• Home
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • LATIF
  • Conferences
  • Dashboard
  • Edit My Profile
  • Log In
  • Logout
  • Register
  • Edit this post

Room 151

  • 151 BRIEF

    What's New?

  • Inflation ‘biggest concern for LGPS professionals’

    May 20, 2022

  • LGA calls for government support as regulators face staffing issues

    May 19, 2022

  • WMCA signs £4bn investment agreement with L&G

    May 18, 2022

  • Bill will give UK Infrastructure Bank power to lend directly to councils

    May 18, 2022

  • £400bn pension group collaborates on climate transition initiative

    May 17, 2022

  • CIPFA rejects proposal for vote on publication of fraud hub report

    May 17, 2022

  • Treasury
  • Technical
  • Funding
  • Resources
  • LGPS
  • Development
  • 151 News
  • Blogs
    • David Green
    • Agent 151
    • Dan Bates
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Sheen
    • James Bevan
    • Steve Bishop
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • David Crum
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O’Donnell
    • Jackie Shute
  • Interviews
  • Briefs

Beware the HRA/general fund transfer

1
  • by Graham Liddell
  • in Blogs · Graham Liddell · Recent Posts
  • — 20 Sep, 2013

asktheauditor2

In his regular feature, Ask The Auditor, Graham Liddell from Grant Thornton UK LLP this month discusses the highly topical issue of local authorities proposing to divert Housing Revenue Account (HRA) funds to the General Fund. To ask Graham a technical query, email editor@room151.co.uk

Following the introduction of self-financing for the HRA, many local authorities consider that in contrast to their general fund, their HRA is relatively healthy. This has stimulated some local authorities to consider whether the HRA is being charged for its fair share of costs, for example by revisiting the allocation and apportionment of costs between the HRA and the general fund. During September we have also seen some local authorities proposing to transfer resources from the HRA to the general fund by taking advantage of the Local Government Housing Act 1989 (the LGHA) before it is amended on 1 October 2013.

At Grant Thornton we are urging local authorities not to take such action without fully considering the major legal, reputational and financial consequences.

Purpose of the HRA ring-fence

The LGHA requires local authorities to maintain a statutory, ring-fenced HRA. The ring-fence is controlled by Schedule 4 of the LGHA and is still in place following the move to self-financing in England. Its purpose is to ensure that council taxpayers do not subsidise services specifically for the benefit of tenants and that rent is not used to subsidise functions which are for the benefit of the wider local community.

Any proposal that results in a transfer of resources from the HRA to the general fund could be seen as breaking the ring-fence and contrary to either the letter or the intention of the LGHA to protect tenants. This risks taking us back to the 1980’s when political dogma led to the general fund and HRA being raided to support either tenants or taxpayers as politics suited.

Proposals to transfer HRA balances to the general fund before the LGHA is amended on 1 October 2013

Schedule 4, Part III (Special Cases), paragraph 2 of the LGHA states: ‘A local housing authority to whom no Housing Revenue Account subsidy is payable for any year may carry the whole or part of any credit balance shown in their Housing Revenue Account for that year to the credit of some other revenue account of theirs.’

Some councils have argued that the abolition of HRA subsidy means that they can now transfer HRA balances to the general fund. In our view this would be an unintended consequence of HRA self-financing. Our view is supported by the fact that Schedule 4 Part III paragraph 2 of the LGHA will be amended on 1 October 2013 so that it will only apply to Wales.  From that point onwards, transfers between the HRA and general fund in England will only be permitted following a relevant determination by the Secretary of State.

Until 1 October 2013, the LGHA does appear, in certain circumstances, to permit local authorities to transfer balances from the HRA to the general fund. However, the legal position is not clear cut and given that a transfer might be seen as contrary to the intention of the ring-fence, we would expect local authorities to:

–          take legal advice on whether it has authority to make the transfer and to ensure that it exercises its discretion reasonably

–          consider the governance and accounting issues with making a transfer.

