I am pleased to report another successful, if challenging, year for the Stroud and District Citizens Advice Bureau. This report sets out our achievements in helping people solve their problems - providing similar levels of advice as in previous years, while making important changes for the future. Examples in this report demonstrate the professionalism of our paid staff and volunteers and the complexity of some cases.

Two major strategic projects were completed and a number of other changes implemented. The first major project was the improvement in our office accommodation, leading to better usage and a small increase in floor area. This project was completed last summer and was essential to provide space for our increasing number of volunteer advisors. The second major project was the implementation this spring of the computerised case recording system developed by Citizens Advice nationally and being phased into all Citizens Advice Bureaux. This fundamental change caused substantial disruption to our operations, notwithstanding the preparation and training. I would like to acknowledge the significant extra efforts of our paid staff and volunteers over the last few months to make this a success, and the forbearance of our clients.

Two major challenges for the coming year will be to look at how we can maintain or increase our funding and how we can make those funds work harder for our clients. We will be looking to secure a new core grant from Stroud District Council, which has remained at £125,000 for several years, while also seeking funding from other sources. Our local fundraising activities provide a smaller but important extra source of funds - please get in touch with the Bureau Manager or myself if you would like to help us or become a "Friend" and receive our newsletter. Every pound we raise enables us help more people.

Finally, I would like thank all those who have contributed to the work of the bureau - paid staff, volunteers and trustees.

Peter Rowe, Chair of Trustee Board

The Past Year

It has been a year of many changes.

This time last year, I noted that our plans for the coming year included
* The introduction of "CASE", a computerised case recording system
* The restructuring of our office space
* Strengthening and improving our IT support structure
* Identification and implementation of further changes in working practices.

It is good to be able to report that the first three of these were all completed, and we continue to work on the fourth.

During the summer of 2006 we completed the re-configuration of the interior walls of the office. This has given us more open space in the general office, thereby removing some health and safety concerns, as well as giving us space for a separate desk with a computer for use of trainees, better space for administration, and space for trainees to meet in without having to use an interview room.

We have been joined in a voluntary capacity by Neil Richardson to help us with I.T. support and as a result of many hours of work Neil has not only helped us deal with IT problems as they arise but has helped us with building up our IT resources, so that, for example, all our computers at Stroud are now networked and we are no longer reliant on floppy disks to move information about. We now have a proper back-up system to guard against loss of data. Neil is additionally under contract to provide us with IT support and consultancy which gives us peace of mind to allow us to proceed as we become ever more reliant on computer technology.

As a result of this we were able to adopt CASE in February of 2007. It is fair to say that, as we had been warned, initially we all struggled to familiarise ourselves with a new way of working and consequently the number of clients we were able to help temporarily dipped. However as I now write we are seeing signs that we are starting to get on top of this. We are not yet seeing the full benefits of CASE, some of which will only come with time, but in future we should free up more office space as our archived paper case records are replaced by electronic records. Although at present, for technical reasons, copying records from enquires at the outreach offices is more difficult since we adopted CASE, in the future this will change and it will be easier for us to access records from all sites.

Although we were very sad to lose Christine Lingard from her post as Welfare Rights Manager at the end of the previous year, we were delighted to recruit Carla Evans as her replacement. It is particularly gratifying to find that the best candidate for the post was already a volunteer adviser with the bureau, as it is important that people within the service be able to step up and take on new roles. Carla has worked extremely hard to establish herself as a specialist in her new role.

Then in May 2006 we recruited Philip Pankhurst as Casework Manager, funded by a Big Lottery Fund grant for three years. Carla and Philip have both fitted straight into the team and I want to thank all those who work in the bureau, both paid and voluntary, for all their support during the year. I do not know to whom I owe the most; the fantastic team of volunteers who never seem to flag in their enthusiasm for helping clients, or the paid staff and Trustees who have always given me extra support whenever I have most needed it.

The service

On page 15 of the Annual Report you will find statistics showing the sheer volume of enquiries, which I think is impressive by any standard. Unfortunately we know that there are many others who would like help but were unable to get it. We sometimes have to close our drop-in sessions early due to demand exceeding the supply of advisers available. We also know that not only are we unable to offer a telephone advice service all day but that even when we do offer the service callers may well find that all the available advisers are answering other callers. Much as we regret this, all of our generalist advisers are unpaid volunteers and therefore only do the job at all because they want to advise as many people as they possibly can. If we are not able to give advice to any individual it is not due to unwillingness but because we are genuinely unable to do so. To give more advice we not only need more volunteer advisers but also the space to accommodate them and the paid staff to give the appropriate level of support and supervision.

