The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER FOUR: FINANCIAL AND COMPLAINTS ANALYSIS

Introduction

4.1 This section provides a detailed analysis of the monitoring data provided by the Scottish Executive and the LAs operating the antisocial noise nuisance service, and is divided into two distinct parts.

• Financial analysis - The financial analysis uses data provided by the Scottish Executive and each LA for the period covering 2004/05 and 2005/06. This period was chosen in order that the analysis would be consistent and comparable with the existing complaints data held by the Scottish Executive. ⁵ Focussing the analysis on this period involved the analysis of 20 LAs that operated the service during this period. The additional LAs currently operating the service are, therefore, not included. An analysis of these additional LAs could be undertaken at a time when complete annual financial and complaints data is provided.
• Complaints analysis - The complaints analysis uses monitoring data provided by the Scottish Executive for the period covering 2005/06. As stated above, focussing the analysis on this period involved the analysis of 20 LAs that operated the service during this period. Comparing the complaints data with the financial data should provide a clearer picture of the cost of the service at the regional and national level.

Financial analysis

4.2 As explained above, the financial analysis uses data provided by the Scottish Executive and each LA for the period covering 2004/05 and 2005/06. During this analysis, it became clear that not all the audited accounts provided the detail required for a value for money assessment . With Scottish Executive approval, DTZ therefore approached the LAs concerned for a detailed breakdown. In a number of cases this detailed breakdown did not reconcile exactly to the audited accounts figure - in total the discrepancy amounted to 0.67% of the total grant claim over the 2004/5-2005/2006 period. Further detailed analysis by LA is provided in Appendix B.

4.3 The extent to which the financial information can be analysed is dependent upon the quality and detail of the available information. While the detail of the information varies between each LA, for the purpose of comparison it is possible to breakdown the information in to the following categories ⁶: staff costs; equipment costs; publicity costs; and stationary costs.

4.4 As illustrated in Figure 4.1, the process of consolidating the financial information for each LA reveals the percentage breakdown of costs for the period 2004-2006. The figures behind these percentages are as follows:

• Staff costs = £2,612,041.62 (81%)
• Equipment costs = £380,391.62 (12%)
• Publicity costs = £205,338.10 (6%)
• Stationary costs = £23,254.18 (1%)

Figure 4.1 Breakdown of total costs 2004-2006

Notes to figure
Source: Local Authority Financial Information 04/05-05/06

4.5 Summary Table 3 in Appendix B provides a full breakdown of costs for each LAs operating the service during the period 2004-2006. It is clear that there are significant regional variations with respect to the cost ratios between staff, equipment, publicity and stationary. Indeed, caution must be taken when comparing the figures for each LA.

4.6 During the period 2004-2006, all of the LAs analysed in this section incurred significant set-up costs. LA representatives revealed that there are significant regional differences with respect to the required set-up costs for the service. For example, a major cost for a number of LAs was incurred in securing appropriate premises from which the service would operate. However, it is the case that some LAs were spared this cost due to the availability of appropriate premises already owned by the LAs.

4.7 Further to the regional disparities created by the unavoidable differences in set-up costs, there are a number of regional differences in on-going operating costs of the service that should be taken into account when comparing LA cost data. For example, included in the equipment cost of a number of LAs is the cost of police assistance with noise complaints. However, a number of LAs have not charged a fee by the police for this assistance. In addition, differences in the costs of transport should be given proper consideration due to the variations in the geographical size of the LAs. All costs for each LA are provided in Appendix B.

Complaints analysis

4.8 As shown in Table 4.1, the total number of complaints for the period 2005/06 was 18,900. Table 4.2 provides a breakdown of the number of complaints by LAs. As would be expected, the LAs with the highest and most dense population have received the highest number of complaints over the period. Edinburgh recorded more complaints that any other LA (9,476). In contrast, according the Scottish Executive monitoring data, Clackmannanshire, Perth & Kinross and West Lothian recorded no complaints during 2005/06.

Table 4.1 Summary of complaints analysis 2005/06

Notes to table
Source: Scottish Executive Monitoring Data 05/06

Table 4.2 Complaints received by LA 2005/06

Notes to table
Source: Scottish Executive Monitoring Data 05/06

4.9 As shown in Table 4.3, the number of visits (in response to a complaint) does not follow exactly the regional distribution of complaints. In particular, while Glasgow City Council and Renfrewshire Council received 3,566 and 342 complaints (see table 4.2), respectively, neither LA followed up any of these complaints with a visit (see table 4.3) ⁷.

4.10 Consultations with Renfrewshire Council revealed that there were significant delays in initiating the service due to problems with recruiting NIOs and the provision of stab-proof vests (required for the issuing of Warning and Fixed Penalty Notices). As a result, Renfrewshire Council was not able to issue any warning notices or fixed penalties over the period. Renfrewshire Council has now been provided with stab-proof vests and have recruited a sufficient number of NIOs. As a result, Renfrewshire Council now has a fully operational noise service.

4.11 The explanation as to why zero visits had been recorded in some of the other Scottish Executive's monitoring data is provided in footnote seven, which relates to the issue of timing. It is imperative that all monitoring data be carefully checked to ensure that it is accurate and consistent. This is essential in order to properly assess and measure the performance of the service.

Table 4.3 Visits by LA 2005/06

Notes to table
Source: Scottish Executive Monitoring Data 05/06

4.12 As shown in Table 4.4, four LAs followed up every complaint with a visit during 2005/06. On average, of all of the LAs that received complaints during 2005/06, 59% of complaints were followed up with a visit. Clearly, there are significant differences between the LAs in this regard.

