In a briefing note for the SLT Meeting of April 2007, the Audit Commission stated that it would produce guidance on good practice based on the experiences of the pilots.
These pilots involved Lambeth, which identified 7,000 cases as 'hits' based on the incorrect assertion that the householder involved 'the SPD applicant has declared there to be nobody over 18 in the household' but the electoral register suggests otherwise. On this basis the exercise was falsely described as 'unambiguous matching'.
Lambeth appears to have contracted out council tax duties to Capita. Once again, we have information suggesting that Capita is closely linked with local government maladministration and misinformation.
Research shows that a number of councils which have done this now have legally false information and guidance about CT discounts.on web sites and other documentation.
Is the practice of Lambeth good or bad? It appears to be consistently and systematically bad.
Document One
Reducing Your Council Tax. A Guide
Bad practice: refers to 'single person discount' and 'disregard discount' as if these were two different discounts. Misleading.
Bad practice: incorrectly informs people as follows:
People under 18 are not counted, but you must tell us when any person living
in the property becomes 18.
Document Two
Reducing Your Council Tax Application Form
Bad practice
Misleadingly refers to two different discounts, a 'single person discount' and a 'disregard discount'.
Bad practice
Falsely informs people that they must inform the council of any change in circumstances that 'may affect' their discount.
The council should accurately inform the taxpayer of the nature of the obligation arising under Regulation 16. It should do this within the demand notice as a result of a clear and explicit instruction, and it should do this at all other times as a general requirement of public administration.
Document Three
Council Tax Guide 2012/2013
Page 8 provides a reasonably indication of the circumstances in which a discount under Section 11 arises, which is required by the law.
On the negative side, the document refers people to the web site where, as we have seen, legally misleading information may be found.
This document does not contain the required information about the obligation arising under Regulation 16. it may be that the council discharges this legal duty on the actual 'bill', but even if it does, the misinformation provided elsewhere may confuse the taxpayer.
