Since I don't think it is fair to suspect people of fraud on statistical grounds, and since I don't think it is right for QUANGO's to provide misleading and incomplete information and to encourage councils to basically threaten and upset people on the grounds that they 'might' not be entitled, I thought I would publish some of the Audit Commission's pronouncements. These derive not just from personal experience but also from documents provided by others.
You also state that there is no obligation on councils to verify entitlement to discount and the
assertion in the template that the council is required to verify entitlement has no basis in council
tax law. We don’t agree. Where a council is on notice through receipt of matches from the
Commission that individuals receiving discounts may not be entitled to those discounts, as a
public body it would be remiss of it to make no attempt to verify entitlement.
Hang on here ... where does the 'obligation' arise? Just because the Audit Commission thinks there is a slight possibility (ranging from one in three thousand upwards) that a person may not be entitled to a discount this does not mean that the council is 'obliged' to carry out an investigation.
We are not talking one or two cases here, we are talking about over 440,000 cases involving at least 880,000 people. And the 'chances' are, statistically speaking, that each case is completely legal and innocent.
All these abortive investigations must cost money. How much? Nobody knows. The Audit Commission does not obtain information on this.
They also cause distress. Has the Audit Commission taken this into account. No. It has said quite plainly that it is not interested in people who turn out to be entitled, only in those who don't.
You would imagine if you didn't know better that they had some sort of personality or social dysfunction, wouldn't you?