DCLG Cash - Update

Update on my post yesterday.

Cllr David Trimble has just apparently told a meeting of voluntary sector reps that NCC is going to be applying to the DCLG for a share of the money that has been offered to councils who restrict cuts to Council Tax Benefit.

Justs had a brief Twitter convo with someone there who was live tweeting it -

This is pretty major because it will require a total redesign of NCC's current proposed scheme.

More if and when we get it.

It's the Brand That Matters...

Another one from Cllr 'Trembling' Trimble.

He's authorised a contract with 'Large Creative Ltd' to do the branding for Nottingham's leisure centres. Not sure what that actually involves but it sounds less important than, say, not cutting a couple of youth worker posts or improving the actual facilities.

Sneakily, the decision doesn't say how much is being actually spent but a supporting document does say that it is above the EU lower limit for tenders, which is £156,442 for the life of the contract and elsewhere it says that the contract is to run for three years. This means that it will average at least £52k per year.

NCC's financial rules state that at least three tenders must be INVITED for contracts of this size, although not necessarily received. However, following the Harold Tinworth saga the Overview and Scrutiny Committee made a recommendation that every effort should be made to OBTAIN three tenders. Obviously such major changes only happen slowly...

Cuts to Sports and Leisure Discounts - Confusion Reigns

Cllr Trimble has delivered a portfolio holder decision to reduce the range of concessions available for use of the City's sports and leisure facilities. Unfortunately, it's a case study of what happens if you don't get someone who knows what they're talking about in to help.

According to the decision and its accompanying report the following city residents could get a 50% discount under the old scheme-

Over 60 or under 16
In receipt of Jobseekers Allowance
in receipt of Working Tax Credit, Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit
In receipt of Income Support
In receipt of 'disability allowance'

Already this differs to what is said on the website because that includes students and also includes Disability Living Allowance, Severe Disablement Allowance (an obsolete benefit almost entirely phased out) and Incapacity Benefit. There is actually no such benefit as 'disability allowance' and Incapacity Benefit is being phased out in favour of Employment Support Allowance, which isn't mentioned.  The website also makes clear that only the Income Based version of JSA counts and not the National Insurance based version which isn't means tested. So it's already a bit mixed up.

The proposed new rules, which council officials will no doubt be told MUST be followed strictly and to the letter in these 'difficult times', say the following city residents are entitled to concessions -

Those who have reached pension age or aged under 17
In receipt of Jobseekers Allowance
In receipt of 'disability allowance' or 'registered disabled' depending on which part of the decision you look at

Now as we've already said, 'disability allowance' doesn't exist so we have no way of knowing whether this includes people getting DLA, Incapacity Benefit, Employment Support Allowance or whatever. And there's no such thing as being 'registered disabled' anymore. Just to make things even more confusing there is also a benefit called Disablement Benefit in the Industrial Injuries scheme, is that included too? This might sound pedantic but you wait until you try and get your concessionary pass and they won't give it to you because you're on ESA. And if the policy intention is in fact to exclude ESA or other illness/disability related benefits then there is a real possibility of a disability discrimination case.

Also, the decision doesn't specify whether all JSA claimants are entitled to concessions. I suspect that the intention is that only Income Based claimants are like the previous scheme, I only hope that someone decides to make that clear. Otherwise, while you're stood there fuming because the council officer won't accept that your ESA is the same as a 'disability allowance', the millionaire's wife who has just been made redundant will be waltzing past you for her half price go in the sauna.

Interestingly they have appended an Equality Impact Assessment to the decision. It says that there is absolutely no gender discrimination in the new concessionary scheme, clearly failing to realise that men and women still retire at different ages for the time being. Therefore tying the concessions scheme to reaching pension age will be potentially discriminatory for the next 8 years.

What's more, the decision may not be constitutional. According to NCC's constitution (see p22), a decision is a 'key decision' if it will cost more than £500k in revenue and/or will affect two or more wards in the city. I put and/or because the constitution doesn't specify which it is. If it's 'or' then this change will be a key decision and should only be made by the executive board. If it's 'and' then, presumably, as long as the effect of the decision is restricted to a single ward there's no financial limit to a portfolio decision. To be honest this lack of clarity pops up fairly regularly and I suspect it suits certain people to look the other way.