Advice work is neither a matter of simply giving out information, nor of waving a magic wand to make problems go away. It is about assessing the problem, thinking about all the realistic solutions available given the relevant law, and helping the client to choose the one that suits them best (or, sometimes, least worst.) It will often involve helping the client to carry out the plan as well as drawing it up. This can vary from suggesting to the client who they should contact and what they should say, right up to representing a client at an appeal tribunal, presenting technical legal arguments based on case law. Research by MORI shows that our clients regard Citizens Advice Bureaux as being particularly effective in resolving problems.

As well as our advice work, we have a “twin aim” of social policy work – that is to say, keeping policy makers informed of the effects of their policies on our clients and helping them to improve policies and services.

The future

We continue to work towards reaching a total of 40 trained volunteer advisers. Despite retirements and changes of role by some volunteers, we have at the time of writing 37 volunteers giving advice compared to 35 at the start of the year and we have just recruited three more trainees.

Increasing the number of volunteers puts further pressure on office space and the support staff. We therefore need to identify and implement further changes in working practices to help as many people as possible with the resources that we have. These constraints may force us to make hard decisions regarding either the quantity or quality of advice that we are able to give.

Adequate support for our volunteers is heavily dependent on the number of paid staff available, which in turn is reflected in salary costs. There are further costs in the form of travel expenses for volunteers and stationery and telephone costs associated with increased demand for advice. For some years now our two largest funders, Stroud District Council and the Legal Services Commission, have kept their support for us at the same level. Cumulative inflation over this period has considerably reduced the value of our two main income streams. Our service level agreement with Stroud District Council to provide general advice comes up for renewal in March 2008, and an increased level of funding will be sought. This being so, demonstrating our effectiveness to Stroud District Council so as to secure funding levels in real terms is of increasing urgency.

We are also hoping to win two or three substantial contracts to give advice at any one time (in addition to our Legal Services Commission work), and we will continue with our local fundraising activities through the Public Relations and Fundraising Committee.

Adam Cain, Bureau Manager.

Banks continue to hit headlines in the media and we have had a number of cases where we are challenging application of unreasonable charges to bank accounts. For one client who faced eviction because the Bank was applying unreasonable charges, we are challenging over £3,800.00 of charges and we are confident of success.

During work on another case we discovered that the same Bank has actually set up an Irresponsible Lending Department! The clients in this case are in their mid forties and had been banking with the same bank since leaving school - they had enjoyed an excellent relationship with them and like many others had implicit faith in them. In 2004 they had some balances on their credit cards and the bank agreed to convert these to loans where they would be paying a lower interest rate. The clients asked the bank to close the card accounts but this request was refused. Over the next year all proceeded well with loan payments kept up to date, the cards were not used and the clients had no other credit agreements. In 2005 unexpectedly the wife went into hospital where she had brain surgery and remained there for three months.

The husband then had to combine school runs with hospital visits and work. In an attempt to make life easier the couple agreed to use one of the credit cards for everyday expenditure. This they did but because of lower earnings only the minimum payments were made and with interest added the debt mounted. Following a mail shot from the bank about consolidating debt into an affordable loan they approached the bank for help. The request for a loan was turned down.

Instead the manager advised them that they should consider selling their 3 bedroom house and releasing the equity in order to repay the bank. This is actually against the good practice laid out in the OFT document 'Debt Collection Guidance'.

The clients were part owners of a shared equity housing association property where they had 16 years remaining on the mortgage and they of course had the benefit of being able to claim housing benefit if the need arose. The clients did advise the bank that when they sold they would only receive a 50% share of the equity in the property, however, entirely trusting in the bank they went ahead and marketed the house. The bank arranged a new mortgage within the banks lending department but clients were not advised to seek independent advice. When it became clear prior to exchanging contracts that the available equity was not going to repay the other borrowing they asked the bank if they should proceed. The latter encouraged our clients to sign and said 'Don't worry, go ahead, we will have a plan for you!'

