELECTRICITY BOARD[2001] EWCA Civ 1377Completion – conditions ofsale and validity of notice tocomplete.

NATIONWIDE BUILDINGSOCIETY V JAMESBEAUCHAMP (A FIRM)[2001] EWCA Civ 275Contract for sale of land –mortgagee’s powers and duties.

OMAR V EL-WAKIL[2001] EWCA Civ 1090Conveyancing – deposits –failure to complete and returnof deposit.

RAVENOCEAN LTD VGARDNER[2001] NPC 44Constructive trusts – expenditureby prospective purchaser.

Rights of wayGUISE V DREW[2001] 82 P&CR D 25Prescription – change involume and character of use.

FERNLEE ESTATES LTD VSWANSEA CITY AND COUNTY COUNCIL[2001] EWHC Admin 360Bridleways – addition todefinitive map – presumeddedication of path.

Covenants and easementsBATCHELOR V MARLOW (NO.2)[2001] EWCA Civ 1051Easements – right to park.

BETTISON V LANGTON[2001] UKHL 24Profits a prendre – grazing.

DAVIES APPLICATION, RE[2001] 1 EG 111Restrictive covenants –variation of obsolete covenant.

IPSWICH BC V MOORE[2001] EWCA Civ 1273Moorings – no right for localauthority to grant licence orimpose fee – overriding powerof port authority.

PARAGON FINANCE PLC V CITY OF LONDON REALPROPERTY CO LTD[2001] 98(35) LSG 37Easements – right to light.

SNELL V BEADLE (OTHERWISE SILCOCK)[2001] UKPC 5Property rights.

SOCIAL SECURITY


Social Fund Cold WeatherPayments (General)Amendment Regulations2001, SI 3368

Social Fund Maternity andFuneral Expenses (General)Amendment Regulations2001, SI 3023

Social Fund Winter FuelPayment (Amendment)Regulations 2001, SI 3375

Social Security (Breach ofCommunity Order)(Consequential Amendments)Regulations 2001, SI 1711

Social Security (Breach ofCommunity Order) Regulation,SI 1395

Social Security (Claims andInformation and Work-focusedInterviews for Lone Parents)Amendment Regulations2001, SI 1189

Social Security (Claims andPayments) AmendmentRegulations 2001, SI 18

Social Security (Contributions)(Amendment No. 2) (NorthernIreland) Regulations 2001, SI 314

Social Security (Contributions)(Amendment No. 2)Regulations 2001, SI 313



Social Security (Contributions)(Amendment) (NorthernIreland) Regulations 2001, SI 46

Social Security (Contributions)(Amendment) Regulations2001, SI 45

Social Security (Contributions)(Re-rating and NationalInsurance Funds Payments)Order 2001, SI 477

Social Security (Crediting andTreatment of Contributions,and National InsuranceNumbers) Regulations 2001,SI 769

Social Security (Credits andIncapacity Benefit)Amendment Regulations2001, SI 573

Social Security (Hospital In-Patients) AmendmentRegulations 2001, SI 944

Social Security (IncapacityBenefit) AmendmentRegulations 2001, SI 1305

Social Security (Incapacity)(Miscellaneous Amendments)Regulations 2001, SI 2979

Social Security (IndustrialInjuries) (Dependency) (Permitted Earnings Limits)Order 2001, SI 911

Social Security (InheritedSERPS) Regulations 2001, SI 1085

Social Security (Invalid CareAllowance) AmendmentRegulations 2001, SI 538

Social Security (Jobcentre PlusInterviews) Regulations 2001,SI 3210

Social Security (Literacy etc.Skills Training Pilot)Regulations 2001, SI 2710

Social Security (MedicalEvidence) and StatutoryMaternity Pay (MedicalEvidence) (Amendment)Regulations 2001, SI 2931

Social Security (MinimumContributions to AppropriatePersonal Pension Schemes)Order 2001, SI 1354

Social Security (MiscellaneousAmendments) (No. 2)Regulations 2001, SI 652

Social Security (MiscellaneousAmendments) (No. 3)Regulations 2001, SI 859

Social Security (MiscellaneousAmendments) Regulations2001, SI 488

Social Security (Notification of Change of Circumstances)Regulations 2001, SI 3252

Social Security (ReciprocalAgreements) Order 2001, SI 407

Social Security (Reduced Ratesof Class 1 Contributions)(Salary Related Contracted-outSchemes) Order 2001, SI 1356

Social Security (Reduced Ratesof Class 1 Contributions, andRebates) (Money PurchaseContracted-out Schemes)Order 2001, SI 1355

Social Security (Widow’sBenefit and RetirementPensions) AmendmentRegulations 2001, SI 1235

Social Security Act 1998(Commencement No. 13)Order 2001, SI 2316

Social Security Amendment(Capital Disregards andRecovery of Benefits)Regulations 2001, SI 1118

Social Security Amendment(Capital Disregards) (No. 2)Regulations 2001, SI 3481

Social Security Amendment(Capital Disregards)Regulations 2001, SI 22

Social Security Amendment(Discretionary HousingPayments) Regulations 2001,SI 2333

Social Security Amendment(Joint Claims) Regulations2001, SI 518

Social Security Amendment(New Deal) Regulations 2001,SI 1029

Social Security Amendment(Personal Allowances forChildren and Young Persons)Regulations 2001, SI 2980

Social Security Amendment(Residential Care and NursingHomes) Regulations 2001, SI 3767

Social Security Amendment(Students and Income-related Benefits) Regulations 2001, SI 2319

Social Security Amendment(Volunteers) Regulations 2001,SI 2296

Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 2000, SI 207

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations 2001, SI 910

Social Security Commissioners(Procedure) (Amendment)Regulations 2001, SI 1095

Social Security Contributions(Deferred Payments andInterest) Regulations 2001, SI 1818

Social Security Contributions(Share Options) Regulations2001, SI 1817

Social Security Contributionsand Benefits (Northern Ireland)Act 1992 (Modification ofSection 10(7)) Regulations2001, SI 965

Social Security Contributionsand Benefits Act 1992(Modification of Section 10(7))Regulations 2001, SI 966

Social Security Fraud Act2001 (Commencement No. 1)Order 2001, SI 3251

Social Security Fraud Act20011 (Commencement No. 2) Order 2001, SI 3689

Social Security Pensions(Home Responsibilities)(Amendment) Regulations2001, SI 1265

Social Security Revaluation ofEarnings Factors Order 2001,SI 631

The Social Security Fraud(2001 Act) (CommencementNo. 1) Order (Northern Ireland)2001 SR No. 415

Social Security (Notification of Change of Circumstances)Regulations (Northern Ireland)2001 SR No.420

TOWN AND COUNTRYPLANNING


Town and Country Planning(Fees for Applications andDeemed Applications)(Amendment) (England)Regulations 2001, SI 2719

Town and Country Planning(General PermittedDevelopment) (Amendment)(England) Order 2001, SI 2718

Town and Country Planning(General DevelopmentProcedure) (Scotland)Amendment Order 2001, SI 245

Town and Country Planning(General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Amendment Order2001, SI 244

Town and Country Planning(General PermittedDevelopment) (Scotland)Amendment (No. 2) Order2001, SI 266

Town and Country Planning(Limit of Annual Value)(Scotland) Order 2001, SI 164 ‰

Legal Update



Case lawPlanning policyKINGSLEY V SECRETARY OFSTATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] 82 P&CR 9Structure plans – statement ofgeneral development policy.Erroneous inclusion inmemorandum to plan.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OFHOLDING & BARNES PLC) VSECRETARY OF STATE FORTHE ENVIRONMENT,TRANSPORT AND THEREGIONS[2001] UKHL 23Planning policy – right to fairtrial – bias.

