Agenda item

The Buckinghamshire County Council and Surrey County Council Trading Standards Service Joint Committee is asked to note the performance of the service for the first three quarters of the financial year (from April 2017-December 2017). The information provided covers performance against seven high level indicators and in relation to the service budget.

Declarations of interest:

None

Witnesses:

Amanda Poole, Deputy Head of Trading Standards

Steve Ruddy, Head of Trading Standards

Key points from the discussion:

1.    The Officer introduced the report and explained that that there was no proposal to change the budget, since the Committee had previously agreed a 1.5% saving each year and further savings were added last year.

2.    Both the Joint Committee and the Board had made no suggestions of changes to the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) agreed by each authority for 2018/19.

3.    Members noted that the service was currently forecasting to be £75k underspent by the end of the financial year.  Officers explained this was broken down in the allocation of £25k BCC and £50k SCC.

4.    Officers highlighted that most of the underspend was due to significant vacancies having been held, however the service had now got the green light to recruit to frontline service positions that would contribute to income generation.

5.    Members noted the performance of the service by reviewing each Key Performance Indicator (KPI).

6.    Officers highlighted the performance of KPI 1, Financial Savings for Residents, was volatile from quarter to quarter due to compensation received related to prosecutions under the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA).

7.    Members were informed that similarly, with KPI 2, the total fines awarded following prosecutions, there was a large spike in the graph due to an £80k fine imposed on a double glazing company for unfair trading practices under the Consumer Protection Regulations.

8.    Members enquired as to whether court costs are recovered.  Officers explained that it depended on the circumstances of the case, but that in some instances full or partial costs were recovered and often, in cases that lead to a custodial sentence, no costs were recoverable.

9.    Members sought clarity to a statement made in paragraph 10 of the report regarding debt never expiring and questioned how this was tracked.  Officers explained that as part of a confiscation order, court service debt collectors and insolvency practitioners aid with debt recovery processes.  Officers also informed Members that it was possible to revisit a confiscation order to update it to reflect a change in circumstances for example following a lottery win or receipt of inheritance.

10.  Officers explained to Members that the tracking of debt was done by the service and there was opportunity to improve the way it is done.  Financial investigators are trained to check for hidden assets and are able to stop sales of property as a way of realising assets. 

11.  Officers highlighted that the service was aided by volunteers and that over 1700 volunteer hours had been given since April 2017. Members acknowledged that some volunteers had previously fallen victim to scams and were using their negative experience to help raise awareness and prevent future scams from taking place. 

12.  Members noted the work the service had done with the Street Associations and the creation of a framework of national best practice. 

13.  Members requested an update of the uptake of Friends Against Scams.  Officers advised Members that feedback on this would be provided at the next Board meeting rather than the Joint Committee meeting.

14.  Officers informed Members that a lot of work had been conducted recently at Heathrow.  An example was a consignment of 50,000 counterfeit cosmetics stopped at Heathrow.  Officers explained that port work is funded by the National Trading Standards. 

15.  There was some discussion about the delivery of Scam Champion training sessions and the need to continually be able to retrain people due to the churn of people.  Officers noted the point and explained that the need to train was constant and that this was an area where volunteer involvement was utilised due to resources being stretched.

16.  Members questioned the success of the training and enquired if any feedback had been received.  Officers gave some examples of feedback from people saying they had prevented a doorstep crime or scam as a result of the training. 

17.  Officers further added that some training was underway for postal delivery staff to help identify people who may be receiving lots of scam mail.

RESOLVED:

Members noted the service’s performance, joint service budget for 2018/19-2020/21 and thanked officers for their work.