This week’s Independent Revenues and Benefits Monday Discussion Group focused mainly on the political consequences of the local elections and what they may mean for councils, officers, local welfare policy and Revenues and Benefits services. The group also considered a significant Upper Tribunal decision on contrived tenancies in supported accommodation, involving MySpace Housing, Middlesbrough and Sunderland.
Rachael Walker chaired the session and opened by framing the election results as a major moment for local government. Her concern was not simply that councils had changed political hands, but that many authorities now face a combination of new councillors, fragile control, limited institutional memory and more complex political negotiation. She described Revenues and Benefits as both highly technical and highly emotive, which makes the quality of officer advice especially important when members arrive with strong views but limited practical understanding of council finance, welfare administration and statutory duties.
A key theme was the growth of no overall control. Rachael noted that officers may find themselves moving from delivering a clear political mandate to helping maintain stability across more fragmented political groups. That does not mean officers become political actors, but it does mean their reports, briefings and professional advice may need to be more carefully framed, more widely shared and more robustly evidenced.
Sean O’Sullivan challenged the group to be careful with the term “no overall control”. In his view, some councils described as no overall control may still operate very close to single party control where one group is near a majority and can rely on a mayoral or chair’s casting vote. However, where the arithmetic is genuinely difficult, he argued that no overall control can strengthen democratic accountability because no single group automatically takes ownership of officer reports. In those situations, councillors may feel freer to question the detail and officers should expect more scrutiny.
Michael Fisher brought a practical officer perspective. Drawing on experience of working in no overall control councils, he argued that it can work well if officers brief all political groups properly and bring members along at the same pace. He did not see no overall control as inherently chaotic. In his experience, it can mean more work for officers, but also more negotiation and less internal party infighting than can sometimes occur where one party has an overwhelming majority. He also described the immediate logistical reality in St Helens, with a large number of new councillors needing equipment, induction, training and time to organise themselves before policy direction becomes clear.
Bob Wagstaff also saw potential advantages in no overall control. He recalled working in a council where cross-party governance meant decisions were discussed and resolved before being presented publicly. His view was that, in some single party majority councils, officers can become the effective opposition because the formal political opposition is disregarded. By contrast, where several parties have to work together, officers may find there is more collective political ownership of decisions.
Julie Smethurst offered a measured view from Tameside, which has moved to no overall control after decades of Labour control. Her message was essentially “do not panic”. She accepted that the situation was new for Tameside, but not new for local government. From an officer perspective, the immediate task was to induct members, provide training and continue to run services professionally while the political discussions take place.
Malcolm Gardner agreed that no overall control can produce better cooperation, but warned that it changes the officer environment. His concern was that decisions may become slower, more analytical and more dependent on senior officer support. Officers may need to provide more options, more modelling and more advice across groups. At the same time, where parties agree on an issue, decisions may sometimes move quickly because members want to bank the areas of consensus.
Gareth Morgan gave the Welsh perspective and reminded the group that coalition, cooperation and minority government are not unusual in the Senedd. He focused on the likely policy direction in Wales, particularly the ambition around child poverty, housing and a more integrated Welsh benefits system. He referred to proposals around child support payments, no fault evictions, childcare and the bringing together of council tax reduction, free school meals, educational maintenance allowances, essential grants and other support into a more coherent system. His view was that the ambition is significant, but delivery will depend on funding and the nature of negotiations with Westminster.
Paul Howarth reflected on the position in Kent and the wider implications of Reform controlled or Reform influenced councils. He described Reform and the Greens as “new kids on the block” in different ways, both bringing populist energy into local government. He also pointed to the continuing importance of the first past the post voting system, which tends to push politics back towards two broad blocs even when the electoral landscape becomes more fragmented. His broader concern was whether the current party system will recompose itself around Reform on one side and a new left or centre left grouping on the other.