Our clients went ahead and whilst they like their new property it only has two bedrooms - there is one teenage son and one son aged 9, so space is tight. Their mortgage payment doubled to over £600.00 per month and is for a 25-year term. They cannot afford a repayment mortgage nor afford any other vehicle for repayment, the mortgage is on an interest only basis and in fact our clients have acquired the equivalent of an expensive rented property. They no longer have the protection of shared equity.

Having settled in they returned to the bank for details of 'THE PLAN'. In their words the manager 'did not want to know them' and they were given a telephone number to ring. The response to their call was that the bank could no longer help them and they should seek help from an advice agency. We luckily have a contact at the head office of the bank who is the Liaison Officer for the Money Advice Sector and it was he who advised us of the 'Inappropriate Lending Department'. He was able to advise where we should direct our complaint.

We have complained and it has been acknowledged that there have been serious mistakes made by the bank. They are still investigating and are taking the case very seriously. The clients feel that they now have no future in the housing market and the best that they can hope for is to eventually buy a mobile home when they are retired, with proceeds from the eventual sale of their present house. They are far worse off than they were before and their non-secured borrowing has increased substantially not because our clients are accessing funds but because of added interest and charges. They no longer have any disposable income to offer the bank.

I have described this case in detail because it is a good example of the problems clients face in this area - which, as can be seen from the table on page 15 of the Annual Report, forms by far the biggest proportion of the work of the Bureau.

Jill Matley, Money Advice Manager

This year has been a steep learning curve for me, as I took over from Chris Lingard in May 2006 with very limited benefits experience. Fortunately I have been given thorough, patient and expert support from the Advice Services Manager and the long-serving volunteers themselves. This has not stopped my copy of the Welfare Benefits Handbook from literally falling to pieces from frequent thumbing, nor has it been possible at any point in the year to cover the workload in the designated hours. We are still searching for sustainable ways to meet the demands of the role.

Since I started in post 27 appeals have been heard of which 24 were won. As reported last year, these figures suggest that, while we are pleased to win such a high proportion of cases, many of these decisions were poorly made in the first place. In view of the amount of work generated by appeals and the associated stress to clients, we would very much prefer that decisions be made correctly at the start. There are currently a further ten appeals in the pipeline, awaiting hearings.

In last year's report we referred to poor decision-making by the authorities. The relevant authorities making benefit decisions in our district are the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and Stroud District Council; we should make clear that virtually all the appeals we currently handle relate to decisions by the DWP.

I continue to be surprised by the complexity of the benefit system and how the simplest enquiry requires wading through sub-clauses and multiple cross-references to ensure correct advice; few enquiries are straightforward. The case that gave me most sleepless nights has been that of a terminally ill man and his wife, who sought our help in June 2006, some weeks after he returned home from hospital, recovering from renal failure. I will refer to them here as Mr and Mrs J.

Mr and Mrs J's family business was no longer viable because of Mr J's care needs. We made a home visit and helped complete claims forms for Income Support and Disability Living Allowance, followed by Carers Allowance. That should have been it, but a courtesy call to him six weeks later revealed that he had not yet received any money; there was no food in the cupboard and no petrol in the car to let him attend a vital hospital appointment. He had been told by the DWP there was nothing that could be done as his papers had been transferred to Cornwall. We intervened and managed to arrange him an interim Income Support payment. When his Income Support claim was finally assessed, his request for backdating was refused because the DWP held that, despite his health needs, he or his wife should have claimed earlier. We successfully appealed on this issue in January 2007, but he was too poorly to attend the Tribunal and the Tribunal Service refused our request for a Tribunal at home, despite medical evidence.

A chance discovery in the Benefits Handbook in August 2006 alerted us to the fact that if an Income Support claimant is receiving Carers Allowance, then the normal 39 week waiting period for help with mortgage interest payments is reduced. However, on further investigation, it emerged that even though Income Support is a joint claim for couples, it has to be the first named claimant that is the Carer to take advantage of these more generous rules. This illustrates how the benefit system simply seems too complicated for an ordinary person to navigate, let alone someone who is ill or distressed. The DWP were not helpful to the clients in amending their claim and we are awaiting a decision on a claim for compensation regarding the mortgage interest payments.

