Agenda item

To approve the revised Prosecution Policy for the Council Tax Reduction Scheme.

That the revised Prosecution Policy be ADOPTED.  

43.1           The report of the Revenues and Benefits Group Manager, circulated at Pages No. 71-86, set out the current position regarding the Prosecution Policy for the Council Tax Reduction Scheme. Members were asked to adopt the revised Prosecution Policy as attached to the report at Appendix 2.

43.2           The Committee was advised that the Borough Council was no longer required to investigate and prosecute Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit fraud; those functions were now being carried out by the Single Fraud Investigation Service and the Crown Prosecution Service. The Borough Council did, however, still have a responsibility to investigate Council Tax Reduction Scheme fraud, which was the replacement for Council Tax Benefit and, where appropriate, to prosecute. This meant that there was a need to revisit the existing Prosecution Policy to make the appropriate changes. The Council’s Audit Committee had met on 30 September 2015 to review those changes and had subsequently recommended a revised Policy to the Executive Committee for adoption.

43.3           Referring to Paragraph 2.2 of the report, the Revenues and Benefits Group Manager explained that the main changes would remove any reference made to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit and replace them with the wording ‘Council Tax Reduction Scheme’; include Council Tax Reduction Scheme offences, which were similar to those for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit fraud; change the title of the Revenues and Benefits Manager to read ‘Revenues and Benefits Group Manager’; make changes to the section covering administrative penalties to reflect the Council Tax reduction penalty requirements and delete the section on collection of the penalty – both done via the most appropriate method; and include a section on other penalties where the Borough Council could impose a penalty of £70.00 – this was for cases where it was determined that fraud had not been committed and the person had either been negligent in making an incorrect statement, or had no reasonable excuse in failing to notify the Borough Council of a change in circumstances.

43.4           A Member indicated that this was a very interesting report and he questioned what the Single Fraud Investigation Service was, where it was based and whether the Council had a duty to notify it of fraud that it believed was happening. In response, the Revenues and Benefits Group Manager explained that currently the Service was based in Gloucestershire but could work from anywhere in the Country. The Single Fraud Investigation Service had taken over social security and tax benefit frauds. The Council was obliged to notify the Service whenever it believed fraud had been committed which meant it was still undertaking a lot of work on identifying fraud, even though the Single Fraud Investigation Service had taken over the responsibility for investigating it, therefore it would retain its Fraud Investigation Officer. In terms of the penalty of £70.00, a Member questioned how the Council would define ‘negligent’ and ‘reasonable’ and whether there was an appeals process when someone was found to have been negligent in making an incorrect statement or had no reasonable excuse in failing to notify the Council of a change in circumstances. In response, the Benefits and Revenues Group Manager explained that the Benefits Team was extremely careful when considering whether to impose a penalty. It certainly was not a blanket policy and each case would be considered on its merits; the Council would not normally prosecute except in extreme circumstances. There was a right of appeal and this was explained throughout the process; people that appealed could go all the way to a tribunal which offered a good checking process on the Council’s powers. The caution used in these circumstances was not the same as a Police caution but was a specific one used for benefit purposes. The caution was administered by the Council and had previously been notified to the Police but the Group Manager understood that this was no longer a requirement. A Member indicated that she thought cautions for benefit fraud were also included in the declaration that people had to make when applying for a Taxi Licence through the Licensing Policy. In response, the Revenues and Benefits Group Manager indicated that he would look into this issue; although he thought that this did not apply in the same way that it used to since the requirement to advise the Police of the cautions had been removed. In terms of cautions, Members were advised that, when it was given, it was explained that it went against a person’s record in terms of benefits; the Government was potentially considering introducing a ‘three strikes’ requirement so this could be quite serious for claimants that were fraudulent.

43.5           In terms of recovering the benefits falsely claimed, the Revenues and Benefits Group Manager advised that the Council did endeavour to recover these payments. The Government had set down the levels by which the Council was allowed to reduce benefits to get money back so Officers had to be mindful of that; the idea was that the penalty system was there as a deterrent so that the Council did not find itself in the situation whereby it had to reclaim benefits made.

43.6           Referring to the recent Institute of Revenue and Ratings Valuation (IRRV) Awards, Members were advised that the Revenues Team and the Benefits Team had both been nominated for awards for Best Team. Unfortunately they had not won on this occasion but had been placed in the top five which was a real achievement; both Teams had been clear that they wanted to win next year which showed a great sense of teamwork and of wanting to do the best for the community. The Committee extended its congratulations to the staff involved. 

43.7           Accordingly, it was