Table 4.4 Visits as % of complaints 2005/06

Notes to table
As noted in the above footnote, these figures should be interpreted with caution.
Source: Scottish Executive Monitoring Data 05/06

4.13 Figure 4.2 illustrates the use of the various measures used to resolve noise disputes relative to the number of visits, across all LAs. According to the Scottish Executive monitoring data for 2005/06:

• 927 verbal warnings were issued (11.7% of all visits)
• 1,908 warning notices were issued (24.1% of all visits)
• 124 fixed penalties were issued (1.6% of all visits)
• 45 cases were resolved by mediation (0.6% of all visits).

4.14 A full breakdown of the use of control measures by LA is provided in Appendix C. As indicated in Appendix C, there appears to be an error in the data for North Lanarkshire Council. The Scottish Executive monitoring data states that North Lanarkshire issued 366 verbal warnings during 2005/06. But as North Lanarkshire had only 64 visits, this data should be checked in order to ensure accuracy and consistency. The quality of the data is crucial, as it will, inevitably, have an impact on the reliability and quality of this analysis.

Figure 4.2 Use of control measures 2005/06

Notes to figure
Source: Scottish Executive Monitoring Data

4.15 Table 4.5 provides a summary of the financial and complaints data for all of the LAs operating the noise service during the period 2004-2006. The final column presents a cost-per-complaint figure for each LA excluding Clackmannanshire Council, Perth & Kinross Council and West Lothian Council (all of which received no complaints during the period). The average cost-per-complaint for the period was £509.82.

4.16 Clearly, there are significant differences in the cost-per-complaint between the LAs. Angus Council has the highest cost-per-complaint (£2,736.79). In contrast, Edinburgh and Renfrewshire have the lowest cost-per-complaint ( £74.31 and £73.19 respectively). Caution must be taken when interpreting these figures. Specifically, while Glasgow and Renfrewshire registered 3,566 complaints and 342 complaints, respectively, neither LA has recorded any visits.

Table 4.5 Summary and Cost Per Complaint

Notes to table
Source: Scottish Executive Monitoring Data 05/06

4.17 Table 4.6 shows the cost-per-visit for each LA operating the noise service during the period 2004-2006. As discussed, five LAs recorded no visits over the period. The average cost-per-visit for the period was £1,127.88. North Lanarkshire Council had the highest cost-per-visit ( £5,583.29). In contrast, Edinburgh, with the lowest cost-per-visit ( £144.96), appears to operate a very efficient service.

Table 4.6 Summary and Cost Per Visit

Notes to table
As noted in the previous footnote, these figures should be interpreted with caution.
Source: Scottish Executive Monitoring Data 05/06

4.18 It is important to reiterate that the cost-per-complaint and cost-per-visit figures incorporate all set-up costs incurred by the LAs. Hence, a financial analysis of the service in the future will provide a more accurate picture of the on-going operating costs of the service and will allow for appropriate LA comparisons to be made.

Summary

4.19 This section provides an analysis of the monitoring data provided by the Scottish Executive and the LAs operating the antisocial noise nuisance service.

4.20 During the analysis, it became clear that the audited accounts do not always provide sufficient breakdown to undertake a value for money assessment. It would be wise for the Scottish Executive to require audited account to include a detailed breakdown of expenditure by LAs. This will assist in general monitoring and in future VFM evaluations.

4.21 The breakdown of costs for the period 2004-2006 was as follows.

• Staff costs = £2,612,041.62 (81%)
• Equipment costs = £380,391.62 (12%)
• Publicity costs = £205,338.10 (6%)
• Stationary costs = £23,254.18 (1%)

4.22 The total number of complaints for the period 2005/06 was 18,900. Edinburgh recorded more complaints that any other LA (9,476). In contrast, according the Scottish Executive monitoring data, Clackmannanshire, Perth & Kinross and West Lothian recorded no complaints during 2005/06.

• 927 verbal warnings were issued ( 11.7% of all visits)
• 1,908 warning notices were issued ( 24.1% of all visits)
• 124 fixed penalties were issued ( 1.6% of all visits)
• 45 cases were resolved by mediation ( 0.6% of all visits)

4.23 The average cost-per-complaint for the period was £509.82. There are significant differences in the cost-per-complaint between the LAs. Angus Council has the highest cost-per-complaint ( £2,736.79). In contrast, Edinburgh and Renfrewshire have the lowest cost-per-complaint ( £74.31 and £73.19 respectively).

4.24 The average cost-per-visit for the period was £1,127.88. North Lanarkshire Council have the highest cost-per-visit ( £5,583.29). In contrast, Edinburgh, with the lowest cost-per-visit ( £144.96), appears to operate a very efficient service.

4.25 It is not possible to come to any firm conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of the services. The available data covers the set-up / development period of the service. As such, the recorded costs for the period 2004-2006 of the service do not reflect, accurately, the costs of operating the service. In addition, there have been a number of apparently unavoidable problems faced by certain regions that have to be taken into account. For example, there have been major delays for some LAs in getting started caused by delays in the supply of protective equipment and problems in recruiting NIOs. In short, it is too early to make value for money judgements on the services after two years, a substantial proportion of which was spent on set up and service development. A subsequent evaluation in say 12 to 24 months time will be able to draw sound conclusions, assuming the audited account information sought from LAs is fully broken down by the categories set out in this analysis, i.e. staff costs, equipment costs, publicity costs and stationary costs.

« Previous | Contents | Next »