The discussion then turned to social value and local welfare funding. John Gibbs had asked, through the chat, whether Reform controlled councils might put funding for food poverty work, crisis loans or similar support at risk. Paul’s view was that, in Kent, the new administration had not yet made major social policy changes but had already found that savings are harder to deliver than campaign rhetoric may suggest. Adult social care and special educational needs pressures mean that councils still have to balance budgets, and in practice that may require council tax rises as well as savings.
Michael gave a concrete example from St Helens, where a proposed school uniform voucher scheme could become an early test of the new administration’s priorities. Although the money had not yet been spent, it had been promised and could be vulnerable if the incoming administration wants a quick saving. He also noted that the Crisis and Resilience Fund report would be one of the first reports before the new cabinet, making it an immediate test of values and local discretion.
Rachael’s concern was that social welfare policy could be at risk where political narratives about welfare clash with the practical reality of residents’ lives. She made the point that, in some places, the overlap between those who vote for parties promising welfare restraint and those who benefit from local welfare support may be substantial. That creates a difficult political and administrative space, especially where policies such as crisis support, council tax reduction or discretionary funds are used to protect households from hardship.
Malcolm added that many new councillors may arrive from business backgrounds and assume that local authority efficiency works in the same way as running a private business. His concern was that some may underestimate the statutory, financial and human constraints within which councils operate. He gave the example of attempts to renegotiate transport for vulnerable children, where a narrow savings approach can create conflict with parents, providers and the council’s wider duties.
Sean also warned that some new councillors may quickly discover that the powers they campaigned on are not actually powers held by local councils. He suggested that promises made during elections may collide with the legal limits of local government. Rachael extended that point to representation and institutional trust, asking whether all residents will feel comfortable approaching councillors whose political positions may make them feel excluded or unwelcome. Sean gave the example of a new immigrant with housing problems, underlining the importance of councillors understanding their duty to represent all residents.
The final substantive topic was the supported accommodation case involving MySpace Housing. Rachael introduced it as a case about whether tenancies had been created to take advantage of the Housing Benefit scheme or whether they were genuine arrangements for disabled people living in supported accommodation. Malcolm then summarised the structure considered by the tribunal, involving a property company, a charity and a financial backer, all linked through common control. The key issue was whether the arrangements crossed the line from poor practice or aggressive financial structuring into contrivance.
Malcolm’s reading of the case was that the tribunal was particularly concerned with the structure as a whole. The arrangements involved onerous lease terms, inflated values, support income being used to sustain the wider structure, and a charity that was not financially viable without money flowing back from the developer. The Upper Tribunal upheld the First tier Tribunal’s decision that there was no error of law, and the decision affected a wider group of linked cases.
Bob suggested a practical test for contrivance: would someone who was not relying on Housing Benefit ever have agreed to the tenancy on those terms? In his view, if the rent was so high that it only made sense because Housing Benefit would meet it, that points strongly towards contrivance. Sean widened the issue, warning that the “not for profit” label can be misunderstood. He argued that professional organisations are now able to assist private landlords in structuring arrangements to fit within supported accommodation exemptions, and that this has helped sustain what he described as a semi fraudulent industry involving very vulnerable people.
Robert Fox added an important systems point. Some schemes of this type may be commissioned, directly or indirectly, because social services departments are trying to close or avoid more expensive forms of provision. That means the problem cannot be looked at only through a Housing Benefit lens. It sits across social care commissioning, subsidy, housing supply, vulnerability and local government finance. Michael closed that point by saying that any sensible council should ensure that Section 151 officers, adult social care and Revenues and Benefits are having close conversations, because subsidy maximisation and financial risk sit at the heart of these cases.
The overall message from the session was that local government is entering a more volatile period. New councillors, changing political control, no overall control, local government reorganisation and pressure on welfare support will all require careful officer advice. The group did not see no overall control as inherently negative. Several speakers thought it could improve scrutiny and cooperation. But there was a clear warning that officers will need to support members through a steep learning curve while protecting lawful decision making, financial realism and the needs of residents who rely on local welfare and council services.
Watch the reording here