|
|
|
|
|
Minutes
of a
meeting of the
Joint
Scrutiny Committee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
held
on Monday, 29
January 2024at
6.30
pm
at
Abbey
House, Abbey Close, Abingdon OX14 3JE.
Open to the public, including the
press
|
Present in
the meeting room:
|
Members:
South Oxfordshire District Councillors:
Alexandrine Kantor, Leigh Rawlins, Jo Robb, Kate Gregory
Vale of White Horse District Councillors:
Katherine Foxhall (co-chair), Andy Cooke, Ron Batstone, Judy
Roberts, Andrew Skinner
|
|
Officers: Adrianna
Partridge and Candida Basilio (Democratic Services Officer)
|
Also
present: Cabinet members
for Environment - Councillor Sue Cooper (SODC) and Councillor
Mark Coleman (VOWH),
Councillor Andrew Crawford (Finance, VOWH)
|
Virtual attendance:
Officers: Sally Truman (Customer Services Manager), Mark
Minion (Head of Corporate Services), Paul Fielding (Head of Housing
and Environment)
Cabinet
Members: Councillors
Andrea Powell (Corporate Services, SODC), Maggie Filipova-Rivers
(Community Wellbeing, SODC), David Rouane (South Leader)
|
|
<AI1>
Sc.25
Apologies for
absence
Councillor Stefan Gawrysiak gave apologies.
Councillor Ed Sadler sent his apologies, and Councillor Kate
Gregory attended in his place as a substitute member of the
committee.
</AI1>
<AI2>
Sc.26
Urgent business and
chair's announcements
Chair ran through housekeeping matters and
reminded members of meeting etiquette.
</AI2>
<AI3>
Sc.27
Declaration of
interests
None
</AI3>
<AI4>
Sc.28
Minutes
Resolved:
The minutes of the meeting on 7 December 2023
were agreed a correct record, and these would be signed by the
chair at the end of the meeting.
</AI4>
<AI5>
Sc.29
Public
participation
None.
</AI5>
<AI6>
Sc.30
Work schedule and
dates for Joint scrutiny meetings
Chair reminded members that ideas were welcome
for the work programme, and recent ideas were to ask Thames Water
and the Environment Agency to speak to us. Members previously
mentioned how other authorities had invited Police to scrutiny.
A member asked if they could invite the
Integrated Care Board (BOB ICB) back to tackle concerns over health
centres. Chair asked members to help form the context / scope of a
potential conversation and what Scrutiny Committee would like to
achieve from discussions. The Co-chairs would discuss this
further.
There were no further comments raised about
the Joint Scrutiny work programme.
</AI6>
<AI7>
Sc.31
Garden waste
permit
Joint Scrutiny was asked to review and provide
comments for Cabinets on the proposal to implement a garden waste
permit model from 1 April 2025.
Chair opened this item by explaining that
although this seemed a small agenda, this item affected many
residents. Although it was a discretionary service, the Environment
Act would make the garden waste provision a service that must be
provided by councils from 2026 (however it would still be optional
for residents to take up).
Cabinet Members for Environment (South and
Vale) were present to introduce this item. Officers present online
were Head of Corporate Services, Head of Housing and Environment,
and the Customer Services Manager. Cabinet member for Corporate
Services (South) was also online.
Cabinet member for Vale briefly summarised the
report.
The aim was to move all customers to one
payment date and move away from direct debit. It was proposed to
move all customers to the same renewal date of 1 April, with
payment to be made in February-March for the service to be provided
from 1 April to 31 March as of 2025 (municipal year). It was felt
that moving to a single payment date would be less confusing for
customers. Residents would be given a tamper-proof permit sticker
to label their brown bin. The sticker system would make it easier
for waste crews to identify who had paid for the service. The
councils were committed to improving operational efficiency and
creating customer service improvements.
The new system was considered by officers to
provide efficiencies in administering the service, simplifying the
process for both customers and staff. There would be a
comprehensive communications plan in place to inform residents of
the transition to this new system. The cost of the sticker system
to the council would be slightly lower, and the cost of the sticker
would be included in the full cost of the service which is the
basis for setting the annual garden waste fee. Staff would look to
remind residents on a yearly basis to pay for their new
permit(s).
Committee commented as follows:
- A member raised the issue of residents
updating/paying for the service yearly and queried whether this was
really a simpler method for residents, as direct debits were a
rolling payment. The removal of the minimum collections rule was
queried, and the Cabinet member for Vale explained that the intent
was to avoid administrative burden of, for example, calculating the
refund for one missed bin. Legal officers had explained that the
method proposed was used in other authorities. Customer Services
Manager responded on direct debits – councils across the
country use a variety of methods. Officers were concerned about the
difficulties of collecting non-payment from direct debits. 1,600
cases were open where the direct debits were closed down and fees
not collected, and this created a burden on administrative
resources.
- Another member echoed the above comment on
the yearly payment - if we were investing in a CRM system, can we
use it to its capacity and send out a communication to residents
where direct debits fail. If they do not respond, they
wouldn’t get the permit. The CRM should assist with the
issues around lack of customer data that was present. Customer
Services Manager explained that there were issues caused if any
details changed at the bank, such as an address or name. This would
cause a direct debit to fail. The officer was concerned about the
significant amount of manual work for staff when this occurs.
Officers were hoping to encourage use of Pay360 and online payments
as a more manageable alternative.
- A member expressed an opposing view, that as
an optional service, if you were motivated to use the service it
should not be difficult to pay annually. The member also raised a
potential issue, that if someone moves house, they might need to
chase an overpayment if it auto renews, so paying yearly gives more
control as you wouldn’t forget about a renewing payment.
