?

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;

(4)

investigate the feasibility of providing debt collection in-house.