I'd always presumed that it was an either/or situation i.e. if either the financial limit or the two or more wards condition applied then it was a key decision. If that's right then this change to the concessions scheme should have been put before the Executive Board.

So, all in all, this one's a bit of a dog's dinner. We sort of know that there are cuts but we have no real idea who is to be affected. Really the decision should be subject to call-in to get it clarified but I doubt anybody will bother. After all, what's a bit of sex and potential disability discrimination among friends?

The Minutes that Don't Exist

Regular readers will know that I have a bee in my bonnet about NCC's mismanagement of Discretionary Housing Payments. At least partly due to me making a bit of a noise about it Housing Benefits (mis)manager and tribunal bullshitter Lisa Black was badgered into doing something about it. According to a reply I received from Cllr Trimble the following action had been agreed -

"The DHP administration follows the best practice as defined by the Department for Works and Pensions and decisions are reached based on the individual circumstances of each case. However, a complete refresh of publicity and guidance material is currently in progress. In addition, an operational review is planned to revisit the decision-making, standards of evidence and ongoing/additional support issues raised by the DHP claim. This review will be undertaken with direct input from the advice sector and housing professionals with the intent to deliver against the purpose of the Discretionary Housing Payments scheme, which is to alleviate poverty, sustain tenancies, prevent homelessness, safeguard families and help customers through difficult times.

Detailed below are steps already undertaken by the service to increase take up and award of DHP;

A working group has been established with key partners from Benefits Service, Housing Aid, Welfare Rights, and the Advice Sector, to look at issues such as demographics, publicity material and marketing, best practice from other LA's. All staff within the Customer Services Directorate answering general face to face enquiries and telephone calls have been trained to understand DHP scheme and advise customers of their potential eligibility where appropriate. A standard DHP application pro-forma has been created to assist the customer in providing the information required by standardising the approach. Each claim is assessed using income and expenditure details supplied by the customer and taking into account the customers individual circumstances at the time.

In conjunction with local advice agencies and the voluntary sector, agreed on standards of evidence required for household expenditure and agreed an accepted level of expenditure for typical household compositions where evidence was not available or unsubstantiated. A small pool of staff has been created with responsibility for DHP assessments in order to standardise the approach and provide consistency in decision-making."

I wanted to find out how this was going and a further FoI request, followed by some to and fro-ing produced this which revealed the following after retrieval of "...all relevant information from [NCC's] offsite storage facility..." -

"Having checked all relevant archived materials, the Authority can confirm that informal meetings were held on 31st March 2009 and 29th April 2009 but despite your assertions above, no minutes were taken. The 31st March 2009 meeting was attended by Ian Roper (Business Support Manager), Lisa Black (Service Head Revenues & Benefits) Alex Knowles (Operational Manager NCC Welfare Rights) Gary Harvey (Housing Solutions Manager) and Anthony Dixon (Hostels Liaison Group).  

• Items discussed at this meeting were:-
• Ideas for increasing DHP spend and budget. 
• A look through and review of existing DHP literature.Ideas for an operational review of working practices. 
• Contacting other local authorities to identify best practice. 
• Ideas on how to increase the DHP budget.

The follow-up meeting on 29th April 2009 was attended by all those that attended the meeting on 31st March 2009 plus the following:- Paul Greevy (Homelessness Prevention and Assessment Manager), Joanne Williams (Team Manager NCC welfare Rights Service), Neil Matthews and Simon Taylor (Revenues & Benefits Business Managers) and Cheryl Weston (Nottingham Law Centre and Advice Nottingham Representative).
 
Items discussed at this meeting were:-

• Looking at Derby City Council's approach.
• Operational review of working practices. 
• The Advice Sector perception of “no point in applying” 
• Policy areas 
• Debt advice training. 
• Refresher training/training for decision-making staff."

But, and this is slightly puzzling, they are claiming that these meetings were not minuted. The above does seem to be quite a specific breakdown of what happened considering there were no minutes to refer to and what exactly was it that was retrieved from remote storage if not minutes?

