If you live in Ealing and you get a 'review' letter, consider whether to write back as follows, but only if you are still entitled to a Section 11 discount:
1 I shall not reply to this letter until the council complies fully with its legal duties to provide me with full and accurate information about my duty under Regulation 16
2 I confirm that I am entitled to a discount of the appropriate amount, ie a rate of 25% under Section 11 of the Local Government Finance Act.
3 I confirm that I have never made any false or misleading declarations, have never failed to provide information required by law and that I am honest.
4 Should you carry out your threat to issue an adjusted demand notice, a threat which I regard as a threat to act in a way which is outside the powers given to the council under the law, then I inform you now that I shall appeal, to a Valuation Tribunal if necessary.
If you are a thief, they will get you in the end, and I have no sympathy with you. But experience shows that the majority of people dragged into these messes are decent honest people who are simply the victims of maladministration by people who have power but no sense or professionalism and no proper training.
You pay the wages of these people: demand efficient and reasonable standards of service from them.
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
Sunday, 24 July 2011
mere pedantry - the words used to describe something don't matter!
The term 'claim' does not appear in council tax discount law. This discount is not 'claimed' in the same sense that benefits are. I pointed out to the Audit Commission that its use of the term 'claim' did not reflect the legal position. It replied that this was 'mere pedantry', that the words used to describe the discount did not matter, and that it was irrelevant as this was not how the exercise works.
If whoever wrote this had read the material in what appears to be a 'pop up' asserting, once again utterly falsely, that the comparison between council tax data sets and the full electoral register provided evidence of two inconsistent claims, they were probably not telling the truth. For, clearly, this is, in the minds of anybody foolish enough to believe what it says on the NFI secure web site, precisely how the exercise works. One claim or the other has to be false. More junk, more inconsistent nonsense from Audit Commission staff who appear not to be au fait with their own documentation or the law.
This explains why people are getting taken off the electoral register as a result of this match.
Some clown thinks that the same people should appear on both data sets. Give that man some proper training.
'Minimal' interference with the right to vote! Who says so? Oh yes, Clive Lewis. Perhaps he should do some research into what is actually happening and think again!
If whoever wrote this had read the material in what appears to be a 'pop up' asserting, once again utterly falsely, that the comparison between council tax data sets and the full electoral register provided evidence of two inconsistent claims, they were probably not telling the truth. For, clearly, this is, in the minds of anybody foolish enough to believe what it says on the NFI secure web site, precisely how the exercise works. One claim or the other has to be false. More junk, more inconsistent nonsense from Audit Commission staff who appear not to be au fait with their own documentation or the law.
This explains why people are getting taken off the electoral register as a result of this match.
Some clown thinks that the same people should appear on both data sets. Give that man some proper training.
'Minimal' interference with the right to vote! Who says so? Oh yes, Clive Lewis. Perhaps he should do some research into what is actually happening and think again!
The London Borough of Hillingdon. Incorrect Council Tax Guidance
The London Borough of Hillingdon boasts that the Audit Commission was impressed by the way it administers council tax discounts. It is a pity that the Audit Commission does not check whether the Borough was complying with the law and doing the job properly, especially as the Commission has a remit to ensure proper governance and the effective delivery of services.
Proper governance, obviously, involves complying with legal requirements.
If you ring Hillingdon, and ask about discounts, they will tell you that if two adults are resident the full tax is payable. You can point out that some adults are disregarded, and they will repeat their assertion, justifying this by reference to some guidance notes they have in the office and on their internal internet. If, curious, you ask them to send this guidance, they do.
The guidance is full of nonsense about the tax being made up of a property element and a person element. Why waste valuable space on such junk? I do not know why so many councils falsely assert that the 'full' council tax is based on two residents: the law says nothing of the sort. Who started this nonsense, I wonder?
It says on page two that 'Where the property is occupied by two or more adults aged 18 or over (what other sort of adult is there?) then the tax is payable in full. In case the reader is a complete idiot, the guidance helpfully explains that 'full' means 100%. It is not true that if two adults are resident the full tax is payable. Yes, later on the guide does make this clear, but why make the incorrect statement in the first place?
The guidance leaflet says
'If you are receiving a discount you are obliged by law to inform us if, because of a change of circumstances, you no longer qualify for the discount'.
This may or may not be 'right' depending on what they mean by 'a discount' and 'the discount'.
The leaflet, worryingly, then discusses different types of discount. Page 2 discusses a 'Single person household discount'.
Page 4 mentions 'students and other discounts'. This is legally inaccurate and misleading. 'Student' is a disregard category and not a type of discount. This is what philosophers call a category error, and what I call junk.
