?

the estimated revenue overspend was £2.882m; the overall forecast net spend equated to £188.428m against a budget of £185.556m which was a variance of 1.55%;

?

this needed to be read within the context of needing to deliver in excess of £11m of savings in 2018/19 on the back of balancing the 2017/18 revenue budget where £18m of net revenue reductions were successfully delivered;

?

additional management solutions and escalated actions to deliver further savings from the Council’s transformation programme would be brought to the table over the coming months, in order to address the in-year forecasted overspend;

?

the Council was not in the same dire financial position as other local authorities, such as Northampton County Council where only statutory services were being delivered; the Council had been pro-active in previous years and had been efficient in growing its Council Tax base (by releasing land for housing) and Business rates.

(a)

the impact on the Council’s budget of an additional pressure of £625,000 per year, due to the Bank of England’s rise of 0.25% in the base rate;

(b)

the impact on the Council’s budget in the longer term, due to the Bank of England’s warning  that the base rate would increase further;

(c)

the lack of regular financial reporting (the quarter one report covered the months of April, May and June);

(d)

the key areas where savings had been achieved, in order to reduce the deficit to £2.882;

(e)

how confident was the Cabinet Member for Finance and the Section 151 Officer, that the Council had sufficient reserves to avoid the severe financial difficulties faced by other local authorities and how far away was it from a deep financial situation;

(f)

whether investment would continue within the city boundary in order to further generate income;

(g)

the level of investment and the timescale relating to Pledge 4 of the administration’s manifesto to launch a plan for the revival of district shopping centres on Mutley Plain, Marlborough Street (Devonport) and Ernesettle shops.

?

local context;

?

debt types;

?

general income – arrears and bad debt provision (BDP);

?

penalty charge notices (parking fines);

?

NDR and BID;

?

Non Domestic Rates – arrears and bad debt provision (BDP);

?

housing benefit overpayments;

?

housing benefit overpayments – arrears and bad debt provision (BDP);

?

Council Tax;

?

Council Tax – arrears and bad debt provision (BDP).

(a)

concern regarding the high levels of debt across each debt type;

(b)

how the Council would make a clear public commitment to reduce bailiff use over time, as recommended by the Money Advice Trust;

(c)

what was the current enforcement process adopted by the Council;

(d)

what was split between customers that could not pay and those that would not pay;

(e)

whether the Council would be replicating the scheme that and been adopted by the London Borough of Lambeth to provide council tax clinics, in relation to the introduction of an exemption from bailiff action for Council Tax Support recipients;

(f)

whether the Council had reviewed its processes, in light of a recent unfortunately incident whereby Plymouth Community Homes had sent a debt collection notice to a tenant who had passed away;

(g)

what was the formal definition used to determine which customer could not pay and those that won’t pay;

(h)

what process was in place to robustly challenge landlords that owned houses that were not registered as receiving Council Tax;

(i)

whether the Council had an early intervention policy to prevent customers from getting into financial difficulties;

(j)

the challenges of actively and publicly pursuing individuals who owed high levels of debt, whilst preventing those individuals facing financial difficulties from engaging with the Council;

(k)

the legal number of attachment of earnings that an individual could have at any one time;

(l)

the rationale behind the Council’s appointment of three enforcement agencies, how they were managed and whether there were benefits in appointing one agency;

(m)

what action was being taken to recover the high level of debt owed specifically by five individuals.

(1)

a feasibility study is commissioned in order to create a corporate approach to maximise debt recovery, including such areas as high value debt;

(2)

efforts are made to identify the forms of debt (excluding those who have been identified as unable to pay) that are most likely to lead to high recovery rates (in volume and value), in order that resources can be prioritised to focus on the areas identified;

(3)

monitor the ethical debt recovery pilot schemes being undertaken in other local authorities and provide an update report in 12 months’ time;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.