But taking them at their word why not minute the meetings? If you meet to discuss working in partnership you'd surely want a record of what everybody agreed to do (unless, of course, the last thing you want is a record of what you agreed to do...) And a couple of informal chinwags hardly constitutes a 'working group' or covers all the tasks committed to in the earlier communication. Not exactly a huge amount of input from the advice sector and the later list doesn't seem to mention anything about drawing up 'agreed standards of evidence for household expenditure' which was claimed to have already happened.

It smacks of a bit of a token effort to me although credit where credit's due, there was a big increase in the number of applications to the scheme (almost 2/3 extra in 2009/10 but still not as many as in 2005/6 when the welfare rights service produced some leaflets about DHPs) so awareness has improved. It's just a pity that the success rate of those applications dropped to its lowest rate since 2006/7, resulting in only a corresponding c25% increase in awards. This despite the deteriorating working conditions which you'd expect to increase need. Yep, they're really 'on your side' aren't they?

Talking of which, it is a fail of epic proportions not to have tied DHPs into the 'We're On Your Side' campaign which was ongoing at the time. There's no mention of it at the meetings referred to above and WOYS had no information included about DHPs. Missed opportunity big style.

The thing is, NCC must get its act together over DHPs as the Tory government has announced what is effectively a band aid for the Housing Benefit cuts in the form of big increases in DHP budgets. In effect more and more tenants will be relying on NCC's 'discretion' to pay DHPs to keep a roof over their heads. And yet NCC only managed to spend its government allocation of funds for the first time since the scheme was introduced in 2009/10 (and that was more down to year on year reductions in the sums allocated caused by constant underspending each year) and still appears to have no local guidance for allocating payments. It doesn't bode well.

Now, Now, Children, Stop Swearing

Every now and then I lose the will to live. Ok, pretty much every day I lose the will to live at some point largely because I insist on paying a daily visit to the NCC website to see what our local representatives and their minions have been up to. The arrival of the full council meeting minutes is always good for a little weep as very little actually gets decided, it's more an opportunity for a bit of political argy bargy with planted questions from the nonentity cannon fodder who can't get on any of the committees.

This one caught my eye -

"Councillor Lee asked the following question of the Leader of the Council:–

Would the Leader agree that foul and abusive language in our Parks is unacceptable and would he extend our respect initiative into the City’s Public Parks and Open Spaces?

Councillor Collins replied as follows:-

Thank you Lord Mayor and can I thank Councillor Lee for his question and yes, I do agree that foul and abusive language in our parks is unacceptable and will discuss with the CDP ways that the respect initiative can be extended in the city’s open spaces."

Is this what we want our elected representatives wasting their time on? Nothing better to do than to than try and worm your way into Pope Collins' inner circle? What next, ban farting in the bath?

Councillor Lee is of course one of those who got themselves elected as Lib Dems in the 2003 election at the height of the Iraq War backlash against Labour (and no disrespect to the Lib Dems but in Nottingham they are rather a small pond compared to Labour so a little fish would have a much better chance of being selected). He then defected to Labour via a token period as an Independent to try and make it look like that wasn't what he was planning to do all along. Of course he doesn't mention that little detail in his bio.

To me, and hopefully anybody else who has as much as a passing interest in democracy, that's a hell of a lot more offensive than a bit of swearing in the park. And it's not as if there aren't enough measures already in the various Public Order and Protection from Harassment Acts for the Police to use in appropriate circumstances. And we'll leave it with the police if you don't mind, any of those plastic warden types tries to give me an on-the-spot ticket for swearing will find it re-entering his person via a new bumhole.

Anyway, before Councillor Lee tries to ban swearing in blogs I'd just like to say this. In your stupid potato face Rob Lee you turd-brained turncoat of a twat.

And there is another appearance of the same old 'poor widdle me' passive aggressive silliness I wrote about the other day, this time from Cllr Bull.

