CIPFA has a long record of encouraging maladministration and putting out legally prejudicial and false information.
Cardiff was one of the first Welsh councils that the NFI got on side.
In doing this, it was supported by Audit Wales, which published some grossly inaccurate accounts of the law pertaining to discounts. The person who sent me legally incorrect information from Audit Wales was reported in the press to have left his job because they found porn on his computer. Yucky.
It follows then that the Council is likely to have legally inaccurate and misleading information on its web site, on material produced for taxpayers and on information provided to elected members.
Sure enough, Cardiff lists a number of non existent discounts, including, amusingly, both 'single person discount' and 'disregarded person's discount'. People can, according to Cardiff, 'apply' for either of these.
In 2009 Cardiff agreed to draw up application forms containing misinformation about the legal duty of the taxpayer and to get people to sign these on application. It is not clear that the council realised what it was being asked to do or that it had been correctly briefed on the obligations of the taxpayer.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CGUQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cardiff.gov.uk%2Fobjview.asp%3Fobject_id%3D15542&ei=pynLT_-mB8yo8AOzzbzSDw&usg=AFQjCNGx0tgKgcpHCPBJpF77fVaTOU70Rg&sig2=DFs0uiLiWj9fN9CPChopiA
CIPFA produces a report including an account of Cardiff's treatment of its taxpayers.
CIPFA is doing a pretty good job of spreading confusion and misunderstanding, and supported Hillingdon's original pilot to the point of commending it. Nice to see that CIPFA doesn't let little things like maladministration get in the way of important matters like falsely suspecting people of fraud because they can't get the meta data right. It's that word 'but' which implies some contradition again. The situation is perfectly legal and proper. It is misrepresentation to state that those involved 'appeared' to be claiming a 'discount' which does not exist. It is also interesting that CIPFA uses language to cast a cloud over the taxpayer, slinging mud where no actual evidence exists. Over 2,500 residents of Cardiff were affected. This account also refers to 'changes that might affect their entitlement'. The law contains no such category. It would appear that either CIPFA or Cardiff or both do not understand Regulation 16
For the original document, see here:
http://www.cipfanetworks.net/fileupload/upload/Session%204%20%20MayJune%202008136200850830.pdf
The match identified those households where the occupant appeared to
be claiming the single person discount but the electoral roll indicated
there was more than one person in the household aged 18 or over.
Some parts of this document appear to have been cut and pasted from NFI documents which have been admitted not to adequately reflect the law. The false assertion that there is no entitlement to this discount if more than one adult is resident appears here. CIPFA is not a government body and is not therefore obliged to provide objective and fair information, but still, given that people will tend to believe what it says, it ought not to get it wrong. And it does this persistently.
It has suggested that this is 'good governance'. Heaven help us!
