The Chair of the Independent Review of Adult Disability Payment is seeking evidence from a variety of audiences about the first year of delivery. This will be used to help inform recommendations to ensure that Adult Disability Payment meets the needs of disabled people.
The purpose of this call for evidence is to gather evidence from all interested parties to inform recommendations in relation to the Independent Review of Adult Disability Payment. This call for evidence is primarily intended for organisations, although anyone can respond.
The call for evidence asks wider questions relating to Adult Disability Payment which will help to inform the Chair's recommendations. It will also provide an opportunity for specific feedback in relation to the areas identified in the Terms of Reference as being specific focus for the review.
This call for evidence is divided into the following sections:
Factors affecting take-up of Adult Disability Payment
Pre-application support for Adult Disability Payment applications
Processing times for Adult Disability Payment applications
Decisions, re-determinations and appeals
Informing about a change of circumstances
Review periods
Other considerations
The call for evidence can be found at https://consult.gov.scot/social-security/call-for-evidence-adult-disability-payment-review/.
This call for evidence will be open until 23 August 2024.
The DWP is keen to hear ideas from LAs, auditors and other key stakeholders on the future of HB Assurance. The following link contains a letter that was circulated to LAs with more information on this call for ideas, as well as the ways in which responses can be submitted https://www.irrv.net/documents/weblinks/2024/7/HBAP_Call_for_Ideas_IRRV.pdf.
LAs are requested to submit any proposals for consideration by email to lawelfare.hbassurance@dwp.gov.uk by Friday, 9 August 2024.
The Department for Work & Pensions want to ensure that they have a welfare system that is fit for the future, a system that supports work for people who can, provides a safety net for people who need it, and that is fair to the taxpayer. This consultation sought views on whether they should make fundamental changes to how they support disabled people and people with health conditions, and whether their system delivers the right support to people most in need.
The consultation focused on the primary extra costs benefit that provides support to adults of working age with the additional costs of having a disability or long-term health condition: Personal Independence Payment (PIP). The views shared during this consultation period were used to help shape the future of the health and disability benefits system.
The paper could be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/modernising-support-for-independent-living-the-health-and-disability-green-paper/modernising-support-for-independent-living-the-health-and-disability-green-paper#how-to-respond.
As part of the process, the Working Group will be holding three webinars via MS Teams. The format of each webinar will be the same.
The CJC’s statutory functions include (a) keeping the civil justice system under review, and (b) considering how to make the civil justice system more accessible, fair, and efficient. The working group will seek to understand policy landscape for enforcement and identify and recommend to CJC areas of further inquiry if necessary.
The full list of Call for Evidence questions is below (Annex A to the Call for Evidence paper provides a list of enforcement of domestic judgments for reference (including orders for sale in charging orders); this work is not considering possession orders).
Your experience and awareness of enforcement
Which enforcement methods do you have experience of, if any?
Are there any barriers you have experienced in seeking to enforce or satisfy a judgment and, if so, what were they?
Which of the attached enforcement mechanisms do you find to be most effective in obtaining a resolution, and why?
Which of the attached enforcement mechanisms do you find to be least effective in obtaining a resolution, and why?
Do you consider any of the attached enforcement mechanisms should be promoted as being more effective than others?
Are there any enforcement mechanisms that you consider should be amended or varied to make them more appropriate for modern litigation from the perspective of either the creditor or the debtor?
Do you consider that there should be further measures attached to any of the current enforcement mechanisms to ensure greater fairness and/or protections for debtors?
Do you have experience of the court enforcement mechanisms interacting with debt collection standards and practices outside the court system?
Do you consider that the court enforcement mechanisms need to take into account debt collection standards and practices outside the court system and, if so, in what circumstances and in what ways?
If court enforcement is to take into account debt collection outside the court system, what practical steps do you consider should be undertaken?
Supply of information about potential judgment debtors
What steps, if any, do you consider the court could and should undertake to encourage greater engagement of potential judgment debtors (given the high number of default judgments)? [NB the Civil Justice Council (CJC) is reporting separately on pre-action protocols (PAP) including the debt protocol and the PAP is therefore not addressed in this list of questions).
Should the court require details of a defendant at the commencement of proceedings in order to ascertain whether a defendant could satisfy a potential judgment? (For example, by specific questions being including in the Directions Questionnaire, including details of any debts being enforced outside the court system).
If information about the means of a potential debtor is sought early in proceedings, what information would you consider to be helpful?
What experience, if any, have you had with making use of the provisions of CPR part 71 (orders to obtain information from judgment debtors)?
If you have used the provisions of part 71 to obtain information about a judgment debtor’s means, have you found the process effective?
If not effective, why not, and what changes would you make to the provisions relating to obtaining information from judgment debtors and does there need to be an amendment to part 71?
What would you consider to be an appropriate sanction/appropriate sanctions for a judgment debtor who fails to provide information to questions raised by the court?
If judgment is obtained, should the court provide details of the judgment debtor with the claimant at the time of judgment and, if so, what details should be provided (if any)?