The case did not end there, as the Disability Living Allowance claim revealed there was a preexisting suspended claim made by Mr J some years before. Many months and phone calls later, and only after the help of Mr and Mrs J's M.P, were we able to secure over £19,000 in backdated benefit, despite the DWP permanently losing the client's entire file.

The case is a success of sorts: appeal won and back payments awarded. However the trauma and extended poverty suffered by Mr and Mrs J makes the victory a Pyrrhic one. The clients will still have to sell their home to meet business loans secured on it. Mr J is still terminally ill with cancer and has since suffered a heart attack, so the story is a sad one.

In all the talk of benefit fraud and scroungers, there seems to be very little public outrage on behalf of the ill, poverty-stricken and bewildered who come through our doors. My first year as Benefits Specialist has revealed an ignored underclass living in a world of poverty. Many of our clients are trapped in this world by the complicated rules imposed. Only the very clever and resilient can escape from it.

Carla Evans, Welfare Rights Specialist

The Tenancy Deposit Protection Scheme: - a 15-year social policy campaign bears fruit.

The CAB's social policy work often involves the long haul before we see a positive result. The introduction of the Tenancy Deposit Protection Scheme is a good example.

Before a landlord lets his or her property, the new tenant usually has to pay the landlord (or letting agency) a security deposit. This is often one or two month's rent or more, in addition to payment of rent in advance. The deposit is security against, for example, rent arrears, damage to property or removal of furniture. Over the years many clients have sought our advice when their landlords have refused to release the deposit at the end of a tenancy. Until now, if negotiations with the landlord are unsuccessful, the tenant’s only recourse has been to take legal action in the county court to recover her/his deposit. This is a relatively expensive and certainly timeconsuming process and is not always effective if the landlord has moved or has no assets. Problems have occurred, for example, where the deposit has been held by a letting agency which has gone into liquidation.

Our National Association, Citizens Advice, has conducted a 15 year campaign to persuade the Government to introduce regulation into this area, especially a system of resolving disagreements without having to go to court. Some years ago a survey of clients revealed that, irrespective of the reason for their enquiry, many clients had previously had problems regarding non-return of a deposit. Many Citizens Advice Bureaux, including Stroud and District, have provided evidence of clients' difficulties via Bureau Evidence Forms to support the campaign. In one case, a letting agency refused to return our client's deposit. The client had already agreed to get a carpet cleaned at his own expense, because he owned a dog. However the agency charged him for the carpet to be cleaned again, for the wood floor to be bleached and for the purchase of a new carpet, leaving the tenant with no deposit (and the landlord in possession of a brand new carpet.) As the landlord was selling the property, the tenant felt that he was paying for preparing the property for sale, with no allowance for normal wear and tear.

From 6th April 2007, all deposits (up to the level of £25,000) taken by landlords and letting agents for Assured Shorthold Tenancies in England and Wales must be protected by a tenancy deposit scheme. This does not mean that the landlord cannot ask for a deposit, merely that the money must be safely held and protected from insolvency by the landlord or agent. In addition, the scheme must offer alternative dispute resolution so that if there is any dispute over whether or not the landlord should keep all or part of the deposit, this can be decided fairly, quickly and cheaply.

This new scheme is not the end of the campaign, though it is certainly an improvement on the previous state of affairs. Now we need to monitor the effectiveness of the new arrangements and take action to ensure that landlords and tenants know about them.

Diana Wain, Advice Services Manager

We are grateful to the Legal Services Commission who pay us for giving specialist level advice on the subject of debt to clients who pass the Commission's means-testing rules. This scheme is what used to be known as "Legal Aid".

As of April 2007 we are now operating under a new contract. From October 2007 there will be changes in the way that we get paid. We will no longer be paid according to the amount of time we spend advising each client, but will be given a flat rate fee for every new "matter start"; that is to say, every time we start a case on behalf of a client we will earn a fee. We will therefore have to start a fixed number of cases during the term of the contract. The Legal Services Commission hope that this will encourage greater efficiency and lead to more clients getting advice.

We do have concerns about how this will work. If we are to start the number of cases required under the contract we will need to close cases at the same rate in order to avoid building up a backlog. The number of cases required does indeed represent an increase in the number of matters started compared to last year. While this may mean more people get advice, more clients for the same money and with the same number of caseworkers means our workers have to spend less time on each case. Obviously we will be doing our best to work more efficiently to that end but there is a risk of pressure to cut corners.

