Unlawful Public Consultation to introduce charge for Garden Waste Collection

[outlawlgo]

Re: Unlawful Public Consultation to introduce charge for Garden Waste Collection

A letter in response to the email sent (post #14) arrived under cover of email on 8 July 2015 from North East Lincolnshire Council's Solicitor. The contents are as follows:


29 June 2015

Dear Mr [outlawlgo],

Thank you for your letter of 11 June 2015 regarding North East Lincolnshire Council’s (the Council) Public Consultation to introduce a charge for garden waste collections to the Leader of the Council, Cllr Ray Oxby. The Leader of the Council has passed your letter on to me for response.

It is clear from your letter that you consider that the consultation carried out was unlawful. You further allege that the Council are aware of the illegality alleged.

There are courses of action, and ultimately remedies available to members of the public such as yourself who consider that a consultation process has been carried out unlawfully. The Council does not share this view and strongly believes the consultation process carried out to be lawful. The Council respects your rights to challenge. Should you wish to take formal proceedings to challenge the legality of the public consultation in question these proceedings should be served on:

Monitoring Officer
North East Lincolnshire Council
Municipal Office
Town Hall Square
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN31 1HU

Thank you for the reference to the case of Moseley, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Haringey [2014] UKSC 56. That case was not about the introduction of a charge for garden waste collection. It held that a local authority’s consultation exercise relating to the introduction of its council tax reduction scheme was unlawful. The consultation documents in that case failed to refer to any other options considered by the council for addressing the shortfall in funding caused by the government’s scrapping of council tax benefit and suggested the only option for the council was to require people who were exempt from council tax benefit scheme to pay approximately 20% of their council tax.

The Council’s public consultation to introduce a charge for garden waste collections included on option for consultees to propose alternatives and a number of consultees did so.

The Council’s consultation to introduce a charge for garden waste was at a time when the proposals were still at a formative stage. The Council is considered to have given sufficient reasons for the proposal to allow for intelligent consideration and response. The Council believes that adequate time was given for the consideration and response. Finally it is considered that the product of the public consultation was taken into account in finalising proposals. This means that the Council has complied with the Sedley criteria which were themselves endorsed in the case of R (Gunning) v Brent London Borough Council (1985) 84 LGR 168 for the basic requirements for a lawful consultation process. In short the Council considers that it has complied with all relevant duties and the common law duty of procedural fairness in respect of its public consultation to introduce a charge for garden waste collections.

I note the quote you have included from Cllr Watson in his capacity as Portfolio Holder for Environment. Cllr Watson is right to identify that funds raised from the introduction of charging for garden waste collection can be redirected to other vital services for our communities. The Council undertakes a range of such vital services within the collection and disposal of waste and many of these services are mandatory. The collection of garden waste is a discretionary service. It is lawful to charge for discretionary services and this includes the collection of garden waste. As I am sure you are aware many councils charge for collection garden waste. The setting of a charge for such a discretionary service has to, in part, be based on an estimate of the numbers of people who will pay for the service. It also factors in the real costs of the overheads in delivering the service. An appropriate proportion of the total overheads within the Council’s waste collection and disposal budget can rightly be included when calculating the appropriate level of charge for this particular service – namely the collection of garden waste.

Thank you for drawing attention to the Barnet case. That case pertained not to garden waste collection but to charging for parking permits in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA) to create a surplus which could be used to defray the costs of other transport initiatives funded from London Borough of Barnet’s General Fund. The Barnet case differs from the arrangements in question here as the Barnet case deals with the deliberate creation of a surplus, arising from charging under the RTRA for parking permits, after all appropriate costs for that scheme had been calculated. The arrangements here relate to the proper charging of overheads arising from the garden waste collection service to users of that service. It generates savings elsewhere because the remaining services don’t, as a consequence, have to bear 100% of the overheads. This practice is well established as lawful.