Therefore, they felt there was a case for a one-off yearly payment.
Can there be an app for this service?
- Another member commented on internet use and
the elderly, which could be an issue. ‘Digital only’
was raised as a risk to consider. It was confirmed that customers
would continue to be able to call our customer service centre as
they can at present, and a customer service advisor could set up
the payment for them.
- Much discussion around the payment schedule
and integrating existing payment into the new yearly payment. Head
of Corporate Services explained that offering a 6-monthly fee in
the first year made sense. It was explained that about half of the
year the service was less used due to the seasonal needs for garden
maintenance.
- A member felt customer goals were not met by
this and they raised bin micro chipping as a future proofing
method. The costs of micro chipping were unknown in the
meeting.
- A member asked what would happen when
collection staff encounter a bin with no sticker yet? It was
responded it would not be emptied and a pink hanger would be put on
the bin, for the resident to ring up and sort any issue around
payment/non-payment. Stickers should be issued in February/March,
well ahead of April 2025, when the system starts. Head of Housing
and Environment added that bins not paid for can be
collected/removed over time if not paid for, once the system had
been established for a few weeks.
- On the proposed ‘no minimum number of
collections’ – a member asked for clarity on this. The
committee member added that there should be multiple methods of
communications – letter, telephone, and also consideration
given to cash payments. Customer Service Manager explained that the
current minimum collection number was 20 and we actually provided
25. She explained that operational flexibility was needed to enable
the Waste team to prioritise statutory collections if for instance
there was a prolonged period of bad weather or staff
shortages. The cost of one missed bin was worth around
£1.20, so the cost in staff time of making a refund for one
collection was disproportionate to its value. It was added that
refunds would be offered for a serious failure in the service, for
example a rebate was given during Covid lockdowns.
- Single point of failure risk – a member
asked about the sticker supplier. Customer Services Manager
explained that a procurement process was followed, including
requesting samples to check for quality and the stickers used by
the main suppliers in the market were tamper-proof and
fit-for-purpose.
- A member questioned how far can we go with
automating via the system (transformational IT)? Head of Corporate
Services explained that Transformation of IT was a journey and this
was a step towards it, building up an customer online account, and
adding other services and reporting over time as functionality
develops. He explained that with the proposed system we would not
hold any customer bank details which as sensitive personal data,
presents a risk.
- Committee were informed that paying a one-off
annual permit was that if you move into a new home, you may have a
period of free use as the permit may be paid by previous owner for
the year and stays with the property.
- A member suggested we allow payment for three
years at a time – Cabinet member explained that the colour of
the sticker changed per year. Can there be a multi-year sticker?
Cabinet member raised the issue of the councils calculating garden
waste fees yearly and the impact of taking payments early could
have on the financial viability of running the service.
- A member asked whether the payment could
start with an initial joining fee.
A member expressed a view that on balance, as
an optional service, those wanting the service can take the time to
make a payment, and also reduce cost by lessening officer time
administering. However, some members were concerned about the
one-off annual payment and moving away from direct debits. Cabinet
member for Corporate Services (South) added that this new system
was to help all to access the service but also not to make it more
difficult for council staff.
A member motioned to look into micro chipping
bins before proceeding, but other members did not agree that there
was time to do this – it was felt that we needed to continue
to progress efficiencies with a new CRM system and getting better
customer records. Cabinet member for Environment (South) felt this
could be a future consideration.
Members further discussed their concerns along
with the positives of the new method, concluding with the following
motion that committee agreed.
Resolved:
Scrutiny committee request that South and Vale
cabinets consider continuing to offer direct debit payments, and
scrutiny committee also supported other payment methods such as
cash and over the phone payments.
Committee asked that both Cabinets consider
retaining the minimum number of collections per year, for customer
assurance. Cabinets were asked to ensure that a clear
communications plan be put in place to:
1. show residents how to pay and
2. keep residents updated on the changes
Further comments:
Separate to the motion, it was noted that
future consideration should be given to the following methods:
- Bin microchipping
- An initial joining fee
</AI7>
<TRAILER_SECTION>
The meeting
closed at 8.00 pm
|
</TRAILER_SECTION>
<LAYOUT_SECTION>
Sc.1FIELD_TITLE
FIELD_SUMMARY
</LAYOUT_SECTION>
<TITLE_ONLY_LAYOUT_SECTION>
Sc.2FIELD_TITLE
</TITLE_ONLY_LAYOUT_SECTION>
<HEADING_LAYOUT_SECTION>
</HEADING_LAYOUT_SECTION>
<TITLED_COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>
FIELD_TITLE
FIELD_SUMMARY
</
TITLED_COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>
<COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>FIELD_ODD_PAGE
</
COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>
<SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>
a)FIELD_TITLE
FIELD_SUMMARY
</SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>
<TITLE_ONLY_SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>
b)FIELD_TITLE
</TITLE_ONLY_SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>
<LAYOUT_SECTION_2>
Sc.3FIELD_TITLE
FIELD_SUMMARY
</LAYOUT_SECTION_2>
<TITLE_ONLY_LAYOUT_SECTION_2>
Sc.4FIELD_TITLE
</TITLE_ONLY_LAYOUT_SECTION_2>
<HEADING_LAYOUT_SECTION>
</HEADING_LAYOUT_SECTION_2>
<TITLED_COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION_2>
FIELD_TITLE
FIELD_SUMMARY
</
TITLED_COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION_2>
<COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION_2>
</
COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION_2>
<SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION_2>
a)FIELD_TITLE
FIELD_SUMMARY
</SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION_2>
<TITLE_ONLY_SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION_2>
b)FIELD_TITLE
</TITLE_ONLY_SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION_2>