Adam Cain - quality representative as Bureau manager.

We are pleased to have been awarded a grant by the Big Lottery Fund over three years to increase the extent to which we offer a casework service, and we welcome Philip Pankhurst to the team in the role of Casework Manager. "Casework" means enquiries where the client needs not just advice, but also for the Bureau to undertake advocacy. This may take the form of, for example, making telephone calls, writing letters, sending financial statements or drawing up appeal documents. The key point about "casework" is that the Bureau undertakes to manage the case for the client and therefore has responsibility for responding to third parties on behalf of a client, always doing so on the basis of the client's instructions. The Bureau therefore acts in the same way that solicitors might do for their clients. This clearly differs from those enquiries where, even though the bureau may have drafted the correspondence, it is up to the client to handle the correspondence and to seek further advice if needed.

The Bureau was already taking on a certain amount of this work before we obtained the Lottery Funding but this extra money gives us the extra paid staff needed to support the increased demand for this sort of work. As the funding is for a three year project part of Philip's role is to develop our inherent capacity for this sort of work so that after the end of the project we hope that the Bureau will be able to continue to handle an increased amount of casework relative to the position before the project. One of the first things that he has identified is that a significant part of our casework is not currently taken up with actual advice work but consists of providing support to clients who are unable to cope with their normal affairs. For these clients, even when they have been advised of their rights and have chosen a plan of action, the plan may break down because they are simply unable to put it into practice. Philip is therefore looking into alternative sources of help and funding so that advisers can be freed up for real advice work.

Adam Cain, Bureau Manager

Training remains vital to the quality of advice work and we make every effort to ensure that both our trainees and our experienced staff receive the appropriate levels of training to ensure that they give the best service possible to our clients. While excellent training is available from other agencies as well as Citizens Advice nationally, it is becoming less easy to access. Citizens Advice itself is subject to budget cuts and is having to look for ways to deliver more cost effective training.

Electronic training is now increasingly available to us via our training website. E-learning was introduced to take the place of day courses held in local or other venues and will eventually cover the subjects of Benefits, Immigration, Employment and Consumer matters. It was designed to allow advisers to test their knowledge through inter-active tutorials and case studies, sometimes using model answers and at other times making reference to our information system which can be used in conjunction with the program. It begins with diagnostic exercises, goes on to tutorials on specific subjects then leads on to multiple issue case studies which allow trainees to test their knowledge of complex issues such as benefit fraud investigation or tribunal appeals.

E-learning can be used at home or in the Bureau and so gives flexible learning opportunities to those advisers who would otherwise have missed the fixed training dates offered formerly. There are also thirty-minute or “bite-sized” learning sessions which, although not interactive, give the opportunity to clarify complex information and end in a short quiz to test understanding. These training facilities are excellent in their content but do require the Bureau training manager and other staff to supervise the progress of trainees. It is essential that we ensure the advisers get the best possible use out of these programs by monitoring and evaluating work completed and, it is hoped, the resulting increase in skills and confidence noted. Advisers have found the individual sessions in the Bureau helpful when they have a trainer around to give guidance and support in completing the exercises, but it is also possible for them to do the work at home.

Judith Newman, Guidance Tutor

All advisers, trainees and specialist staff in the Bureau were trained on the CASE system and now use it as their main tool for recording client enquiries and case details. CASE is a computerised database system installed on all computers in the office. It has replaced paper case recording in the bureau.

All staff received a half-day hands-on training session together with full documentation and practice sessions on how to use the system. The training also focussed on the procedures around the use of CASE. Bureau procedures were modified to fit the best use of CASE, e.g. advisers were trained on how to use it in an interview situation as well as for writing up case notes in the office. Specialist staff received training in how to check and authorise case records.

The introduction of CASE has been a big change for everyone, and at first the number of clients we were able to see slowed down as people got used to the system. However, all advisers and staff are now adapting well to it and several advantages over the paper system have been identified. Revision and further training sessions will be given as and when needed.

CASE is at present only used in the Stroud Bureau but it is intended to install and use the system at all the outreach offices when this becomes technically possible.

Sheilagh Orson, Volunteer Adviser and CASE trainer