We would expect local authorities to consider whether:

–          the LGHA permits the transfer of balances that have been generated in years during which an authority was in receipt of housing subsidy or only in the year that the transfer is proposed

–          the council is following due process and acting consistently with other policies and decisions

–          the HRA is sufficiently resilient to withstand the loss of funds and is supported by a robust 30 year business plan

–          the council could suffer reputational loss by being seen to take advantage of a technical loophole to use funds that it should be protecting for council tenants to shore up council finances. Many commentators were quick to criticise Starbucks and Vodafone for taking advantage of “tax loopholes”

–          central government might take retrospective action. By amending the LGHA it is clear that central government is not supportive of such an approach.

–          how any decision to transfer funds from the HRA to the general fund will be reflected in the 2012/13 financial statements.

–          the proposed injection of funds from the HRA is masking an underlying problem in the general fund.

Revisiting the allocation and apportionment of costs between the HRA and the general fund

Given the significant changes that many local authorities have faced in recent years, now may be the right time to review the basis for charging costs to the HRA and the general fund. The purpose of such a review should be to ensure that the authority is balancing fairly the interests of council tax payers and tenants. The aim should not be to divert resources from the HRA to the general fund (or vice versa).

The allocation of direct costs is relatively straight-forward and we would expect local authorities to refer to Schedule 4 of the LGHA. As a general rule, we would not expect the HRA to be charged for services that a local authority would be expected to provide to tenants if it was not the landlord (such as waste collection, libraries and street-lighting).

There is no statutory guidance for apportioning overheads. Authorities should follow CIPFA’s Service Reporting Code of Practice (SeRCOP) by applying the same bases when recharging overheads to the HRA as they do for other services.

Authorities should also consider whether any Corporate and Democratic Core (CDC) costs and Non-Distributed Costs (NDC) should be charged to the HRA. This is because:

–          the HRA might be expected to benefit from the overall democratic process and corporate management reflected in CDC

–          some of the costs in NDC may have arisen from previous HRA activities.

SeRCOP provides useful guidance on how such costs might be apportioned.

Share

You may also like...

  • Step-out strategies: Hitting the sweet spot between liquidity and short duration 25th Feb, 2021
  • Impact Awards: Shortlist revealed 2nd Jun, 2021
  • Three regulatory risk challenges for treasury managers 31st Jan, 2022
  • Impact Awards: Councils can make ‘game-changing’ difference to carbon management 22nd Apr, 2021

1 Comment

  1. RazorBoy says:
    2014/04/02 at 07:35

    Overhead apportionment is a problem here. At budget-setting, HRA come to a budget and decide how much overhead they can take. Then the general fund budget is set on the assumption that this is the amount they will get. With the expected charge to HRA, the general fund budget is nil.

    When the proper overhead apportionment is calculated, there is panic followed by changes to the apportionment to get closer to the ‘required’ answer for GF and HRA.

    What is not clear to me is why GF has to balance to zero. I believe there are limits around the GF balance but it seems reasonable to me to be able to build up the GF reserve a little to cover future deficits, rather than “blow it while you’ve got it”.

    Log in to Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Latest tweets

    Room151 21 hours ago

    2022 LGPS valuations: difficult discussions in uncertain times: Michelle Doman looks at the impact of inflationary pressures, the war in Ukraine, climate risk and Covid-19 on employer contributions. At the start of 2022, for Local Government Pension… dlvr.it/SQlvy9 pic.twitter.com/Dd0lrHjWNb

    Room151 1 day ago

    Investing today: nowhere to hide: Partner Content: Alex Stanley from Ardea Investment Management suggests that investors have few places to hide amid a synchronised sell-off in both bonds and equities. However, there are catalysts that[...] dlvr.it/SQlNVC pic.twitter.com/KkGGnduzPL

    Room151 2 days ago

    Treasury to restrict PWLB loans to councils at risk of non-repayment: The Treasury has released new guidance that restricts local authorities’ access to Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) advances if there is a “more than negligible risk” of a council’s… dlvr.it/SQhLTV pic.twitter.com/vBsS7xMJdb