AdministrationCARTER COMMERCIALDEVELOPMENTS V BEDFORD BC[2001] EWHC Admin 669Commencement of proceedingswith ulterior motive –appropriate mode of challenge.

ANDERSON V PERTH ANDKINROSS COUNCIL2000 SCLR 987Measure of damages –planning certificate. Negligentmisstatement as to planningzone.

CALA MANAGEMENT LTD VSCOTTISH MINISTERS2001 SLT 1219Inquiry procedure – refusal toadmit report lodged late –natural justice.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OFPARKYN) V RESTORMEL BC[2001] EWCA Civ 330Ultra vires acts – refusal toquash unlawful planningdecision – compensation.

AdvertisementsKENSINGTON AND CHELSEALBC V HARVEY NICHOLS & CO LTD[2001] EWCA Civ 702Planning control, scaffolding –digital display containedwithin safety screen fabric of a building.

AppealsR (ON THE APPLICATION OFFERNBACK) V HARROW LBC[2001] EWHC Admin 278Environmental impactassessments – assessmentdeemed unnecessary – noduty to reconsider decision.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OF HENLOW GRANGE HEALTH FARM LTD) VBEDFORDSHIRE CC[2001] EWHC Admin 179Planning procedures – offer tosurrender established usecertificate.

R V SECRETARY OF STATEFOR THE ENVIRONMENT,TRANSPORT AND THEREGIONS EX P. DEANBANKINVESTMENTS LTD[2001] J.P.L. 1212 (Note)Business parks – admissibilityof fresh evidence.

Change of useR (ON THE APPLICATION OFLOWTHER) V DURHAM CC[2001] EWCA Civ 781Waste disposal – burning offuel recovered from wastesolvents.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OFTAPP) V THANET DC[2001] EWCA Civ 559Certificates of lawfulness –limitations on future use.

Development and local plansR (ON THE APPLICATION OFWINDSOR AND MAIDENHEADRBC) V SECRETARY OF STATEFOR THE ENVIRONMENT,TRANSPORT AND THEREGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 84Development plan policies.

FIRST CORPORATE SHIPPINGLTD (T/A BRISTOL PORT CO) VNORTH SOMERSET DC[2001] J.P.L. 1209 (Note)Local plans – docks. Landavailable for expansion –rejection of inspector’srecommendations.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OFST JAMES HOMES LTD) VSECRETARY OF STATE FORTHE ENVIRONMENT,TRANSPORT AND THEREGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 30Development plans – greenbelt planning inquiries, materialconsiderations, correction oftypographical errors.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OFTORRIDGE DC) V SECRETARYOF STATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] JPL 1195Planning permission – localplans, impact of non-conformity upon existing localplan, relevance of proposedlocal plan.

RACEPEAK LTD V SECRETARYOF STATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 531Development plans – housingpolicy, importance of localeconomy in application of plans.

EnforcementBAKER V SECRETARY OFSTATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 39Change of use – previouslawful use as residentialaccommodation.

MABEY V SECRETARY OFSTATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] PLCR 26Alleged change of use – rightto family life (Human Rights).Retrospective legislation.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OFBENHAM-CROSSWELL) VSECRETARY OF STATE FORTHE ENVIRONMENT,

TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 146Appeals – locus standi ofapplicants.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OFCONNAUGHT QUARRIES LTD)V SECRETARY OF STATE FORTHE ENVIRONMENT,TRANSPORT AND THEREGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 76Time limits – lack ofdevelopment within time limit.

SAGE V MAIDSTONE BC[2001] EWCA Civ 1100Time limits – incompleteinterior works.

SOUTH BUCKINGHAMSHIREDC V FLANAGAN(2001) 98(30) L.S.G. 40Extent of agent’s authority toagree to withdrawal of noticeson local authority’s behalf.

TAYLOR & SONS (FARMS) VSECRETARY OF STATE FORTHE ENVIRONMENT,TRANSPORT AND THEREGIONS[2001] P.L.C.R 25Variation – inspector’s powerto vary notices.

THURROCK BC V SECRETARYOF STATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS (NO.2)[2001] EWHC Admin 128Immunity – meaning of“continuous use”.

WIGGINS V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] P.L.C.R 22Enforcement notices – wastemanagement – continued use of land without planningpermission.

Green beltR (ON THE APPLICATION OF ST JAMES HOMES LTD) V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT,TRANSPORT AND THEREGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 30Development plans – planninginquiries.

GypsiesBASILDON DC V SECRETARYOF STATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] JPL 1184Green belt – gypsies – relevanceof personal circumstances

VAREY V UNITED KINGDOM(26662/95)Caravan site in green belt – rightto family life (Human Rights).

Listed buildingsFOXLOW LTD V SECRETARYOF STATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] JPL 1215 (Note)Listed buildings –reinstatement underenforcement by planningauthority.

MineralsSTAFFORDSHIRE CC V RILEY[2001] EWCA Civ 257Implementation of planningpermission – removal of topsoil.

Planning permissionBARNET LBC V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 642Affordable housing – financialviability.

CHAPMAN V UNITEDKINGDOM (27238/95)[2001] 33 E.HRR 18Planning permission – right to family life (Human Rights).Gypsy landowners andenforcement of planningrestrictions.

CLARKE V SECRETARY OFSTATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 800Gypsies – right to private life.Refusal of planningpermission for residential useof caravan – existence ofalternative conventionalhousing.

FAREHAM BC V SECRETARYOF STATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 462Mobile homes – permanentdwellings.

MACGAY LTD V SECRETARYOF STATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] PLCR 21Motorway service stations –impact of fresh policystatements.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE CC VSECRETARY OF STATE FORTHE ENVIRONMENT,TRANSPORT AND THEREGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 293Material considerations –safeguarding land for futureuse as school.

OLD ENGLAND PROPERTIESLTD V TELFORD AND WREKINCOUNCIL[2000] 3 EGLR 153Change of use – compensation.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OFTORRIDGE DC) V SECRETARYOF STATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] JPL 1195Impact of non-conformity uponexisting local plan – relevanceof proposed local plan.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OFTRUSTEES OF THE FRIENDSOF THE LAKE DISTRICT) VSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THEREGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 281Secretary of State – power towithdraw or revoke “call in”direction.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OFWINDSOR AND MAIDENHEADBC) V SECRETARY OF STATEFOR THE ENVIRONMENT,TRANSPORT AND THEREGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 84Change of use – developmentplan policies.