You have requested a proper breakdown setting out the Council’s income and expenditure around the setting of the £30 annual charge. I have obtained information from the Council’s section 151 officer, Sharon Wroot who clarified the income required must meet the Council’s savings target of £500k and the additional administrative costs was £672k [£172k]. Ms Wroot stated that in order to achieve the £672k target, the charge per household was based upon 56,000 households, with an assumed 40% take up. These assumptions equated to a £30 charge per household. Given this information, it is advised that the Council is not making a profit on the service itself even with the additional income. Ms Wroot advised that ceasing the service altogether was also only estimated to achieve a saving of £500k per annum as there was an expectation that we would incur other costs from householders hiding garden waste in the green bins and additional landfill disposal costs (as outlined in the December Cabinet report). Ms Wroot provided me with a breakdown of the total costs of the service. I have attached that for your information.

The final point you made about keeping income/expenditure under constant review so that the fee can be considered in the light of changes is well made. The law on charging for discretionary services requires the Council to do this but not constantly. The requirement is to set fees taking one year in comparison with another to ensure that the level of charge remains within that which can lawfully be charged. Naturally the Council will do this as part of its overall setting and review of fees and charges activity.

I trust the above is in order.

Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

Re: Unlawful Public Consultation to introduce charge for Garden Waste Collection

The spreadsheet contents of the breakdown of the total costs of the service:

Summary of Garden Waste Collection Service Cost Estimates

	£
Original Costs
Staffing	225,000
Other Employee Expenses	6,300
Vehicles	132,100
Other Supplies and Services	5,000
Garden Waste Disposal	616,100
Other Waste Expenses	11,000
Mailing Costs	27,000
Computer Software	12,600
Total Original Costs	1,035,100
Additional Costs
Mailing & Advertising	66,900
Computer Software	29,900
Payment Processing Charges	6,800
Income Administration	40,800
Other Costs	27,600
Total Additional Costs	172,000
TOTAL COST OF SERVICE	1,207,100

[outlawlgo]

Re: Unlawful Public Consultation to introduce charge for Garden Waste Collection

....There are courses of action, and ultimately remedies available to members of the public such as yourself who consider that a consultation process has been carried out unlawfully. The Council does not share this view and strongly believes the consultation process carried out to be lawful. The Council respects your rights to challenge. Should you wish to take formal proceedings to challenge the legality of the public consultation in question these proceedings should be served on:

The council's instinctive response to resolving matters relating to the criticism of its underhand practices is the suggestion of taking formal proceedings to challenge the legality of the public consultation.

Not that we didn't know this already, but using tactics like this reinforces the fact that councils are not on our side but are in fact no less than racketeering extortionists and will continue in the described manner until a court of law tells them to stop.

This authority obviously accounts for the technicality of bringing civil proceedings against a public body being beyond the scope of those residents that are most likely to want to – relying on the balance of probabilities that the risks of entering civil litigation (both financially and in time) are such that the likelihood of a challenge is remote. It will be noted that those residents don't have unlimited amount of public money that the council has available it for buying the most expensive legal representation (the only factor determining the successful party), and for those that might have, the risk of losing that together with the opponents costs in these casino style civil proceedings is a personal loss rather than other peoples' money.

It is clear from the council's argument regarding the judgment in the Haringey case not relating specifically to a consultation about the introduction of a charge for garden waste collection and similarly the Barnet case not referring to profiting from the same that the authority has no understanding of case precedents and the impact they have on related cases.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Unlawful Public Consultation to introduce charge for Garden Waste Collection

"Garden Waste" collections were funded before the recent introduction, and have been since April 2011 by Council Tax court summons costs.

NELC must have banked on residents forgetting about when they were invited to participate in a budget consultation exercise in November 2010. Some of us, unfortunately for them, have remembered.

The public and interested groups were invited to participate in a budget consultation exercise during November 2010 prior to the presentation to Cabinet of the 2011/12 draft budget and medium term financial plan for the period 2011-2015. The process included an interactive budget simulator on the council’s website where respondents could move sliders to adjust funding up or down and/or tick boxes to select the options according to their preference for where savings could be made.