Admittedly there were arguably some mitigating circumstances for NCC's hottest councillor, there had been a bit of an ambush of green inked 'questions from the public' and Cllr Bull clearly felt she'd done quite a bit for them already but this sort of thing -

"I have to say though, that I am somewhat disappointed in the questions asked, since I have been working with the group of Churchfield Lane residents directly for over 3 years on these issues."

Well, it's not very dignified is it, kind of a bit schoolma'amish. And she does go on as well, wittering on for seven long paragraphs about all the work she'd done.

Bit of advice. They're not listening. The green ink brigade have their view of the world and nothing you do for them or say will shake it. Keep it simple and factual and get to the pub a bit earlier.

Although I do admit, I did feel a bit sorry for poor old Cllr 'Trembling' Trimble who had to deal with yet another question from Tory Leader Cllr Price on behalf of the exceedingly posh and members-only Wollaton Park Golf Club. Who said class war stereotypes are dead?

A Huff and a Puff...

Well, here it is, after few technical gremlins I know you've all been on tenterhooks to find out what I think of the response that Cllr Trimble passed on to me concerning DHPs.

I've done it in the usual manner, quote then comment. You've got the uninterrupted response itself a couple of posts down.

Here goes -

''The DWP allocation to Nottingham for 2008/2009 was £62,517 (Actual spend for year end not available at present). This represents 0.05% of the overall benefit expenditure of £123m. ''

Aha, now at the risk of being cynical, you see what they're doing here? Its not very much money so why worry seems to be the implication. Mind you if they had used the overall limit for spending which was £156,293, it looks a little more significant at 0.13%. Then again, if the grant aid and overall limit had increased in line with inflation each year instead of being reduced due to underspending that overall limit would have been £308,838 for 08/09, or equivalent to 0.25% of the overall benefit budget.

''...and whilst the benefit service in recent years has worked to inform and encourage application, the level of awards remains close to the allocated DWP grant...''

You see, it's weasel words like this that tend to annoy me more than anything because its just so damn dishonest. Reading this you'd assume that the actual expenditure on DHPs had always been close to grant aid levels. This could not be further from the truth.

The biggest reason why expenditure is only now somewhere near the level of grant aid received is mostly because GRANT AID HAS BEEN REDUCED YEAR ON YEAR due to underspend, not because more payments have been made.

''...and it is the intent for the HB service, with appropriate partners to build further on current activities to ensure that future grant provision is maximised and funding identified to achieve maximum spend against the Government spending levels.''

Oh that's a good idea, I wonder who thought of that?

''A system currently exists for monitoring DHP cases. However, this is a manual approach and is not particularly conducive to the extraction of meaningful management information.''

Really now? According to the FoIA response I got it can't even keep track of the number of applications. Still, we'll hopefully get to the bottom of this with the help of the Information Commissioner.

''A database is being developed that will capture refusal rates, reasons etc.''

Why wasn't this done 3 years ago when the twin problems of high refusal rates and underspends were first identified?

''It should be noted however, that the controls built into the administration of DHPs, is robust, follows DWP best practice and has checking measures built in with management sign off for each case.''

NCCLols translation service writes; ''Waffle waffle waffle waffle a team leader does a couple of checks waffle..'' Robust my arse.

''A working group has been established bringing together advice agencies; Housing professionals and Housing Benefit administrators who will be undertaking analysis of the current DHP awards, including demographics, household make-up and awards details. In addition, benchmarking with other LA's with a good track record of DHP take up are being approached to share their best practise and approach. This group will be using this information to identify targeted activity.''

This looks exciting I wonder when the first meeting will be? I shall so look forward to reading through the minutes following next year's FoIA request. Other than that, my first impression holds for this bit. Its all about 8 years too late.

''Discussions have already taken place to identify potential funding streams within the City Council, which may be available to ensure that DHP funds are targeted to households vulnerable to homelessness as a consequence of rent arrears. This approach is also intended to maximise spend against the DWP allocation and secure future years funding.''

Good, good but if nobody is claiming and those that do are being refused...

''In addition awareness has been raised with Nottingham City Homes, Registered Social Landlords and local Private Rented Landlord Forums and will continue to do so when refreshing take-up material and launching a new Take-Up campaign for 2009/10. This will focus on potential qualifying conditions, how to access and the claiming process.''

