Summary of participant views – 24 November 2025
This week’s Monday Discussion Group opened with a sense of déjà vu. With the Budget only days away, Malcolm Gardner remarked that most of its contents seemed to have been pre-announced, leaving little mystery for Wednesday. Paul Howarth agreed, noting that Budget leaks usually reflect firm Treasury intentions. While last-minute surprises are always possible, he felt the overall shape had already been set.
The first substantive discussion came from a question posed by Katie Kelly, who asked how councils introducing second-home and empty-home premiums at the one-year point were forecasting the taxbase impact. Were authorities assuming a full 100 per cent yield, or applying a discount to reflect uncertainty?
Michael Fisher explained that St Helens had taken the cautious route and excluded the premiums entirely from its taxbase calculation. Uncertainty over exemptions, behavioural responses, and data quality meant the risk of over-estimating income felt too great. Naomi Armstrong echoed this, saying her authority had not assumed full yield either; the information available simply was not robust enough to support confident forecasting.
A more detailed account came from Bob Wagstaff, reflecting on work in South Lincolnshire. There, premium-property collection rates had dropped into the low-seventies percent, compared with the ninety-plus per cent normally achieved. His team had also worked on the assumption that around a quarter of premiums would ultimately fall away once exemptions were clarified. In practice, the premium could even reduce net revenue in the early stages due to poor collection.
Swindon’s position, outlined by Robert Fox, was different again: out of more than 102,000 domestic properties, no more than 44–87 were expected to be genuine second homes. With a likely 60 per cent collection rate, the financial implications were modest. Kevin Stewart closed the discussion by observing that premiums have always been harder to collect and further measures expected in the Budget may only add to the burden.
The group then moved on to the DWP’s revised fraud and SFiS referral guidance. The tone of the circular raised eyebrows. Naomi Armstrong felt it read like a reprimand to councils. Robert Fox reported low confidence in SFiS performance, saying referrals often seemed to vanish without meaningful feedback.
Paul Howarth saw the problem as structural: centralising fraud investigation had, in his view, been a mistake. Local authorities had historically been much more effective because they held the local knowledge, contacts, and institutional motivation. He was sceptical that another round of anti-fraud rhetoric in the Budget would translate into practical improvement. Julie Smethurst agreed, recalling that the relationship between councils and the central fraud service had never developed into a functional partnership.
For Bob Wagstaff, the key question was why councils had stopped referring cases in the first place. Long delays and limited engagement from SFiS, particularly after pandemic redeployments, had bred a sense of futility. Tom Clark noted similar sentiments from councils he had worked with.
At this point, Malcolm Gardner raised the issue of a rapidly expanding risk: AI-enabled fraud. Drawing on recent findings from fraud examiners, he outlined how deepfakes, manipulated documents and biometric spoofing increasingly threaten established verification processes. This technology, he argued, is evolving faster than the processes designed to contain it.
This naturally led into broader reflections from the group. Rachel argued that once fraud work was removed from local authorities, the sense of ownership and professional identity diminished. Councils shifted their attention to the work that still sat squarely within their remit. She was also critical of the DWP’s communication style, which she felt was counter-productive if cooperation was genuinely desired. For her, much of the current fraud narrative amounted to moral panic over a problem that represents a small fraction of welfare spending. Naomi, with characteristic wit, likened the DWP–LA relationship to a quote from Love Actually, where one party takes what it wants while ignoring everything else.
The second major item was Tom Clark’s detailed review of the new Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) figures. Liverpool’s apparent move from the fourth to the twenty-fourth most deprived authority had created stir locally. Tom explained that the shift stemmed from the introduction of income-after-housing-costs as a key variable. Liverpool’s relatively low rents make the city look comparatively better off, even as health outcomes have deteriorated. For Tom, this raised fundamental questions about how accurately the new methodology reflects lived experience.
Sean O’Sullivan highlighted that high housing costs in London create severe poverty that is often underestimated, particularly when viewed through the lens of the benefit cap. Any fair-funding revision, he argued, must avoid shifting resources away from high-need boroughs. Rachel acknowledged this but warned that the new approach risks masking deep, longstanding deprivation in places like Liverpool and Burnley, where low housing costs do not mean low poverty.
Paul Howarth suggested the issue may lie not in principle but in weighting. Income after housing costs may be a reasonable measure, but if its weight overshadows critical domains such as health and housing condition, the overall index risks misrepresentation. Gareth cautioned against the debate becoming a fight between regions, noting that the real crisis is universal underfunding rather than a distributional dispute.
As the meeting drew to a close, Gareth raised a final technical point about recent changes to GAD annuity tables for notional pension income, which had implications for Housing Benefit entitlement. No authority present had acted on the change, despite its potential significance.
Malcolm closed the session by confirming that next week will be devoted to analysing the Budget in detail. With the year’s final meeting approaching, he expressed guarded optimism that the Budget might bring more clarity than complication—but left open the possibility that the opposite may yet be true.
The Independent Revenues & Benefits Discussion Group continues to provide a vital forum for expert analysis, shared learning, and open debate at a time of significant policy flux.
For more information or to join future sessions, contact Malcolm Gardner at Visionary Network. info@visionarynetwork.co.uk
THE RECORDING CAN BE FOUND HERE