An introductory explained that the council must save £29.7 million over the next four years. This was the headline figure displayed on the Simulator and the sum after which selection of the various money saving options would reduce correspondingly.

The various budgets/saving options were split into groups, for example, the first category, ‘where we spend money’ allowed respondents to adjust spending by setting sliders to the appropriate level. The second, ‘how we can bring money in’, offered two options to obtain additional revenue, which respondents could apply by ticking the box of the relevant tab. (pick option 2 on the left)

One of the two proposals to bring money in was to ‘Increase court costs for summons and liability order for Council Tax and Business Rates debtors’. Selecting ‘read more’ from the tab provided information necessary for the respondent to make an informed decision.

The other proposal was to save money by charging additionally for garden waste collections. Under the read more option it stated the following:

The council currently charges for some refuse collection services, such as clinical waste and some household waste. The council also issues fines for littering and fly-tipping. Additional charges could be introduced for replacement bins or garden waste collections.

It is clear from a budget report dated 14 February 2011 that the public preferred to have the money raised by increasing the court costs for Council Tax as follows:

Income Generation

In relation to proposed areas for charging to be introduced [out of 242 respondents], 81 per cent favoured increased charges for summonses compared to 57 per cent who supported charging for replacement bins or garden waste collections. Only 15 per cent were not in favour of any charges being introduced.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Unlawful Public Consultation to introduce charge for Garden Waste Collection

Salvador Dalí's 'Endless Enigma' – a painting incorporating disguised multiple imagery, can be likened to the council's Garden waste costings, which have at least, if not a greater ability to deceive the eye. What might take an hour or two figuring out what goes on in the surrealist's work might take an age longer deciphering the accounts.

Anyone familiar with Dalí's visual puzzle will probably agree that the imagination put into that work has been equalled, if not excelled, by the creativity needed to maintain the numerical puzzle of the continual re-working of figures presented to us to support the cost of the service.

The income needed to ensure 'full cost recovery' was £0.5 million according to figures presented in a report published at the end of 2014. We learn now, which is just cause for suspicion, that the council is having to subsidise the service, even though the income generated stands at over £0.8 million.

Perhaps we misunderstood, and the £0.5 million quoted was actually a target which the council hoped to save by introducing a charge – not the amount it would in fact cost to deliver the service. But there is no mistake, the report published in December 2014 clearly stated that "given the need to ensure full cost recovery, it is proposed that an annual charge of £40 per annum is levied". There was also no mistaking that the model was based on 30% (16,800) of those households who received a garden waste collection (56,000) would subscribe to the new service.

The proposed business case therefore centred around 16,800 residents subscribing at a charge of £40 to achieve full cost recovery (£0.672 million) which included what appeared to be an allowance of £172,000 to budget for policing the green bins of non subscribers who might try their luck and conceal their garden waste. The puzzle is that the income based on £30 per bin for the 26,877 households now subscribed to the service exceeds that figure by £134,310 which raises the question of how the service can be considered to be subsidised?

A figure of £1.3 million is also quoted as the cost of delivering the service, a whopping 160% on top of the £0.5 million that the council presented in reports published in December last year. Which one of the two, if either, are correct?

The latest report though enlightens us as to why the normal laws of accountancy perhaps don't apply. For those interested, a bar graph gives the total number of bins required to achieve full service cost recovery for a range starting at 32,500 at £40 per subscription to 65,000 where the cost reduces to £20 per household. The service must work on the basis that all staff involved in the operation work voluntarily and with no running cost; perhaps fuel is donated by BP – that, or something similar must account for the service costing £1.3 million whether it collects 32,500 bins or 65,000.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Unlawful Public Consultation to introduce charge for Garden Waste Collection

The above post was printed in yesterday's Grimsby Telegraph but didn't make an appearance on its website.