SHEATH V SECRETARY OFSTATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 79Lawful developmentcertificates – conditions.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OFBARKER) V WAVERLEY BC[2001] ACD 64Conditions – variation.Legality of variation.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OFBARKER) V WAVERLEY BC[2001] EWCA Civ 566Conditions – removal.

WOOD V SECRETARY OFSTATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] EWHC Admin 35Conditions – noise. Adequacyof reasons.

RAMSAY V SECRETARY OFSTATE FOR THEENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTAND THE REGIONS[2001] NPC 78Intermittent use – permanentphysical changes to landscape.

TAYLOR & SONS (FARMS) VSECRETARY OF STATE FORTHE ENVIRONMENT,TRANSPORT AND THEREGIONS[2001] EWCA Civ 1254Agricultural land –accommodation of livestock.The Institute regrets that it isnot possible to supply copies of the above cases to membersdue to copyright issues. Wherea case has been reported, thatsource should be consulted inthe first instance for details of the transcripts. Wherepossible a neutral source hasbeen quoted but cases may be reported in otherpublications.

For glossary of references, seepart 1 in the January/February2002 Insight ■

Compiled by Peter Brown,

Professor of Property Taxation

at Liverpool John Moores

University

Legal Update



International

In November 2001, the IRRV secured funding

from the Lincoln Land Institute, based in the

United States, for the third and final year of

our research project into property taxation

in Europe.

Full details of the first year’s research were

published by the Institute in May 2001,

entitled A Study of European Land Tax

Systems. A new updated edition, covering

the second year’s research, will be

published shortly.

So what has our research found to date?

No-one should underestimate the number of

different forms of property taxation that exist

in Europe, whether on a capital or annual

basis. In the research we identified some 187

different taxes, charges or levies, of which

60 are what could be termed annual local

property taxes (equivalent to non-domestic

rating) in the 44 countries studied. In some

countries different taxes apply to land and

buildings, which accounts for the apparent

discrepancy in the figures. In most countries,

the revenue from this annual form of property

tax is remitted to the local authorities

(or equivalent), though it may be administered

and collected by the state.

Of the remaining 127 taxes, 74 were

levied by the central government and 53 by

local government. It is worth noting that in

many countries, taxes such as taxes on capital

gains, gifts and inheritances are regarded as

local taxes.

In many European transitional countries, the

current trend is to develop and refine the

existing local property taxes. In some

countries the intended adoption of a value

based tax system, as opposed to an existing

flat rate approach, has had to be delayed by

one or two years due to implementation

problems. There is little doubt that either a

capital or a rental value system of annual

property taxation will become more the norm,

as transitional countries obtain the necessary

resources to implement this form of tax.

In the UK the trend has been rather to

question whether our approach is still the

most appropriate. In Scotland, the Local

Government Committee in the Scottish

Parliament has been undertaking a wide

ranging review of the rating system and

hearing evidence on the strengths and

weaknesses of other systems. In Northern

Ireland a similar, though not as wide-ranging,

review will be undertaken this year and at

the same time there will be a general

property revaluation. In England, the recent

white paper Strong Local Leadership – Quality

Public Services makes a range of proposals

affecting local government finance, council

tax and non-domestic rating.

In the Republic of Ireland, legislation has

recently been passed reforming local

government finance and organisation and

implementing a revised rating system.

In mainland Europe the trend for tax

harmonisation continues, as the main national

tax rates continue to converge. This trend will

probably continue for the next two or three

years. The introduction of the Euro in January

will highlight variations in price for the same

goods and services in different countries.

While many factors will account for such

differences, the tax element will be subject to

greater scrutiny. Only last year, in the UK, the

tax or duty element of petrol prices across

Europe became a sensitive political issue.

One major change that has taken place in

the last year has been a change in the policy

of the European Union with regard to taxation.

Originally the EU stated that: “It is not one

of the declared aims of the EU to bring about

tax harmonisation though it does recognise

that this may be a natural consequence of

many of its polices”.

The EU acknowledged that both people and

companies will locate in countries where they

will pay the least amount of tax and that this

will lead to tax competition between member

states. It now recognises that there may be a

case for the overall management (and control)

of the different tax systems that operate in

member states. The rationale for such control

(or interference) is given as the need to

protect other member states from unfair tax

competition practices.

A more recent document, Tax policy in the

European Union – Priorities for the year ahead

(Com (2001) 260 of 23 May 2001) attempts

to formalise an EU tax policy and proposes

a course of action to be adopted for its

implementation. There is no doubt that as

the EU takes more of an interest in taxation

there will be, sooner or later, an impact on

property taxes, whether for central or local

government ■

For copies of “A Study of European Land Tax

Systems” at £25 (ISBN 1 901 956 466) and

further details regarding the publication of the

second year’s report, please contact the

Institute’s Publications Officer, Sam Brierley on

020 7691 8975.

“As the EU takes more of aninterest in taxation there willbe, sooner or later, an impact

on property taxes”

Peter Brown is Professor of Property Taxation

at Liverpool John Moores University.

Moira Hepworth is IRRV Policy

and Research Projects Officer

European taxationupdateWith more than 180 property taxes inEurope, the IRRV’s research hasuncovered a wide variety of approachesto local taxation, say Peter Brown andMoira Hepworth



Benefits Conference

This year’s conference got off to a positive

start when Work and Pensions Minister

Malcolm Wicks used his address to make a

number of key announcements.

While delegates would like the government

to go further on many issues, there was clear

evidence at the conference of genuine

dialogue between the Department for Work

and Pensions (DWP) and local authority

benefits practitioners.

Housing benefit should be seen against

the wider agenda, Mr Wicks said: “How do

we build a modern social policy for a

modern age?” Progress had been made

towards eradicating child poverty, joining

up public services and reaching the goal of

full employment.

“Much has been done but there is much

still to do”, the minister said. “I want housing

benefit universally to aim higher.

“We all know we need to do better.

We need to raise our game, and that

includes the DWP as well”.

He focused on three objectives for housing

benefit: improving customer service,

improving performance and simplifying

procedures while protecting security.

Improving customer service

Mr Wicks explained how the DWP is setting

up two new operational organisations:

the Pensions Service and Jobcentre Plus.

For Jobcentre Plus, “closer working with

local authorities, particularly on the

administration of housing benefit, is a top

priority”, he said. He urged delegates to

visit a JobCentre Plus office if possible,

to see for

themselves.

The launch of

the Pensions

Service and the

new pension credit

has big

implications for

housing benefit,

Mr Wicks said. He

announced

confirmation that

the government

would be

removing the need

for pensioners

aged 65 and over

to re-claim

housing benefit

every year.

Moving to five-

year awards would

make life easier

for 1.7 million

pensioners and

would free up

resources to allow

local authorities to

concentrate on

fighting fraud.

In future, “there

will be a markedly different scheme for

pensioners than for working age people”, Mr

Wicks said. “I give this commitment today that

we will work with you, your associations and,

importantly, your software suppliers, to

make this transition

as smooth as possible”.