    Room151 2 days ago

    Mixed reaction to proposed government intervention powers: There has been a mixed reaction to the government’s legislative plans to strengthen its intervention powers over local authority finances. The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill has proposed… dlvr.it/SQhLMB pic.twitter.com/50foWxpPGs

    Room151 2 days ago

    Post-Brexit struggles for national and local government regulators. @LGAcomms @NAOorguk Click the link below to read 🔻🔻 room151.co.uk/brief/lga-call… #Brexit #government pic.twitter.com/s3c8ySGy5G

    Room151 2 days ago

    CIPFA: a question of transparency: Roman Haluszczak’s campaign for publication of the independent report into the collapse of CIPFA’s London Counter Fraud Hub has been rejected again by the institute. He is now calling for[...] dlvr.it/SQgC5V pic.twitter.com/08fWsHFF4g

    Room151 3 days ago

    Back to the future for the PWLB: The Public Works Loan Board is tightening its lending criteria to ensure that loans will be repaid by local government borrowers. But, asks Peter Findlay, shouldn’t they have been doing[...] dlvr.it/SQcmmm pic.twitter.com/bVv4fe0Xlv

    Room151 3 days ago

    Great piece from Peter Findlay on the PWLB’s tightening of its lending criteria. He raises some pointed questions for the Treasury and explains why the ‘casino council’ characterisation was simplistic and inaccurate. #PWLB #localgov room151.co.uk/treasury/back-…

    Room151 3 days ago

    The Queen's speech highlighted the need for accelerating UK infrastructure investment into levelling up projects and cutting emissions. @UKInfraBank #QueensSpeech #ClimateAction #emissions Click the link below to read 🔻🔻 room151.co.uk/brief/bill-wil… pic.twitter.com/hFmF2veVIa

    Room151 3 days ago

    Huge funding heading to the @WestMids_CA from @landg. @andy4wm #LevellingUp #netzero #regeneration Click the link below to read 🔻🔻 room151.co.uk/brief/wmca-sig… pic.twitter.com/ajhZhia6mx

    Room151 3 days ago

    LGPS governance, Cagney and Lacey style: What regulatory response can be expected following the publication of the Good Governance project’s Phase 3 report and the closure of the Single Code of Practice consultation? Susan Black offers[...] dlvr.it/SQbfXf pic.twitter.com/xwqHOEu2AP

    Room151 4 days ago

    More evidence of the importance of emerging markets in the journey to net-zero. @BordertoCoast @BrunelPP @northernlgps @EAPensionFund @WYPF_LGPS Click the link below to read 🔻🔻 #LGPS #NetZero #NetZeroCarbon #EmergingMarkets room151.co.uk/brief/400bn-pe… pic.twitter.com/qCm0EGxzLn

  • Categories

    • 151 News
    • Agent 151
    • Audit
    • Blogs
    • Business rates
    • Chris Buss
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • Council tax
    • Dan Bates
    • David Crum
    • David Green
    • Development
    • Education
    • Forum
    • Funding
    • Governance
    • Graham Liddell
    • Housing
    • Ian O'Donnell
    • Infrastructure
    • Interviews
    • Jackie Shute
    • James Bevan
    • Jobs
    • Levelling up
    • LGPS
    • Mark Finnegan
    • Net Zero
    • Private markets
    • Recent Posts
    • Regulation
    • Resources
    • Responsible investing
    • Richard Harbord
    • Risk management
    • Social care
    • Stephen Fitzgerald
    • Stephen Sheen
    • Steve Bishop
    • Technical
    • Transport
    • Treasury
    • Uncategorized
    • William Bourne
  • Archives

    • 2022
    • 2021
    • 2020
    • 2019
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2016
    • 2015
    • 2014
    • 2013
    • 2012
    • 2011
  • Previous story Manchester cleans up with airport investment
  • Next story Tough choices facing central bankers

© Copyright 2022 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

0 shares