A council spokesperson said:

"The introduction of charges for the collection of garden waste was to meet a savings target of £500,000 for this financial year, not to meet the full £1.3 million running costs of the service. Charges for the service were recently discussed by the relevant scrutiny committee where a recommendation to keep the charge at £30 per year was put forward. However, no decision has or will be made on the future charge for the service until the council's cabinet has met to discuss the issue further.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Unlawful Public Consultation to introduce charge for Garden Waste Collection

A council spokesperson said:

"The introduction of charges for the collection of garden waste was to meet a savings target of £500,000 for this financial year, not to meet the full £1.3 million running costs of the service....

The above is a classic example of what would – 'according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people' be considered dishonest – in a theoretical context be claimed not to be. A subsequent post will explain.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Unlawful Public Consultation to introduce charge for Garden Waste Collection

A council spokesperson said:

"The introduction of charges for the collection of garden waste was to meet a savings target of £500,000 for this financial year, not to meet the full £1.3 million running costs of the service. Charges for the service were recently discussed by the relevant scrutiny committee where a recommendation to keep the charge at £30 per year was put forward. However, no decision has or will be made on the future charge for the service until the council's cabinet has met to discuss the issue further.

The Council's response implies that the terms, 'full running costs' and 'full cost recovery' are not interchangeable because the former refers to £1.3m it costs to run the service, and the latter to £0.5 million the council would need, through paying customers, to ensure full cost is recovered. Sounds illogical, but so long as the smaller sum merely represents the savings target requiring 'full cost recovery', there's no argument. It's an explanation anyway, albeit invalid, because the point is those terms 'were' actually used interchangeably in the report.

In addressing the FAQs, one of the answers was; 'there are no concessions as NELC...has set a charge to ensure that the full cost of the service is recovered'. All ambiguity is therefore removed and recovery cost must mean the same as the cost of the service – or must it? Not necessarily! The options offered by the council were either ceasing the service or to charge for it, but the report muddied the waters by informing us that 'the estimated efficiency saving of £500k is the same for both' and conflictingly stated that the council incurred 'an annual cost of £1.3 million to collect and dispose of this waste'.

Hold on! The £1.3m annual cost, misquoted by £93k, accounts for collecting garden waste from 56,000 households (the number receiving the service when free). The council based its recent figures first on 30 per cent take-up at £40 per subscription and on a re-think £30, foreseeing 40 per cent would want the service.

Based on its second estimate, and purely to illustrate the point, 40 per cent of the full annual cost of £1.21m plus £172k for enforcement adds up to £0.655m which is not significantly different from the council's £0.672m savings target. The full £1.3 million (£1.21m) running costs of the service accounts for collecting garden waste from 56,000 households and is therefore of no relevance to the 22,400 (40 per cent) taking up the service upon which its figures are based.

So is the council subsidising the service or are garden waste subscribers subsidising the council, and if so by how much?

Given the 'goal post shift' it's fair that the paying public are given a clue as to their whereabouts. A solution would be to have breakdowns supporting the various sets of figures quoted since the council proposed delivering the service in 2011 based on an estimated 11,000 household at a cost of £25. Accompanying notes would explain clearly the effect of income off-setting the expenditure has on the true cost, like the annual £188k additional income from increasing council tax late payment penalties which the public elected in preference to the introduction of a charge for garden waste service in a public consultation for the 2011/12 budget setting process.

As a rough guide, around £467k (£655 – £188k) would be a more realistic figure to indicate 'full running costs' or 'full cost recovery', whichever term is preferred.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Unlawful Public Consultation to introduce charge for Garden Waste Collection

There was a greater use of smoke and mirrors than first thought and consequently some was missed whilst producing the above post.

Based on its second estimate, and purely to illustrate the point, 40 per cent of the full annual cost of £1.21m plus £172k for enforcement adds up to £0.655m which is not significantly different from the council's £0.672m savings target. The full £1.3 million (£1.21m) running costs of the service accounts for collecting garden waste from 56,000 households and is therefore of no relevance to the 22,400 (40 per cent) taking up the service upon which its figures are based.