Improving performance

Mr Wicks commended the work of the help

team, in which local authority practitioners

and the DWP have been working jointly to

help individual benefits services. The minister

announced that the help team would be

funded for another year. He also announced

that 32 bids had been accepted for the

benefits help fund and that a further £5

million would be made available for the help

fund in the coming financial year.

Stressing the importance of the new

performance standards, Mr Wicks said:

“They are the standards we aspire to, not

the standards we think you can all

achieve tomorrow... We will be taking a

phased approach to self-assessment by

local authorities”.

Simplifying processes

The minister wanted to ensure that the

benefits system could be simplified, while

not making it more vulnerable to fraud.

The government will be pressing ahead as

soon as possible with a contracting-out order,

allowing agency and external contractor staff

working for local authorities to determine

benefit claims, he announced.

He also signalled an announcement on the

controversial issue of the DWP seeking to

recover subsidy it considers has been overpaid

to authorities. The minister announced that

the review of the policy on subsidy

overpayment recovery had been completed

and the DWP is issuing a circular

explaining the criteria it will follow when

considering recovery.

“While the most important factor will be

whether there has been any loss to public

funds, we will take into account all the

relevant circumstances which led to the

overpayment”, he said.

Mr Wicks concluded by emphasising

the importance of combating fraud and

prosecuting offenders, and he particularly

invited comments from delegates on

that issue.

Aiming higher Kate Miller reports from the IRRV BenefitsConference at Harrogate

• Are you concerned about your Best Valuereview or BFI visit?

• Would you like guaranteed improvementsin revenues and benefits performance?

• Are you concerned about outsourcing orwant to take the service back in-house?

• Would you like to partner with the privatesector without being taken over by them?

Talk to us now about our fresh approach to public/private partnership. Call David Umney or Jeff Collingwood on (020) 7863 7517 or

e-mail [email protected].

LG Solutions Ltd, 6 Beaufort Court,Admirals Way, London E14 9XL.

Tel (020) 7863 7517 Fax (020) 7863 7510www.lgsolutions.co.uk

Malcolm Wicks MP


IRRV Council member Julie Miller, Benefits

Manager at Mid Sussex DC, said that while

her authority did prosecute fraud offenders,

the sentences from magistrates’ courts were

very lenient. Other delegates agreed this

was a deterrent to their taking prosecutions.

Mr Wicks said he noted their concerns and

he had written an article for the magistrates’

journal about the problem of leniency

for fraudsters.

The subsidy problem exposedMr Wicks’ comments on overpaid subsidy did

not satisfy many delegates and the paper from

Carol Cutler, IRRV Council member and Head

of Financial and Exchequer Services at Harrow

LBC, revealed the true extent of the problems

local authorities have with subsidy.

The first point about housing benefit

administration subsidy is that it is insufficient,

Ms Cutler said.

In the survey conducted by the IRRV as part

of its recent Committee of Inquiry into benefits

administration, the 105 local authorities

which responded to the questions on subsidy

had a total shortfall of subsidy, compared to

their costs, of £93.5 million. Individually, their

shortfalls ranged from £12,000 to £6m.

“In Harrow’s case, we spend £2.1m a year

on housing benefit administration and get

just under £500,000 in admin subsidy”, she

said. “This shortfall of £1.6m costs Harrow

council taxpayers £19.50 a year on a band

D property”.

Looked at in percentage terms, the picture

was worrying, she said. According to the

survey, the bulk of councils which responded

had a shortfall of around 70%, but others had

a shortfall of around

50% and in some

others, subsidy

met 20% or less of

their costs.

“Why is there

such a range if

the formula for

distributing subsidy

is fair and why are

taxpayers in some

areas picking up

a higher cost

than others?”

Ms Cutler asked.

A closer

examination

revealed it was not

that some councils

chose to spend more

to offer a higher

level of service.

The higher the

shortfall, the more

likely councils were

to have a backlog.

More research is

needed, she said.

“If inequalities in

grant distribution are

causing administration problems, then this

must be addressed urgently”.

Ms Cutler proposed a new system, based

on an ‘expected cost per claim’ for each local

authority. This could be a fairer and more

transparent system, she suggested.

The DWP’s policy review on the recovery of

overpaid subsidy has taken far too long, she

told the conference. “I understand that over

200 local authorities are currently under

threat of subsidy withdrawal for 1999-2000,

so this needs to be sorted quickly”. The

government does not seem to understand that

if authorities lose subsidy, there is an impact

on council tax, she said ■


www.csaTraining.co.uk

Call us on 01728 602986

T R A I N I N G

...the brightertraining solution

Benefits Conference

The Benefits Top TenAfter a year of work, the IRRV’s Committee of Inquiry produced its firstreport in October 2001, setting out 133 recommendations for improvinghousing benefit administration.

“This is only the start”, said Barbara Culverhouse and John Roberts,members of the Committee of Inquiry.They explained how the work of theCommittee is continuing and how it wants to build on therecommendations and ensure they are put into practice.

They presented the Top Ten – those recommendations that practitionersconsidered the most urgent. On several of these, there had already been aresponse from the DWP, which showed how seriously the Committee’swork has been taken.

1. Number one demand was the removal of NHB1. Delegates in fact hadalready heard Paul Howarth, Head of Housing Support at the DWP, givehis own condemnation of this form. “I’m amazed NHB1 exists”, hesaid. “It’s of no use to anyone. Let’s get rid of it”.

2. Replacement or revision of existing cumbersome notificationprocesses.

3. Extensive consultation and involvement of software suppliers inbenefit reforms, plus a Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) study ofsoftware requirements.

4. No penalising of poor performers through the subsidy incentivesscheme linked to performance standards.

5. Local authorities allowed ‘special measures’ to tackle backlogs.6. Contract staff to carry out determinations – now given the go ahead

by the minister.7. The IRRV’s proposed ‘yellow card’ system for subsidy errors.8. Verification framework to be fully funded.9. Removal of the ‘multiple schemes’, with protection for claimants who

would lose out.10. No requirement for Rent Service referrals on renewal ■



Revenues Collection

Towards Effective Enforcement was

the title of the government’s

green paper issued last year. But

this is a goal revenues sections

should be working towards all the

time, particularly under the best

value regime.

So how can revenues departments

take steps towards effective

enforcement? When the Audit

Commission was trying to help

authorities with competitive

tendering in the mid 1990s, one of

its reports argued that a significant

part of the time spent trying to

collect miscellaneous income was

taken up in dealing with disputes

and in liaison with service providers

and the legal section.

It suggested that time devoted to

developing effective communication

between the various parties was

time well spent. Because there are

so many different parts of the

organisation involved in providing

services, producing and accounting

for invoices, starting reminder action

for non-payment and initiating court

action, it is important for each part

to recognise the role of all the

others and ensure that nothing they

do hinders work elsewhere.

For the service providers, it is

essential that they provide the

service expected at the price

expected and that they then

promptly produce an account. That

account should be sent to the

correct person with a full name,

correct address, correct amount and

with full details of the service

provided which can be clearly

understood by the recipient.

It is possible to produce an

account with some of the above

incorrect, which will still be paid. But

problems arise if it isn’t paid and in

any event, an unclear account will

probably result in a time consuming

enquiry.

But does the service provider

understand the effect on the

revenues section or the legal

department if accounts are not

complete and if the proper action

has not been taken in providing the

service in the first place? Has the

proper legislative process been

followed and have the requisite

contracts been properly signed? Was

it an individual or a company that

required the service and has the

correct address been obtained for

the account? Has the service

department retained all the

necessary documentation to satisfy

a court? And can they find it if

needed? Can they also ensure that

enquiries are responded to quickly

and accurate information supplied?

The revenues department role

must also come under scrutiny.

Does it have a good, modern system

which will enable prompt despatch

of the account, followed by prompt

reminder action if needed? Does it

have the ability to follow up

selective cases which are likely to

be paid and can it quickly identify

those which cannot cost effectively

be pursued? Do the staff know

enough about the legislation

relating to the particular service to

be able to deal with any enquiries?

Do they know enough about the

enforcement options to be able to

select the right one?

Getting to know youGood internalcommunicationscould make thecollection ofmiscellaneousincome a lotmore efficient,says BrianThornton


Are there links in place with the

service departments to ensure that,

if there is an option, services do not

continue to be supplied where they

are not being paid for? Is the

revenues section proactive in

suggesting which services merit

payment in advance? Does it have

adequate management information

to feed back to service departments

and to enable their own managers

to monitor collection successes?

Finally – and very significantly –

has the finance department

addressed the question of giving

credit for accounts raised to the

service departments only when the

account has been paid and not

when the account is raised? This

accounting method can and should

be done, to ensure service

departments take the right amount

of care that accounts which are

raised can be collected.

What should the legal

department’s role be? It certainly

should be to ensure that there is

an effective, prompt enforcement

process in place, which will

minimise delays in proceeding from

one stage to the next. It should

encourage the revenues section

and the service departments to

think about how payment can be

obtained before cases are passed

for court action.

It is relatively easy to obtain a

judgement by default, but that

judgement may have to be

enforced. Does the debtor have

goods, is the debtor in work, does

anyone owe the debtor money or

does he or she have a bank account

which could be accessible or

property which could be charged?

Does the legal department have the

resources to monitor the actions

being taken and to move from one

to the other quickly?

Alternatively, responsibility for

initiating and following up court

matters could rest with the revenues

section, after proper training and

with an understanding of the special

role of the authority’s solicitor to the

courts. This would enable the legal

department to concentrate limited

resources on defended matters and

enable staff to provide the specialist

legal support needed rather than

acting as well paid clerks. The

courts look upon debt collection as

more of an administrative matter

than a judicial function and local

authorities should perhaps

acknowledge this when dividing

responsibilities. But revenues staff

need to have the necessary

understanding of their relationship

on behalf of their authority with

the courts.

All authorities are busy producing

best value action plans, targets,

reports and much else but few seem

so far to have chosen to review the

collection of miscellaneous income.

Staff therefore tend to look upon

best value as an exercise being

carried out at member or

management level, with little

current impact on them. But it

would be useful now to look at

whether there is an understanding

of the roles to be fulfilled by each

part of the authority in collecting

miscellaneous income. If there are

frustrations between departments,

these need to be resolved so that

limited resources can be

concentrated on collection rather

than solving internal queries. It may

be worth setting time aside to get

the various elements together, to

develop an understanding of the

different responsibilities and to

resolve any communication

problems which obstruct effective

collection.

Everybody is stretched to the limit

just doing the job, but time spent

getting to know those involved

throughout the authority would be a

worthwhile investment. If there are

improvements which could be made

they should be made now and not

kept for the first best value review!

Debtors can make collection difficult

enough without the authority’s

processes getting in the way.


Revenues Collection

Is the revenues

section proactive

in suggesting

which services

merit payment

in advance?

Does it have

adequate

management

information

to feed back

to service

departments?

Brian Thornton is a Consultant

to the IRRV on collection

and enforcement issues

CORP

ORA

TE E

NFO

RCEM

ENT

AND R

ECOV

ERY If you have any doubts

about your REVENUECOLLECTION LEVELSinstruct CER (UK) LIMITED – PROVIDERS OF A QUALITY BAILIFFSERVICE. To discuss your requirements please contact Rod Whalley or ReneSaunders on 020 8686 3990

Amy Johnson House, 15 Cherry Orchard Road,Croydon, Surrey CR0 6BU

T 020 8686 3990 F 020 8686 4635DX 48659 Shirley, CroydonE [email protected] W www.bailiffs.net

Bailiffs to Guildford ‘3★ best value’ Council



Legal Corner

In R (Cuadrado) v Hendon Magistrates’ Court

(QBD), heard on 14 November 2001, Mr

Justice Munby quashed the decision of the

magistrates to commit the council tax debtor

to prison for 28 days forthwith.

Such a quashing order is not surprising:

many cases have held that the power to

commit is only present in the regulations to

coerce payment (where appropriate) and not

to punish (R v Wolverhampton jj ex parte

Mould (QBD) 1992; R v Newcastle Under Lyme jj

ex parte Massey (QBD) 1993, etc.). In R v

Preston jj ex parte McCosh (QBD) 1994, Mr

Justice Turner held that a forthwith period of

imprisonment was punitive in its nature and a

postponed committal order he described as

being coercive. So it seems most surprising

that the magistrates should still be making

forthwith orders of commitment and that local

authority officers are not properly advising the

courts of the error!

However, the judge in this case did go

further. He stated, “When appearing before the

justices, the claimant... represented by

counsel, Mr Nigel Ley... correctly, in my

judgement, pointed out to the justices that his

client being employed, an attachment of

earnings order could and, as he submitted,

should be made. That plea apparently fell on

deaf ears”.

The judge also said: “committal is a remedy

of last resort”, and specifically that “a defaulter

should not be committed if it is possible to

make an attachment of earnings order”.

That latter statement is, in my view, wrong

in law for a number of reasons.

This case is typical of so many where the

debtor is represented by counsel seeking to

have a committal order quashed, where

neither the court nor the local authority is

represented and where no, or else very poor,

affidavits are filed with the administrative

court in defence of the application. In such

cases, there is always going to be the

likelihood of perverse decisions. No balanced

arguments are put to the court and only

selected authorities (case law) quoted for

the debtor.

The obligations on magistrates concerning

the potential alternatives to making a

committal order, which should always be

postponed, can best be shown through other

(well argued) cases.

In R v Birmingham jj ex parte Mansell (QBD)

1988 it was held that it was incumbent upon

the justices to consider the alternatives

to committal.

In R v Felixstowe jj and Ipswich BC ex parte

Herridge (QBD) 1993 it was held that where, in

the view of the justices, £10 per week could

be afforded by the debtor out of his income

support, £2 per week obtainable by

deductions from income support was not

an alternative.

