(a)

in July it had been reported that the oldest work was around seven weeks, however, this had since increased to 10-12 weeks due to a number of factors, namely –

• an increase in the number of new claims
• peak holiday period and the effects of term time working

Resource had been allocated to focus on the oldest work and this would be monitored over the coming weeks;

(b)

by moving more experienced staff from the back office to the front desk, 80 per cent of customers were now receiving face-to-face contact and, as a result, those applications were able to be processed faster because all of the necessary checks were made by staff there and then;

(c)

there had been a 16 per cent (4,600) increase in housing benefit claims as a result of the recession with a three per cent (865) increase in July alone;

(d)

consideration was being given to making further improvements to benefit both landlords and customers, one such improvement being the ability to track progress with claims and payments on-line.  This would help reduce the amount of contact to staff by those chasing progress with claims and enable staff to get on with the work in hand.

(e)

the main cause for delay in processing claims was due to the fact that customers were not providing all of the relevant information and/or evidence when submitting their initial applications.  Claims could not always be progressed until the relevant evidence in support of a claim was received;

(f)

details regarding the total number of claimants was not to hand, however, this information could be circulated to Members after the meeting;

(g)

the Council did actively pursue and recover overpayments and a 40 per cent administration subsidy on some types of overpayment recovery was received.  A significant amount of work had been done around data quality this year and this had been recognised by Grant Thornton;

(h)

Plymouth Community Homes was the Council’s largest client, good processes and been put in place and established since the split and relations between the two were very good;

(i)

the whole structure of the Revenues and Benefits service was being looked at, including IT.  The Academy IT system had been brought in a few years ago and there had been little investment in it since.  However, officers were starting to look at ways in which IT could be used including electronically uploading rent increases as opposed to it being done manually;

(j)

it was not yet certain what the overall impact of Universal Credits will mean for Housing Benefit.  The Council was aware that the aim was for this to be processed by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), however, some aspects such as temporary accommodation would be administered by the local authority.  In preparation, significant changes to Local Housing Allowances (LHA) would be seen next year and the Council was beginning to assess the impact of this.  More information on the LHA changes were expected from the DWP later this month;

(k)

historically benefits had been paid on a fortnightly basis and the introduction of additional payment dates could confuse the Council’s IT system.  However, this was not a certainty and further investigation on what could be achieved in this regard could be undertaken.

(1)

with regard to (f) and (k) above, written responses be provided in respect of –

·              the total number of housing benefit claimants

·              whether additional payment dates could be introduced to the system

 (2)

the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (or relevant scrutiny panel) monitors the review of the Revenues and Benefits Service and progress against the action plan produced by the external auditor, Grant Thornton.