A new Take Up campaign in 2009/10! Wow, you heard it here first folks. We will of course be keeping a close eye on this one...

''The DHP administration follows the best practice as defined by the Department for Works and Pensions and decisions are reached based on the individual circumstances of each case. However, a complete refresh of publicity and guidance material is currently in progress. In addition, an operational review is planned to revisit the decision-making, standards of evidence and ongoing/additional support issues raised by the DHP claim. This review will be undertaken with direct input from the advice sector and housing professionals with the intent to deliver against the purpose of the Discretionary Housing Payments scheme; Which is to alleviate poverty, sustain tenancies, prevent homelessness, safeguard families and help customers through difficult times.''

Is this saying they will actually be writing local guidance? I'm not really sure, its difficult to get past the waffle. I think it is. We'll have to wait and see I suppose.

''Detailed below are steps already undertaken by the service to increase take up and ward (sic) of DHP''

I'm shan't be going through all this again. If you want to see mydiscussion on things they've already done I think I've covered it all in the post about the FoIA response on DHPs.

You've heard the phrase 'Jam Tomorrow'? Well this is more like 'Strawberries could happen ... somewhere ... some day ...'

Yes there are perfectly good ideas here. But it all seems a bit unformed and rushed, a bit like if somebody came to your desk and said -

''Cllr Trimble's on the line. He wants to know what we're doing about DHPs. I can hold him off for about 2 hours but if you can't knock something up by then we're rumbled.''

But we'll see. We'll keep an eye on the figures. If the government grant and overall limit don't drop next year (or even increase maybe?) then they will be able to legitimately claim the tide has been turned. I'm trying to be charitable here...

And of course we'll eventually get the Information Commissioner's findings on the whole sorry mess which may raise a few more questions. Note how vague they are up there in their description of their monitoring system...

However, I feel strongly that somebody should be held to account for the past 8 years of total inaction. Maybe they should look for somebody who refused to send out DHP leaflets with benefit decisions because it would be too expensive. Somebody who's been smarming their way around the NCC corridors of power, smug after every Audit Commission inspection result despite it all being based on smoke, mirrors and bullshit. Somebody in overall charge of the worst benefit calculation accuracy rates in the entire region while forgetting to provide statutory information to claimants about appeal rights.

Yes, somebody like that carrying the can would be a good idea...

Overall NCCLols rating; 1.42 cheers (3 being the maximum) with questionable prospects for improvement.

Councillor Response to DHP Email

I have had another response from a Councillor, David Trimble, to my email I sent out about Discretionary Housing Payments. In fact I probably owe Cllr T an apology because I wrongly assumed that he held the portfolio that covered Housing Benefits but it turns out that he hasn't done so for nearly 2 years. I think this therefore counts as going beyond the call of duty so hats off to him for that. I'm going to put the response up in its entirity below with no interruption from me (other than removing my name which is mentioned in a couple of places). I also think its fair to point out that Cllr Trimble asked Housing Benefits for this response so it represents a corporate view rather than his personal opinions. I'm not going to do an analysis just yet, that will come next week. I haven't really had time to think about it properly yet.

''Nottingham City CouncilDiscretionary Housing Payments SchemeContext:

DHP's are an independent scheme administered by LA's which also administer HB and CTB. They are not a form of HB or CTB. DHPs are available to customers who are entitled to HB or CTB and appear to the authority to require some further financial assistance in order to meet their housing costs. As such each case is individual and treated on its own merits. DHP's can be used for such things as making up the shortfall in the eligible rent caused by a Rent Service restriction, making up for the effect of the 65% and 20% tapers used in the calculation of standard HB/CTB claims and for making up for the effect of non-dependant deductions.

The DWP sets an annual limit on each authority's DHP expenditure (overall limit) and partly reimburses this expenditure (Central Government Fund) through a system of grants separate from the HB/CTB arrangements. The DWP allocation to Nottingham for 2008/2009 was £62,517 (Actual spend for year end not available at present). This represents 0.05% of the overall benefit expenditure of £123m.

This said, the scheme is intended to reach the most vulnerable and support customers through periods of financial hardship and whilst the benefit service in recent years has worked to inform and encourage application, the level of awards remains close to the allocated DWP grant, and it is the intent for the HB service, with appropriate partners to build further on current activities to ensure that future grant provision is maximised and funding identified to achieve maximum
spend against the Government spending levels. Detailed below and aligned to the points raised by Mr *** are current and planned activities.

Response to specific points raised by Mr ***

a) commence ongoing monitoring of refusal rates of DHPs (assuming of course that isn't already happening, this question is currently before the Information Commissioner).

A system currently exists for monitoring DHP cases. However, this is a manual approach and is not particularly conducive to the extraction of meaningful management information. A database is being developed that will capture refusal rates, reasons etc. It should be noted however, that the controls built into the administration of DHPs, is robust, follows DWP best practice and has checking measures built in with management sign off for each case.

b) identify target groups of the most likely potential recipient groups of DHPs.

c) use this information to launch an ongoing take up strategy for DHPs.

A working group has been established bringing together advice agencies, Housing professionals and Housing Benefit administrators who will be undertaking analysis of the current DHP awards, including demographics, household make-up and awards details. In addition, benchmarking with other LA's with a good track record of DHP take up are being approached to share their best practise and approach. This group will be using this information to identify targeted activity.

d) start an investigation into the true levels of rent arrears and eviction rates and the potential of DHPs preventing such problems.

e) use this information to inform a decision as to whether further funds over and above the government grant should be allocated to pay for an increased take up.

Given the current economic climate, due regard will be made to the DWP funding allocation and the overall limit for Nottingham City Council, set by the Government. (NCC's 2009/10 allocation of Central Government funding is £59,645 with an overall limit of £149,113). Discussions have already taken place to identify potential funding streams within the City Council, which may be available to ensure that DHP funds are targeted to households vulnerable to homelessness as a consequence of rent arrears. This approach is also intended to maximise spend against the DWP allocation and secure future years funding. In addition awareness has been raised with Nottingham City Homes, Registered Social Landlords and local Private Rented Landlord Forums and will continue to do so when refreshing take-up material and launching a new Take-Up campaign for 2009/10. This will focus on potential qualifying conditions, how to access and the claiming process.

f) draw up local guidance for allocation of DHPs to inform rational and consistent decision making.

The DHP administration follows the best practice as defined by the Department for Works and Pensions and decisions are reached based on the individual circumstances of each case. However, a complete refresh of publicity and guidance material is currently in progress. In addition, an operational review is planned to revisit the decision-making, standards of evidence and ongoing/additional support issues raised by the DHP claim. This review will be undertaken with direct input from the advice sector and housing professionals with the intent to deliver against the purpose of the Discretionary Housing Payments scheme, which is to alleviate poverty, sustain tenancies, prevent homelessness, safeguard families and help customers through difficult times.

Detailed below are steps already undertaken by the service to increase take up and award of DHP;

A working group has been established with key partners from Benefits Service, Housing Aid, Welfare Rights, and the Advice Sector, to look at issues such as demographics, publicity material and marketing, best practice from other LA's. All staff within the Customer Services Directorate answering general face to face enquiries and telephone calls have been trained to understand DHP scheme and advise customers of their potential eligibility where appropriate. A standard DHP application pro-forma has been created to assist the customer in providing the information required by standardising the approach. Each claim is assessed using income and expenditure details supplied by the customer and taking into account the customers individual circumstances at the time.

In conjunction with local advice agencies and the voluntary sector, agreed on standards of evidence required for household expenditure and agreed an accepted level of expenditure for typical household compositions where evidence was not available or unsubstantiated. A small pool of staff has been created with responsibility for DHP assessments in order to standardise the approach and provide consistency in decision-making.

Decisions are checked and agreed by a Benefits Team Leader. In March 2008, the Department for Work and Pensions produced a Best Practice Guide to DHP's. The specific best practice cited is mirrored in NCC approach to DHP assessments.''

So, there you go. First impressions are that its a bit waffly and about 8 years too late but as I
say proper analysis next week.