Don't know how the sleight of hand above was missed. NELC appears to be have added £172k for policing costs twice. It's full running costs for 56,000 households was £1.035 million and the additional cost of £172k was added so it then totalled its quoted £1.3m (£1.21m). It then determined the cost for the cut down service of 40% of existing customers (£0.5m) but decided it could get away with pulling the wool over its residents eyes by adding the same £172k enforcement expenditure again to make £0.672m.

As a rough guide, around £467k (£655 – £188k) would be a more realistic figure to indicate 'full running costs' or 'full cost recovery', whichever term is preferred.

So the above can and should be amended to:

As a rough guide, around £295k (£483 – £188k) would be a more realistic figure to indicate the full running costs of the service.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Unlawful Public Consultation to introduce charge for Garden Waste Collection

From: outlawlgo
To: John.Prentice@kpmg.co.uk
Sent: December 09, 2015
Subject: Audit Commission Act 1998 - Garden waste service Accounts

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Declaration of unlawful account and report in the public interest

As external auditor to North East Lincolnshire Council (the 'Council') I am requesting KPMG apply to the court for a declaration that an item of account is contrary to law under section 17(1) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 with respect to the Council's claim that the annual full cost of running the Garden waste collection service for 22,400 households is £1.3 million for the reasons set out below.

It would also seem appropriate that serious consideration is given whether to produce a report in the public interest under section 8 of the Audit Commission Act 1998.

Background

The Council provided a non-fee subscription service for the collection of garden waste prior to 1 June 2015, for which the Council records the number of households taking advantage of the service under the arrangement then as 56,000. In order to continue providing the service and achieve 'full costs recovery', a £30 annual charge was introduced on the basis that 40% (22,400) of the existing householders would continue subscribing.

A report stated in the consultation stage with regards to either ceasing the service or to charge for it that 'the estimated efficiency saving of £500k is the same for both'. In conflict to that statement the same report said that the Council incurred 'an annual cost of £1.3 million to collect and dispose of this waste'.

Issue 1

The annual full cost of running the Garden waste service for 56,000 householders can reasonably be taken as £1,035,100 (see attached spread sheet, "Total Original Costs"). It is also a reasonable assumption that an additional amount has been factored into that figure to allow for policing and enforcing the service, post 1 June 2015 (when collections became a paid for service) to allow for those no longer wishing to subscribe who might try their luck and conceal their garden waste etc.

The latter part of the calculation adds another £172,000 for administration charges etc., bringing the total cost of the service to £1,207,100.

The Council quotes a figure of £1.3 million in reports and news articles for the total cost of the service which leaves a discrepancy of £92,900 (over its calculation).

Issue 2

The Council claims that with approximately 27,000 householders subscribing (4,600 above its business case figure) it is still subsidising the service.

The report attached, 'Review of Garden Waste Services' (page 4) provides a bar graph showing the total number of bins required to achieve full service cost recovery for a range starting at 32,500 householders taking up the service at a £40 subscription charge, to 65,000, where the cost reduces to £20 per household. All other scenarios similarly relate to income figures of £1.3 million. The accounting basis is not sound for the service costing £1.3 million whether 32,500 or 65,000 bins are collected.

Issue 3

The calculation does not account for relevant income from other sources to off-set expenditure to give the true running cost.

For example, there is an annual £188k additional generated from increasing the penalty applied in the form of court costs for late payment of council tax instalments which the public elected in preference to the introduction of a charge for garden waste service in a public consultation for the 2011/12 budget setting process.

Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

Re: Unlawful Public Consultation to introduce charge for Garden Waste Collection

From: Auditor (KPMG)
To: outlawlgo
Sent: January 13, 2016
Subject: RE: Audit Commission Act 1998 - Council tax summons costs Accounts

Mr outlawlgo,

Thank you for your e-mails of 9 December and 27 December.

Before we decide how to deal with the matters you have raised, it would be helpful if you could answer a few questions please for each matter you raised.

