The Chair of the Independent Review of Adult Disability Payment sought evidence from a variety of audiences about the first year of delivery. This was used to help inform recommendations to ensure that Adult Disability Payment met the needs of disabled people.
The purpose of this call for evidence was to gather evidence from all interested parties to inform recommendations in relation to the Independent Review of Adult Disability Payment. This call for evidence was primarily intended for organisations, although anyone could respond.
The call for evidence asked wider questions relating to Adult Disability Payment which helped to inform the Chair's recommendations. It also provided 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 was 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 could be found at https://consult.gov.scot/social-security/call-for-evidence-adult-disability-payment-review/.
This call for evidence was open until 23 August 2024.
The DWP was keen to hear ideas from local authorities, 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 could be submitted https://www.irrv.net/documents/weblinks/2024/7/HBAP_Call_for_Ideas_IRRV.pdf.
Local authorities were requested to submit any proposals for consideration by email to lawelfare.hbassurance@dwp.gov.uk by Friday, 9 August 2024.
The IRRV response can be found at https://www.irrv.net/documents/weblinks/2024/8/IRRV_Response_Future_of_Housing_Benefit_Assurance_2024.pdf.
The Welsh Government are seeking views on draft Regulations on Council Tax for HMOs in Wales.
They are consulting on draft Regulations:-
To ensure HMOs are banded as a single property with 1 Council Tax band.
To ensure the HMO owner remains liable for Council Tax.
To achieve this, they are proposing to disapply the Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992 and the Council Tax (Liability for Owners) Regulations 1992 in relation to Wales and make the Council Tax (Chargeable dwellings) (Wales) Regulations 2025 and the Council Tax (Liability for Owners) (Wales) Regulations 2025.
The new Regulations would replicate the existing provisions and include new provisions so that HMO properties are aggregated and treated as a single dwelling for Council Tax purposes. The Regulations would also expand the prescribed class of HMO for which the owner is responsible for paying Council Tax. Regulation 4 of the Council Tax (Liability for Owners) (Wales) Regulations 2025 transfers the liability to pay Council Tax to the person who has the most inferior interest (whether freehold or leasehold) in the whole of the dwelling or, where there is no such person, the freeholder of the whole or any part of the dwelling, rather than to the owner.
The consultation can be found at https://www.gov.wales/valuation-houses-multiple-occupation-hmos-council-tax.
Closing date for responses is 26 November 2024.
Support with Council Tax payments through the Welsh Government’s Council Tax Reduction Scheme (‘the scheme’) is an important part of welfare support for households on low incomes. The scheme, which is administered locally by councils, has historically had low take-up from potentially eligible residents and the number of households receiving a Council Tax reduction continues to fall.
This technical consultation proposes a number of changes to the scheme to make it easier to access and simpler to administer. Nothing in this consultation places new restrictions on existing eligibility for the scheme.
The consultation can be found at https://www.gov.wales/proposed-changes-council-tax-reduction-scheme.
Closing date for responses was 6 June 2024.
The Institute’s response can be found at https://www.irrv.net/documents/72/council_papers/2024/July/IRRV-response-council-tax-reduction-scheme-Wales-May-2024.docx.
A Summary of Responses was published on 15 August 2024 and can be found at https://www.gov.wales/proposed-changes-council-tax-reduction-scheme-summary-responses-html.
This consultation is seeking views on the government’s proposals to amend the data protection fees that are payable by data controllers to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
The proposals aim to secure the financial resources required to support the ICO in fulfilling its functions under data protection legislation, including the:-
Provision of guidance.
Advice and support to organisations to enable compliance with data protection obligations.
Achieve full cost recovery in line with HM Treasury’s principles on Managing Public Money.
They welcome responses from interested individuals and organisations from across the UK. Given the focus of the consultation, they consider it to have particular relevance to:-
Data controllers, including individuals and organisations across the private, public and the Civil Society and Voluntary.
Community and social enterprise sectors, who are currently paying or expect to be required to pay a data protection fee in the future.
They recommend that you read the full consultation document before completing your response. Following this consultation, they will carefully consider views and evidence, which will inform our response.
The consultation can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/data-protection-fee-regime-proposed-changes?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications-topic&utm_source=c006b6ad-a52a-4078-a509-df44b1641a92&utm_content=daily.
Closing date for responses is 11:55pm on 26 September 2024.
As part of the process, the Working Group will be holding a webinar as follows:-
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’.
On 31 July 2024, the ECB launched consultation on its proposed new standards for debt enforcement, along with its operational oversight model and its detailed new framework for accreditation. These will apply both to the private enforcement industry and to those in-house teams who wish to be accredited.
The link to the ECB’s consultation on standards, accreditation framework and oversight model can be accessed here. Together with guidance on the ECB’s proposed new complaints handling process – on which the ECB will consult in the Autumn – they provide the basis for the ECB to become fully operational across all its functions by January 2025.
The deadline for responses to the ECB is 5pm, 13 September.
Please send your responses to contact@enforcementconductboard.org.
Note: The Institute will be providing its own response on this consultation.
In November, the ECB will open the window for local authorities to apply for the accreditation of their in-house enforcement teams with the ECB. A Q&A document explains what accreditation will mean and covers the key arguments and benefits of accreditation. It also clarifies two issues raised by a number of councils during IRRV forums earlier in the summer: the ECB levy for accreditation; and whether the ECB will handle complaints against in-house teams.
The document can be found at https://www.irrv.net/documents/weblinks/2024/8/ECB%20accreditation%20and%20LAs%20Final%20July%202024.pdf
The ECB wishes to encourage as many local authorities with in-house teams as possible to apply for accreditation. It will be happy to answer any further questions councils have about accreditation. Please contact the ECB Director of Creditors and Government David Parkin at David.Parkin@enforcementconductboard.org. The ECB will set out more details on the actual application process in the Autumn.
Note: The Institute will be providing its own response on this matter.
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 government has published a technical note outlining the design, scope, and expected impact of applying 20% VAT to private school fees across the UK and removing the business rates charitable rates relief for private schools in England. This technical note is intended to provide clarity to those schools and families who will be impacted by these changes.
Draft legislation on the VAT policy change, accompanied by an explanatory note, has also been published alongside this technical note. The government welcomes comments from interested stakeholders on the questions contained within the technical note, and on the draft VAT legislation to ensure it achieves the government’s policy objectives.
The five questions contained within this consultation are:
Question 1: Does the above definition of private schools capture all private schools across the UK?
Question 2: Does this definition inadvertently capture any organisations that this policy does not intend to capture?
Question 3: Does the above “connected persons” test capture the relationships that exist between private schools and third parties?
Question 4: Does this “connected persons” test inadvertently capture any relationships that it is not intended to capture?
Question 5: Does this approach achieve the intended policy aims across all four UK nations?
The consultation can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-on-private-school-fees-removing-the-charitable-rates-relief-for-private-schools?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications-topic&utm_source=727c31b3-fdb1-4461-b624-2cdd15aac757&utm_content=daily.
Closing date for responses is 15 September 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