Agenda item

Report of the Head of Strategic Finance

This report provides an update on progress in devising a local scheme to provide support to Council Tax payers and outlines the consultation process that will occur.

The Panel received a report of the Head of Strategic Finance which provided an update on progress in devising a local scheme to provide support to Council Tax payers.  It also outlined the consultation process.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head informed the Panel that the Council had sent out 3,700 letters about the consultation to working aged people in receipt of benefits and organisations across the town had also been informed of the consultation.  People had been offered the opportunity to receive the survey online or in paper format.  They had also been offered face-to-face meetings and briefing sessions.  She had received a number of telephone calls enquiring about the survey.  The survey was being carried out between 15 August 2012 and 8 October.  To date there had been 168 responses and the majority of these had been completed online.  Three-quarters of those people responding had said that different options should be considered to achieve the saving needed rather than an across the board reduction.  The most popular option so far was to lower the level of savings a person was able to hold.  The option causing the most concern was if the support was capped at the Band D Council Tax level.  Most people supported changing the exemptions relating to second homes and empty homes.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head advised that it was proposed the final consultation and the scheme would be presented to Budget Panel prior to its submission to Cabinet.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head confirmed that the survey had not been sent out to pensioners in receipt of council tax benefit who would be impacted following the introduction of the scheme.  It would have been sent to those of working age who had working age family members living with them.

Following a question about the voluntary sector, the Partnerships and Performance Section Head replied that the survey had been sent to the Council for Voluntary Services (CVS) and it had been requested that the organisation forward it to the voluntary sector.  She added that she had not yet received a response from the CVS.  There was further work to be carried out in this sector of the community to ensure that they had the opportunity to respond.

Councillor Derbyshire cautioned that officers needed to be careful when they said that the Council Tax Support scheme would not affect pensioners.  Not all pensioners received Council Tax Benefit.  If Council Tax had to subsidise the support scheme then pensioners would be affected.  Officers needed to make it clear that they were referring to those pensioners in receipt of Council Tax benefit.

Councillor Derbyshire also questioned whether, with such a low response rate, the survey results could be considered as being representative.

Councillor Derbyshire said that his third point was that it would be useful to know how many household were in receipt of Council Tax Benefit.  He felt that those who were not in receipt of Council Tax support would have a different view to those receiving benefits.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head thanked the Councillor for his comments.  When the survey was finished officers would be able to do an analysis of the responses.  She added that she was not surprised that there was not a high response rate from the mail-out, as this was a more vulnerable section of the community.  Many of those contacting the office only wanted to know how the new scheme would affect them.  It would be possible to do some more focused work if Members felt that that would be useful.

Councillor Meerabux commented that he was concerned that there were a number of different interest groups, each with their own views.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head explained that the scheme would be developed by Revenues and Benefits and different groups were identified.  It was necessary to find the required savings.  It would be difficult for some people.  Following a question from Councillor Greenslade, the Partnerships and Performance Section Head confirmed that all registered social housing providers had been contacted. 

Councillor Khan noted that the response rate was approximately 4%.  He asked whether there was a breakdown of responses by socio-economic groups.  He questioned what actions would be taken to target the different groups.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head responded that survey was only half way through.  Officers had noted there appeared to be a lot of interest but people had chosen not to complete the survey.  It would be possible to contact people again to remind them.

Councillor Khan noted that some people might have a vested interest.  He asked whether officers were aware if property developers were completing the survey regarding empty second homes.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head advised that officers were able to obtain the IP address for each response.  The survey would only allow one response per computer.  She said that the situation would be monitored.

Councillor Rackett said that when the Panel reviewed the results of the consultation, it would be necessary to consider the options which would cause the least harm.

The Chair confirmed that Budget Panel would review the results in October prior to the report being forwarded to Cabinet in November.  Budget Panel would be able to make its recommendations to that Cabinet meeting.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head informed Members that the Council Tax Support scheme needed to be in place by January otherwise the Council would have a scheme imposed on it. 

The Portfolio Holder cautioned that the Council had to find the required savings.  If all the options were made part of the scheme it would be close to meeting the savings.  If any options were not included it might mean there had to be an increase in Council Tax.

Councillor Khan asked what actions the County Council was taking to meet the short fall.  He also questioned whether the systems would be in place in time for the start date.

The Head of Strategic Finance suggested that the County Council was hoping that District Councils would find the shortfall in funding.  The majority of Watford's options affected the Council Tax base and would benefit the County Council.

Following a question from the Chair, Councillor Watkin said that he could not comment on the County Council's view. 

With regard to Councillor Khan's second question, the Head of Strategic Finance advised that the software changes would be organised by CAPITA, the Council's software provider for this service. 

Councillor Jeffree also referred to this matter and the potential risks identified in the officer's report.

The Head of Strategic Finance explained that the worst case scenario was highlighted in the Potential Risks implications in the report.  Officers hoped that the best case scenario would actually happen.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head said that the next report would address the questions about the software.

The Chair thanked the officers for the presentation.

RESOLVED –

that a report be presented to the next meeting providing further feedback on the results of the survey.