1. Have you raised either matter directly with the Council?

2. Do you wish your correspondence to remain confidential or are you happy for us to exchange open correspondence with the Council?

3. Have you received a summons from the Council or are you paying for a garden waste service from the Council?

As the Council has to meet any costs involved, we would wish to ensure we can deal efficiently with any matters which fall within our responsibilities.

I attach a booklet which explains your rights as an elector or resident. This has been published by the National Audit Office which took over some of the previous responsibilities of the Audit Commission.

Kind regards

KPMG

[outlawlgo]

Re: Unlawful Public Consultation to introduce charge for Garden Waste Collection

From: outlawlgo
To: Auditor (KPMG)
Sent: January 13, 2016
Subject: Re: Audit Commission Act 1998 - Council tax summons costs Accounts

Dear KPMG

Re: Audit Commission Act 1998 - Garden waste service / Council tax summons costs Accounts

Thank you for your 13 January 16 email.

In answer to your questions I can confirm I have raised both matters directly with the Council.

I attach a letter dated 29 June 15 in response to an email I sent the Council on 11 June regarding the garden waste service. Accompanied with the letter was a spreadsheet which I attached to the email I sent you on 9 December 15.

The attachment to the email I sent you on 27 December 15, "Defendants Grounds of Appeal", should provide sufficient detail to outline the issues I have raised with the Council regarding the summons costs.

I much prefer transparency so I am happy for you to exchange open correspondence with the Council.

I can confirm that I have been summonsed on a number of occasions and incurred costs, but on the other hand do not subscribe to the garden waste service, therefore my motivation for seeking to have the accounts scrutinised is not borne out of self interest.

Yours sincerely

[outlawlgo]

Re: Unlawful Public Consultation to introduce charge for Garden Waste Collection

North East Lincolnshire Council's external auditor contractor, KPMG, has delivered its response to the request for a declaration of unlawful account and report in the public interest.

You have to bear in mind that as a private company and contractor to the council it had little choice in the matter if it wanted to carry on being the council's contractor.

From: outlawlgo
To: John.Prentice@kpmg.co.uk
Sent: December 09, 2015
Subject: Audit Commission Act 1998 - Garden waste service Accounts

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Declaration of unlawful account and report in the public interest

As external auditor to North East Lincolnshire Council (the 'Council') I am requesting KPMG apply to the court for a declaration that an item of account is contrary to law under section 17(1) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 with respect to the Council's claim that the annual full cost of running the Garden waste collection service for 22,400 households is £1.3 million for the reasons set out below.

It would also seem appropriate that serious consideration is given whether to produce a report in the public interest under section 8 of the Audit Commission Act 1998.

Background

The Council provided a non-fee subscription service for the collection of garden waste prior to 1 June 2015, for which the Council records the number of households taking advantage of the service under the arrangement then as 56,000. In order to continue providing the service and achieve 'full costs recovery', a £30 annual charge was introduced on the basis that 40% (22,400) of the existing householders would continue subscribing.

A report stated in the consultation stage with regards to either ceasing the service or to charge for it that 'the estimated efficiency saving of £500k is the same for both'. In conflict to that statement the same report said that the Council incurred 'an annual cost of £1.3 million to collect and dispose of this waste'.

Issue 1

The annual full cost of running the Garden waste service for 56,000 householders can reasonably be taken as £1,035,100 (see attached spread sheet, "Total Original Costs"). It is also a reasonable assumption that an additional amount has been factored into that figure to allow for policing and enforcing the service, post 1 June 2015 (when collections became a paid for service) to allow for those no longer wishing to subscribe who might try their luck and conceal their garden waste etc.

The latter part of the calculation adds another £172,000 for administration charges etc., bringing the total cost of the service to £1,207,100.

The Council quotes a figure of £1.3 million in reports and news articles for the total cost of the service which leaves a discrepancy of £92,900 (over its calculation).

Issue 2

The Council claims that with approximately 27,000 householders subscribing (4,600 above its business case figure) it is still subsidising the service.