In R v Birmingham jj and Birmingham CC ex

parte Kiernan (QBD) 1993, it was held that nine

years is too long reasonably to expect a local

authority to wait for its debt when collected

by deductions from benefits and that a

committal order was an appropriate outcome.

In R v Sandwell MBC ex parte Lyn (QBD)

1994, it was held to be reasonable to seek

committal for a person on income support, as

the process was being used for the purpose of

extracting payment, not punishment, and a

means enquiry could establish a higher

payment rate than deductions from benefit.

In ex parte Mould, Kennedy LJ said: “In the

circumstances it might have been appropriate

for the magistrate before making his order to

ask the charging authority’s representatives if

any thought had been given to the possibility

of an application [for deductions from benefit].

I appreciate that deductions would be limited

to a maximum of £2.15 per week and that a

charging authority is not bound to take that

course before seeking an order under

regulation 41, but it would be relevant to the

exercise of the magistrate’s discretion to know

if the possibility of an application under the

1990 regulations had at least been

considered”.

In R v Wirrell jj ex parte Allen (QBD) 2000 –

which was the case cited in Cuadrado – what

Mr Justice Henriques actually said was: “On

the face of matters this would appear to be a

case in which the magistrates, before making

any order of imprisonment, postponed or

otherwise, ought to have asked the charging

authority’s representative if any thought had

been given to the possibility of an application

for an attachment of earnings order”.

Reasons which would, in my view, justify

going ahead with asking the court to fix a

period of imprisonment and postpone on

payment terms would be:

1. that the purpose of the means enquiry was

to decide on ability to pay, not simply to

resort to a scale deduction from income;

2. that the extensive costs involved with

reaching a committal means enquiry (distress

charges, costs of summons, warrant of arrest

etc.) can only be recovered through the

committal process, and

3. that the length of time which a deduction

from pay or benefits (if feasible) may take to

clear the debt would be unreasonable.

I would ask all involved in the committal

process to bring these issues to the attention

of the courts and take a robust stance in

achieving better committal decisions ■

The views given in this column are personal

views and should not be construed as a

legal opinion.

Good adviceneededCouncils need to be more proactiveto achieve better committaldecisions, says Paul Russell

“It seems most surprising that the magistrates should still be making forthwith orders of commitment”

Paul Russell is a Consultant and Trainer



Comino solutions for Local Government

www.comino.com

Focusing on the perfect structure for joined-up services.

For more information visit our Web site or call 0113 244 1404.

I T

IT Roundup

IT Roundup

Anite wins Blyth Valley partnership

Anite Public Sector has won an eight year,

£34.6 million, contract to provide IT

applications and services to Blyth Valley BC.

The contract includes provision of systems

for the council’s revenues, benefits, housing,

payroll and personnel, direct workforce

management and financial systems.

E-government solutions will be provided

via web portals and back office staff will

have the support of the Anite@Work

document imaging and workflow application

across the authority. Full services will start

in April 2003.

Blyth Valley Chief Executive Geoff Paul

said: “By providing the complete suite of

applications as a managed service, Anite will

help us to make cost savings in the use of IT

for public services while replacing legacy

systems with new solutions better able to

support e-government”.

Applications provided will include the

Pericles revenues and benefits system

acquired from ICL and now being enhanced,

delivered and supported by Anite, as well as

other software from the Anite portfolio.

As part of the partnership approach Anite

will also provide Blyth Valley with an

‘e-champion’ who will work alongside the

authority in order to help develop the

implementation strategies for their

IEG statement ■

Government launches new cyber-court for debt recovery

May elections totrial online voting

Parts of England will for the first time beable to vote by mobile phone or via the

internet in this May’s local elections. Approvalhas been given for 30 councils to pilot newways of voting or counting in local andmayoral elections on 2 May. The pilots will testnew and easier arrangements, such as earlyvoting, all postal ballots and mobile ballotkiosks. Over half of the pilots will explore inwhich people can vote electronically usingmobile phone text message services, touchtelephone, local digital television and onlinevoting methods using home computers, locallibraries and council-run information kiosks ■

http://www.press.dtlr.gov.uk/0202/0033.htm

Consumers, small businesses and solicitorscan now make claims over the internet to

recover money owed to them by logging on to a new website. Over 1.6 million claims weremade in 2000 for money owed by one person toanother. The Court Service is piloting the newonline service, at www.courtservice.gov.uk/mcol, to allow consumers and businesses to make claims, for a fixed amount less than£100,000, from the convenience of their home or office.

If the claim is undefended, as most are –only 36,000 debt cases went to trial in the year 2000 – the money can be recoveredwithout ever stepping inside a county court.

After registering with the new securewebsite, developed for the Court Service by EDS and EzGov, claimants create a user ID andpassword which they will need to use eachtime they log on. They then type in the nameand address of the person who owes themmoney, the amount owed and details of theirclaim such as the goods and services providedand invoice numbers. The court fee will then becalculated automatically – £27 minimum – andwhich must be paid by credit or debit card. A statement of truth must then be “signed”by typing their name before the claim can be submitted.

The claim is then sent electronically to the

County Court Bulk Centre in Northampton forissue in the name of Northampton County Court.Claimants will be provided with a claim numberto allow them to check the progress of theirclaim online. They can also enter judgementand apply for a warrant of execution over theinternet. If the claim is defended it will betransferred to the defendant’s (or the claimant’sif the defendant is a business) local countycourt for trial ■



Benefits Bulletin

Over the past few years it has not been

possible to look with pride at the

administration of housing and council tax

benefits. On the whole, councils have failed to

provide excellent service to those people in

the community who need and deserve better.

There have certainly been a few shining

examples of good administration and I take

my hat off to these authorities – they have

succeeded in getting benefits the profile and

attention that it has needed. In contrast, some

other councils have adopted the government

incentive schemes, but without being fully

ready, or without having thought through the

additional resourcing needed. Benefit

managers have despaired, suffered extreme

stress and often worked with the spectre of

competition, inspection or some other threat

hanging over them.

I would like to think that the past five years

of troubles in benefit administration are now

behind us and that, on the whole, we are

now becoming a better performing service.

This is partly because many councils had

reached crisis stage, following an

Ombudsman, best value or Benefit Fraud

Inspectorate (BFI) report. For those of us not

involved there was a sense of relief in reading

these horror stories – at least it wasn’t us

being berated. Many of the services which

suffered the worst disasters were also

contracted-out, and this proved useful PR for

in-house teams among council members

when a best value review was looming.

However, such crises are no joke and they

did show the depth of trouble that many

service providers were in. I despaired at the

over-used comment – “ a few badly

performing authorities”. The exceptional few,

well resourced/organised providers were

performing, while many other providers –

particularly in the wake of the introduction of

the verification framework (did anyone get it

right from the word go?) were struggling in

varying degrees. Not a single benefit manager

nor member of staff throughout the country

wants to do a bad job in providing the

service. But they do need training and the

ability to do the job well. Developing these

skills is a task that should not be left to the

benefit manager alone, as this person is

invariably trying hard to do the job day to

day, as well as manage change and find ways

of cracking backlogs and improving accuracy.