What safeguards should be put in place with respect to any data sharing to ensure that it is reasonable and proportionate and not unfairly detrimental to the debtor?
Should the court have a role, independent of any applications made by any creditor, in obtaining details of the debtor?
Should the court and/or the judgment creditor be given access to information held by HMCTS and the DWP (or other government departments or agencies) to gather financial information on the judgment debtor?
What safeguards should be put in place to protect the individual with respect to financial information held by HMCTS and the DWP (or other government departments or agencies) and their privacy?
Should the court and/or the judgment creditor be given access to information held by third parties, such as banks and credit agencies, to gather financial information on judgment debtors?
What safeguards should be put in place to protect the individual with respect to financial information held by third parties, such as banks and credit agencies, and their privacy?
Would you welcome a change to legislation to allow either (17) or (19) above, which would include safeguards suggested under (18) and (20) above?
What other protections do you consider should be available to the judgment debtor to prohibit all, or some, financial information being available either to the court or to the judgment creditor?
Support for debtors
Are you aware of any support or information provided to debtors following a judgment?
If so, what is that support or information?
What, if any, (additional) information and support do you consider should be made available to debtors and at what stage?
Are there any particularly vulnerable debtors who you consider need additional support. If so, how are those vulnerable debtors identified and what support do you consider is required?
What do you consider the most efficient and effective ways of disseminating information to debtors?
i) Through court documentation at the commencement of the action.
ii) Through court documentation at time of judgment.
iii) Through bailiffs or enforcement officers.
iv) All the above.
v) Any further means of communication.
Any proposed improvements
Do you consider there should be any changes to the system of enforcing judgments, or should the status quo be maintained?
If you consider there should be changes, what changes do you feel should be made to make enforcement more accessible, fair and efficient?
Whether you consider there should be changes or not, what, if any, additional safeguards and advice should be given to debtors?
Whether you consider there should be changes or not, what, if any, additional information should be given to creditors about methods of enforcement?
As the majority of debt judgments are judgments in default, what further steps do you consider could and/or should be taken to encourage defaulters (potential judgment debtors) to engage in the court process at an early, or any, stage?
Are there any other areas of enforcement that you feel could be improved and in what way and by which method(s)?
General
Please set out any additional comments you would like to make about the current system of enforcing money judgments in court. These comments can expand upon the questions raised above or raise new issues.
Please set out any current difficulties that you identify with the system of enforcement and outline any potential improvements you consider appropriate for either the creditor or the debtor.
The Call for Evidence can be found at Find out more about the Call for Evidence.
Closing date for responses is 16 September at 11:59pm.
Responses should be submitted by PDF or word document to CJCEnforcementCfE@judiciary.uk. Please use the word document template for your response and name your submission as follows: ‘name/organisation – CJC Enforcement CfE’.
Over 6 years have passed since the CPA Protocol was launched. Best and effective practice has evolved in that time, and the board convened a working group to review and propose changes deemed appropriate.
The leadership and board have reviewed the proposed changes and it has been agreed to offer it to members for consideration and comments. The intention thereafter will be for the working group to consider the members comments before finalising the updated document (in consultation with the leadership and board).
You are offered three links:
Comments are invited by way of 5 questions on survey hero, which can be accessed here. The survey will be available for 30 days from Monday, 15 July 2024.
Section 58 of, and Schedule 7 to, the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 (“the Act”) amends the Local Government Act 2000 to require principal councils with executive arrangements to make provision enabling 2 or more councillors to share office on that executive, including the office of leader of the executive.
The Welsh Government are proposing to introduce regulations to also allow job-sharing of certain non-executive roles within principal councils and want your views on these proposals.
The consultation can be found at https://www.gov.wales/extension-job-share-provisions-elected-members-principal-councils-non-executive-roles
Closing date for responses is 4 October 2024.
The Social Housing White Paper included a commitment to introduce an access to information scheme for the social housing tenants of private registered providers (PRPs). The Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) will allow social housing tenants and their designated representatives to request access to information related to the management of their housing.
The Secretary of State has the power to direct the Regulator on certain aspects of its regulatory standards. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities proposed to use this power to direct the Regulator to introduce requirements for PRPs to comply with the requirements in the STAIRs policy statement. This consultation sought views on the content of the policy statement, which outlines the requirements providers will need to meet under STAIRs.
The consultation also sought views on a proposed direction from the Secretary of State to the Regulator of Social Housing (‘the Regulator’), using powers under section 197 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 as amended.
The consultation could be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/social-tenant-access-to-information-requirements-consultation?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications-topic&utm_source=32e11652-215e-4519-8c9d-edf48ffef9c3&utm_content=daily.
Closing date for responses was 22 July 2024.
A library containing Institute responses to Consultations, Inquiries, Surveys etc. can be found at https://www.irrv.net/homenew/item.php?wid=20&iid=27496.
Copyright © 2024 · All Rights Reserved · Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation