At the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 14 October 2025, the Committee requested for an update on the council’s debt recovery procedure. Councillor Ed Turner, Deputy Leader (Statutory) and Cabinet Member for Finance and Asset Manager, Nigel Kennedy, Group Finance Director (Section 151 Officer) and Philip McGaskill, Revenues Service Delivery Manager will be in attendance to present the report and answer questions.

The Committee is asked to consider the report and agree any recommendations.

At the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 14 October 2025, the Committee requested an update on the council’s debt recovery procedure. The Cabinet Member for Finance and Asset Management, the Group Finance Director and the Revenues Service Delivery Manager were present to respond to questions.  

The Revenues Service Delivery Manager introduced the report, noting that the Committee had queried the Council’s use of enforcement agents, the steps taken to identify and support people experiencing temporary or permanent vulnerabilities, and the routes taken to recover outstanding debt. The report set out this information with explanation of the Council’s legal obligations.   

Councillor Turner welcomed the Committee’s interest in the topic and emphasised the importance that the Council places on supporting people who are financially marginalised or vulnerable. Specific mention was made to the Council’s use of grant funding, its commitment to council tax reduction, and the various advice and support services made available to citizens.  

Councillor Ottino queried what the Council does to support those on universal credit with council tax payments, and whether any reductions are offered.  

The Revenues Service Delivery Manager outlined the Council’s use of MARS software to assess council tax for those residents in receipt of universal credit. The Committee heard that this enables better understanding of the impact of payment timings in order to inform recovery action and it considers personal circumstances of vulnerable persons to ensure appropriate support can be offered. 

Councillor Turner also emphasised the need to carefully consider how to highlight a person’s vulnerabilities to the Council to ensure they can receive appropriate support. Reference was made to the complexity of legal wording required in debt recovery communications and the Council’s work with a behavioural psychologist to encourage better engagement.  

Councillor Taylor and Councillor Qayyum joined the meeting during discussion of this item.  

Councillor Ottino also queried how often the Council meets with relevant advice centres, to which Councillor Turner noted the Council’s openness and officer attendance at advice centre AGMs. The Committee heard of capacity issues within advice centres which has limited the frequency of these meetings.   

The Revenues Service Delivery Manager further explained that the Council used to hold quarterly meetings with advice centres, however capacity issues and volunteer availability has reduced these.  

Councillor Turner left the meeting during discussion of this item.   

Councillor Qayyum queried the accessibility of the complaints process for vulnerable residents and asked how the Council approaches and manages language barriers and digital exclusion during the debt recovery process. 

Councillor Miles asked what steps the Council takes to confirm the identity of a person believed to be residing at a given property when enacting debt recovery measures.  

Councillor Jarvis, in relation to paragraph 7 of the report, queried what incentives enforcement agents may perceive to be available, and whether they are required to report any new vulnerabilities of citizens to the Council. Councillor Jarvis also asked how frequently debt recovery cases are referred to an enforcement agency. 

In response to Councillor Miles, the Revenues Service Delivery Manager explained the legislative requirements which the council are subject to when serving documents to a person’s last known address; the process for this was outlined in detail. In response to Councillor Jarvis, the Revenues Service Delivery Manager noted that the Council meets with its contracted enforcement agencies on a quarterly basis and pursues a vigorous process of aligning recovery to the council’s policies, therefore expectations are placed on the companies to report vulnerabilities. In relation to possible incentives of bailiffs, their fees are covered by legislation and therefore no percentage of incentive is available to recover on the debts collected. The Committee also heard that if dissatisfied with the agency, the Council can assign work to their other provider. In response to Councillor Qayyum, it was noted that each enforcement agent wears body worn cameras which enables complaints to be assessed with evidence; around 1250 complaints are received monthly and are dealt with via the Council’s complaints mechanism.  

In regards language provisions during enforcement and debt recovery processes, and the frequency of debt recovery cases being referred to enforcement agencies, the Revenues Service Delivery Manager committed to reporting back. The Committee also heard of some of the more informal and plain language methods of communication used to contact residents including text messages, alongside formal legal correspondence. 

Councillor Stares queried how confident the Council is that necessary and appropriate communication occurs with residents before enforcement takes place. 

Councillor Rowley asked whether the Council receives any communications regarding debt recovery from the public that may have been generated via AI tools and is not accurate; what steps are taken to respond appropriately.  

The Chair firstly requested a summary of the timeline between first contact and enforcement action taking place and then queried whether there is scope to add plain language wording as a supplement to the written communications sent to residents to ensure ease of understanding for all recipients. 

The Revenues Service Delivery Manager provided a comprehensive step-by-step overview of the stages to the debt recovery process from first contact to completion of debt collection or payment. In response to Councillor Rowley, it was noted that any correspondence from residents would be responded to with a justification of why an amount is due to be paid and legislation would be used to support this reasoning.   

The Chair invited the Committee to consider possible recommendations. 

The Committee resolved to recommend to Cabinet: 

• That a summary report on council debt recovery activities at all stages is provided to Scrutiny and Cabinet at a future meeting to ensure there is awareness in this area of the council’s work. 

• That Cabinet considers incorporating clear, plain language summary within letters issued to individuals in addition to links to further information online, given the prevalence of digital exclusion and unfamiliarity with local government terminology. This would reduce reliance on residents needing to follow online links to understand the purpose and implications of the letters. 

• That the timescales of meetings with advice centres is revisited to ensure they correspond to their capacity and availability, noting that critical role of advice centres as both a key contact point for residents and a source of specialist advice and support.  

The Chair thanked the officers. 

The Group Finance Director and the Revenues Service Delivery Manager left the meeting.