What brought matters to a head in benefits

was a combination of best value and the

BFI clearly setting out its standards. These

standards give service providers no room

to hide – the issues have had to be

addressed. But as well as this, there has been

a recognition of the difficulties facing benefit

administration and real steps have been

identified to help individual providers improve.

The performance standards framework, now

being launched by the Department for Work

and Pensions (DWP) and BFI, is a genuine

acknowledgement that local authority benefit

administration needs help, not criticism.

Ultimately, we need new legislation to deal

with some of the complexities of the law,

which has become fragmented or even

apparently contradictory in the guidance.

Certainly some parts of the law are

unworkable and not conducive to reaching

those in need. However, while the ministers

struggle with this, we are being given a

relatively clear set of standards telling us what

controls and methods we should be adopting.

The framework is still in draft – it is not yet

perfect but the positive opportunities, and

what this could mean for the profile of

benefits, are enormous. The downside is that

the framework is intended, eventually, to be

Julie Miller believesbenefits services haveturned the corner

“The performance standards framework... is a genuineacknowledgement that local authority benefit administration

needs help, not criticism”

Phoenix fromthe ashes



Benefits Bulletin

linked to subsidy, with penalties for non

compliant providers.

The primary advantage of the framework is

that it will help to standardise administration

and to allow the sharing of sensible best

practice. New or inexperienced managers will

be given guidance telling them how to achieve

results and how to ensure they are not

neglecting a specific area or issue due to

lack of knowledge

The performance framework is, without

doubt, the verification framework by the

backdoor. The verification framework, like all

frameworks, should have a ‘common sense’

clause, allowing us the flexibility to work

differently where a specific case requires this.

We do have this flexibility, but only in respect

of the framework and guidance. It does not

address the anomalies in the law where

common sense should prevail. For example,

we cannot choose not to review a case where

we know nothing will have changed, such as

a pensioner on income support. This is one

example of where new legislation is needed,

to make the system sensible and flexible but

within the boundaries of good practice. Benefit

officers are adept at judging where the system

is overly bureaucratic. They can make sensible

decisions which would not corrupt the scheme

but would enhance its workability.

However, it will not be an easy task to

address this in the legislation and I am pleased

not to be the person in Whitehall trying to

make sense of it all!

My authority and many others have begun

to turn the tide in service delivery. We are

performing better and need to continue to do

so, in order to chase the upper quartile figures

in each category. Quality training and

resources are being addressed. As a result,

backlogs are disappearing and turnround times

are much improved. To quote my own

authority; we started the financial year on 90+

average days to assess a claim and are now

down to 28 days. This year’s average will be

affected greatly by the start of the year, when

our reviews were also slow and change of

circumstances abysmal. However we have

recruited staff, spent a lot of time on training

and are now confident that we can move into

next year as an improving service in the

league tables. The morale and will of the staff

to improve is second to none.

Yet a good service is not necessarily

measured by upper quartile results alone.

It can also be measured by the reaction of the

public. Are customers happy to come to your

offices? Are they content to be visited in their

home? Will they supply the information you

need and be

confident that it will

be returned to them

safely and promptly?

Good

administration

is not simply about

receiving plaudits

from your peers or

even from the Best

Value Inspectorate. If

you have had a bad

year or two where

the complaints from

customers have far

outnumbered the

thanks, then things

need to change. You

know you are on the

right track when the

thanks outnumber

the complaints and

come from those

who have previously

been complainants.

Yes these thanks do

exist and they really

do mean a lot when

they are received.

Managers must

ensure that staff

remember they are

dealing with people who need help and many

are not happy to ask for this help. To be a

benefits claimant is a difficult position at worst

and awkward at best. If we deal with people

well and professionally we will not receive

complaints – nor, perhaps, will we receive

thanks, but we will have the satisfaction of

knowing customers are receiving the service

that they are entitled to.

Since about 1994 I fear there has been a

creeping culture change, bringing in the

attitude that most claimants are fraudulent or

just not bothered. That is a scandalous position

to take. Most claimants are genuine and need

the help of benefits. Most are happy to comply

with our strict verification requirements each

year – even if they do not understand why the

Benefits Agency does not have to undergo

such rigorously frequent checks (join the club!).

I have noticed that this culture is starting to

swing back and customer focus is once again

seen as important. All my staff are familiar with

the principle “treat others as you would wish to

be treated yourself”. We may have suspicions

about some claimants and we may prove

fraud. But at no time should we lose the ability

to be pleasant and helpful to anyone seeking

our assistance. It is not always easy to strike

the right balance, but if we get this one right,

we are well on the way to good service.

So I feel we are emerging from benefit

administration’s dark days. The benefits

phoenix is rising from the ashes. I want my

staff to feel proud about the job they do – this

can only be achieved if we are prepared to

invest in the staff, believe in the service and

the good it can do for the image of the whole

council (or the damage it can do if it goes

wrong) and remember that we are customer-

led and we must aim to provide as professional

service as possible.

This is not a small task but it is an

achievable one, when the will is there centrally

to tackle what is a national, not a local,

problem. The phoenix will be able to soar... ■

Julie Miller is Benefits Manager at Mid Sussex DC

and a member of IRRV Council

Sponsors Thank You

The IRRV would like to thank the following sponsors for their

support of the Benefits Conference which took place on

5th-6th February at the Majestic Hotel, Harrogate

Trinity Public SectorWine & Dinner Sponsor

Anite Public SectorMain set & auditorium signage

IBS (public Services) LtdBreak out set sponsor



PLEASE CONTACT THE IRRV CONFERENCE DEPARTMENT FOR ALL PROGRAMMES AND BOOKING DETAILS

T: 020 7691 8992 F: 020 7404 2183 E: [email protected]