The report attached, 'Review of Garden Waste Services' (page 4) provides a bar graph showing the total number of bins required to achieve full service cost recovery for a range starting at 32,500 householders taking up the service at a £40 subscription charge, to 65,000, where the cost reduces to £20 per household. All other scenarios similarly relate to income figures of £1.3 million. The accounting basis is not sound for the service costing £1.3 million whether 32,500 or 65,000 bins are collected.

Issue 3

The calculation does not account for relevant income from other sources to off-set expenditure to give the true running cost.

For example, there is an annual £188k additional generated from increasing the penalty applied in the form of court costs for late payment of council tax instalments which the public elected in preference to the introduction of a charge for garden waste service in a public consultation for the 2011/12 budget setting process.

Yours sincerely

From: Prentice, John
To: [outlawlgo]
Cc: Wroot, Sharon
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016
Subject: North East Lincolnshire council - garden waste collection costs

Dear Mr [outlawlgo],

Declaration that an item of account is unlawful – garden waste collection costs

We refer to your e-mail of 9 December 2015, in which you request KPMG to apply to the court for a declaration that an item of account is contrary to law under section 17(1) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 with respect to the Council's claim that the annual full cost of running the Garden waste collection service for 22,400 households is £1.3 million. You also requested consideration of whether a report in the public interest should be produced under section 8 of the Audit Commission Act 1998.

As the Council operates a garden waste collection service and has introduced a charge for that service in 2015-16, there are potential items of account which could come before us for audit. We have therefore considered the following points in relation to the matters you raise:

1. What legal power does the Council have to provide a garden waste collection service?

2. What legal power does the Council have to charge for this service?

3. What items of account exist in relation to garden waste?

4. What actions has the Council taken in relation to this service?

5. Has the Council acted reasonably and within its powers in relation to garden waste collection?

6. Are there any matters where we might conclude that the Council has acted unlawfully?

7. Are there any matters which would justify a report in the public interest?

We have examined relevant documentation, reviewed appropriate legislation and discussed the above matters with relevant Council officers.

Following consideration of the above, we have concluded that there is no unlawful item of account. Consequently there is no need for any action under paragraph 28 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. There are also no matters which would require reporting in the public interest under schedule 7 paragraph 1 of that Act. (This Act replaces the Audit Commission Act 1998 from 2015-16 onwards.) We set out below the reasons for reaching these conclusions.

Garden waste collection is a service provided under Section 45(3) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and detailed in The Controlled Waste England and Wales Regulations (2012), which permits the Council to make a charge at its discretion. Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003 also contains powers for local authorities to charge for all discretionary services. The Council therefore has legal powers to provide the service and to charge for it.

Your e-mail referred to costs of the service totalling £1.207m and queried the Council’s estimate of £1.3m. You suggested that the numbers of households used in setting the annual fee did not provide a sound accounting basis.

The Council’s estimate of £1.3m and the number of households who may buy the service are not items of account and are not matters that would come before us for audit. However, as there are linked items of account, we have considered these items at this stage rather than defer the matter until 2015-16 accounts are available. The actual costs will appear in the 2015-16 accounts and forms part of the overall refuse collection service as garden waste collection is not collected separately. Income for 2015-16 will also be included, with the latest projection at December 2015 showing that 26,973 households (or 48% of maximum possible purchasers) had paid £30 each for the service in 2015-16.

The latest projection of costs, including overheads, still exceeds £1.2m and so still exceeds projected income. The £30 fee was also set with regard to costs incurred and will not generate a surplus in 2015-16. Take up of the service has also been higher than originally estimated which suggests that the charge is neither excessive nor unreasonable. On that basis the Council has acted reasonably and within its powers.

We attach a booklet published by the National Audit Office which explains your rights. It also explains the extent of our powers as the auditor when considering any matters that are raised.

We have copied this e-mail to the Council so that they are aware of the decisions reached.

Yours sincerely

J G Prentice
Director, for and on behalf of, KPMG LLP