CorporateTimothy Beattie, Jones Lang LaSalle, Senior Surveyor

Robert Birtles, Valuation Office, Senior Valuer

Panayiotis Danos, Danos and Associates SA, Principal

Philip Glenwright, Shell International, Principal Surveyor

Francis Hinks, self employed

David McCausland, Fuller Horsey Wills, Partner

Pamela Stubbs, W S Atkins plc, Revenue Manager

Simon Tilsiter, Strettons, Director

TechnicianTracy Crosser, Debt Manager, Norwich City Council

David Morris, Rossendale CB Limited, Client Services Director

Jayne Owen, Revenues Technician, Barnsley MBC

Richard Taylor, Vale of Glamorgan Council, Income Assistant

Alistair Townsend, Gedling BC, Recovery Officer

StudentNoreen Ahmed, Derby City Council, Revenues Officer

Elaine Archer, North East Derbyshire DC, Revenues Officer

David Barnes, Flintshire CC, Local Taxation Officer

Suzanne Bessex, Staffordshire Moorlands DC, Visiting Officer

Margaret Brolly, Midlothian Council, Revenues Officer

Carolyne Carpenter, Bristol City Council, Local Taxation Officer

Joanne Charters, Scottish Borders Council, Clerical Assistant

Stuart Christie, Aberdeenshire Council, Support Officer

Ronald Coleman, Midlothian Council, Revenues Officer

Keli Cooke, Crewe and Nantwich BC, Recovery Officer

Ian Cooper, Manchester City Council, Systems Development Officer

Fiona Craig, Aberdeenshire Council, Senior Revenues Officer

Andrew Cunliffe, North Lanarkshire Council, Verification Officer

Jonathan Darlington, North Shropshire DC, Revenues Assistant

Neil Dawson, Manchester City Council, Visiting Officer

Jason Duffy, Sefton MBC, Senior Benefits Officer

Michelle Edwards, Midlothian Council, Revenues Officer

Val Gibson, Manchester City Council, Systems Development Officer

Martin Hampton, Newcastle Under Lyme BB, Clerical Assistant

Ken Harker, Hambleton DC, Local Taxation Officer

Catherine Holder, South Hams DC, Client Officer

Emma Hunter, Midlothian Council, Overpayments Officer

Joseph Knowles, Worthing BC, Customer Services Officer

Andrew Lawman, Knowsley MBC, Principal Manager

Gwen Lewis, Midlothian Council, Revenues Officer

Diane Logue, Southend on Sea BC, Quality Control Officer

Catherine Martin, Aberdeenshire Council, Principal Revenues Officer

Carol Massey, North Shropshire DC, Benefits Assistant

Janet McClintock, West Berkshire DC, Recovery Officer

Christine Norman, Hambleton DC, Local Taxation Officer

Sharee North, Aberdeenshire Council, Customer Services Officer

Ian Paul, Denbighshire CC, Collection and Recovery Manager

Janice Place, Ribble Valley BC, Clerical Assistant

Lynn Ramsay, Midlothian Council, Revenues Officer

Faisal Riaz, Wychavon DC, Revenues Assistant

Kelly Roberts, Gedling BC, Senior Assessor

Andrew Rutherford, Denbighshire CC, Revenues Assistant

Richard Smith, Cambridge City Council, Training Officer

Philip Sudlow, Gedling BC, Clerical Assistant

Martyn Tait, Midlothian Council, Revenues Officer

Diane Tomkinson, Newcastle upon Tyne City Council, Clerical Assistant

Emma Tully, Pembrokeshire CC, Revenues Assistant

Elizabeth Tye, Mid Suffolk DC, Customer Services Officer

Joanne Wheeldon, Staffordshire Moorlands DC, Local Taxation Supervisor

New IRRV members

➔➔➔➔

Members’ movesMaureen Neave (Tech), South Wales Association Secretary, has joinedthe Vale of Glamorgan as Benefit Manager. She formerly worked forCardiff County Council.

Members

CONFERENCE DIARY 2002COLLECTION & ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCEHilton Hotel Blackpool 25-26 April

WELSH CONFERENCEMetropole Hotel, Llandrindod Wells 19 June

BENEFIT FRAUD SYMPOSIUMHilton Hotel Blackpool 16-17 July

SCOTTISH CONFERENCE & EXHIBITIONCrieff Hydro Hotel, Crieff 4-5 September

ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITIONBrighton Centre Brighton 8-11 October

SOCIAL INCLUSION CONFERENCEHilton Hotel, Blackpool (Date to be confirmed)


Insight March 2002 27For Insight advertising sales telephone Caroline Jones on 01442 890000

Recruitment

For more information please contact the advising consultant, Karen Rodkin on 01457 861216 or 07775 725415.

Alternatively email your cv to: [email protected]

CAN YOU ADD BENEFIT TO OUR REVENUES TEAM?

Revenues and Benefits Consultant (based Glasgow)

Our client, Anite Public Sector, is a major FTSE Company, rapidly expanding and highly profitable, and market leaderswithin Government, where they sell leading-edge software and services.

We are currently looking for a Revenues Consultant, based out of Glasgow, to be part of a specialist team responsiblefor specification, development, documentation, and testingof the Anite Revenues and Benefits product set (ORBiS).The team also supports and releases all software related toAnite Revenues & Benefits customers throughout Scotland and England.

Your responsibilities would include:• practitioner liaison• evaluation & specification of changes• testing of changes• communication of these changes to customers• customer liaison

Candidates should be IT literate with a good knowledge ofMicrosoft packages (Word, Excel etc).

Salary and benefits will be tailored for the successful candidate,and this opportunity has excellent career development potentialworking for a highly successful organisation within thePublic Sector.



IRRV Solutions, 29th Floor, 1 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London E14 5DY

Tel: +44 (0)207 712 1711 Fax: +44 (0)207 712 1501 Website: www.irrvsolutions.com Email: [email protected]

• Best Value Reviews

• Benchmarking

• Competitive Analysis

• Change Management

• Excellence Model and Balanced Scorecard

• Organisational Development

• ICT Strategy and Procurement

• Project Management

• Procurement and Partnerships

• Training and Development

New ideas from thename you can trust

IRRV PERFORMANCE AWARDS 2002As a professional Institute we are committed to promoting the highest

standards in the delivery of services within our fields of interest, and ourPerformance Awards Scheme plays a vital role in recognising excellence inthose service standards. Our awards scheme is the only one specificallydevoted to recognising excellence in local authority revenues and benefits, andrating and valuation. Winning an award is a mark of real distinction unequalledby any other scheme in the field.

With the introduction of a new application form last year, we received moreapplications than ever before for the IRRV Performance Awards. This year we have slightly modified the application form, to have oneapplication form for Team Awards covering high standards of service deliveryand one application form for New Initiative Awards. Each short-listed entry willreceive a framed certificate and the winners of each category will receivenational publicity, as well as a trophy and certificate and £500 to spend on IRRVservices. The winners will be announced at a special gala dinner on Thursday10 October 2002 in Brighton, during the Annual Conference, to an audience ofover 600 people.

If your team has what it takes why not put them forward for an award? All you need to do is download an application from the IRRV’s website:www.irrv.org.uk/awards. Alternatively you can contact David Magor, for an application form. You can contact him in writing at 41 Doughty Street,London, WC1N 2LF or by telephone 020 7691 8973 or [email protected].

The three Team Categories for 2002 are:

Revenues Team of the YearThe panel will be looking for authorities that are raising the standards of service to achieve high levels of customer satisfaction.

Benefits Team of the YearThe panel will be looking for evidence of excellence in delivery and a customer focused service.

Best Anti-Fraud Team of the YearThe panel will be looking for authorities that are raising the standards ofservice to have a measurable impact on fraud prevention or detection.

The three Initiative Categories for 2002 are:

Best Use of Technology The panel will be looking for use of information or communications technology that has generated significant organisational or serviceimprovement. Evidence of ease of use, improved access, higher productivity or better linkages.

Best New Initiative The panel will be looking for a new policy, process, or delivery method that has delivered improved service or reduced costs.

Best Valuation InitiativeThe panel will be looking for an innovative approach, policy, valuationmethodology/original research into valuation issues, or delivery method that has demonstrably improved service or efficiency.

Forms must be completed and returned to the panel secretary no later than 31 May 2002.