Further category errors appear later in the booklet.
Disregarded adults are said to 'qualify for a discount'. The disregarded adult is probably not the person liable to pay and therefore cannot possibly 'qualify' for a discount.
They also seem to expect you to put on the list of residents people who are not deemed to be resident for council tax purposes. This would appear to be none of the business of the council tax department.
The council expects you to fill in an application using various 'codes' to describe disregard categories.
It seems to expect you to keep this information up to date and it falsely states on the web site that it has powers under the law to fine you if you do not. This is utter junk.
And this is the council from whom the Audit Commission took advice, upon the basis of which hundreds and thousands of people have been falsely suspected of fraud. This is the council which drafted the model 'investigation' letter in the legally inaccurate and hitherto secret 'Audit Guide' provided to 'investigators'.
You begin to realise the most probable source of all the junk produced by the Audit Commission in the form of 'Audit Guide' material for investigators.
Laugh! I nearly cried.
Proper governance, obviously, involves complying with legal requirements.
If you ring Hillingdon, and ask about discounts, they will tell you that if two adults are resident the full tax is payable. You can point out that some adults are disregarded, and they will repeat their assertion, justifying this by reference to some guidance notes they have in the office and on their internal internet. If, curious, you ask them to send this guidance, they do.
The guidance is full of nonsense about the tax being made up of a property element and a person element. Why waste valuable space on such junk? I do not know why so many councils falsely assert that the 'full' council tax is based on two residents: the law says nothing of the sort. Who started this nonsense, I wonder?
It says on page two that 'Where the property is occupied by two or more adults aged 18 or over (what other sort of adult is there?) then the tax is payable in full. In case the reader is a complete idiot, the guidance helpfully explains that 'full' means 100%. It is not true that if two adults are resident the full tax is payable. Yes, later on the guide does make this clear, but why make the incorrect statement in the first place?
The guidance leaflet says
'If you are receiving a discount you are obliged by law to inform us if, because of a change of circumstances, you no longer qualify for the discount'.
This may or may not be 'right' depending on what they mean by 'a discount' and 'the discount'.
The leaflet, worryingly, then discusses different types of discount. Page 2 discusses a 'Single person household discount'.
Page 4 mentions 'students and other discounts'. This is legally inaccurate and misleading. 'Student' is a disregard category and not a type of discount. This is what philosophers call a category error, and what I call junk.
Further category errors appear later in the booklet.
Disregarded adults are said to 'qualify for a discount'. The disregarded adult is probably not the person liable to pay and therefore cannot possibly 'qualify' for a discount.
They also seem to expect you to put on the list of residents people who are not deemed to be resident for council tax purposes. This would appear to be none of the business of the council tax department.
The council expects you to fill in an application using various 'codes' to describe disregard categories.
It seems to expect you to keep this information up to date and it falsely states on the web site that it has powers under the law to fine you if you do not. This is utter junk.
And this is the council from whom the Audit Commission took advice, upon the basis of which hundreds and thousands of people have been falsely suspected of fraud. This is the council which drafted the model 'investigation' letter in the legally inaccurate and hitherto secret 'Audit Guide' provided to 'investigators'.
You begin to realise the most probable source of all the junk produced by the Audit Commission in the form of 'Audit Guide' material for investigators.
Laugh! I nearly cried.
Thursday, 14 July 2011
Can one challenge the Council's Accounts?
The Audit Commission not only demands the personal data of residents in order to misinterpret it and falsely allege that there is a suspicious discrepancy justifying an investigation, it also charges councils for the privilege.
The question is how much money do councils pay the Commission for producing these legally flawed interpretations of the financial situation of named individuals and can one question these through the audit procedure?
More on this later.
Worth a thought, though.
The Auditors for one Council said, 'We are Independent of the Audit Commission'.
I suppose this would make a difference as an Audit Commission Auditor could hardly blow the whistle on his or her own employer, or the 'appointer'. Not and expect to get more work in the future?
The Council's internal accountants said they did not know they were paying for incorrect guidance as the documents containing it were confidential and they were not allowed to log in to read them. Actually their first response was to be quite stroppy and ask who had given the enquirer a copy of the document in the first place. The answer, The Audit Commission, stopped them in their tracks.
Now here's a surprise: the accountant leading the audit of the council's accounts said he had never read, guess which laws? Yes. You guessed it.
Isn't Freedom of Information a wonderful thing?
The question is how much money do councils pay the Commission for producing these legally flawed interpretations of the financial situation of named individuals and can one question these through the audit procedure?
Worth a thought, though.
The Auditors for one Council said, 'We are Independent of the Audit Commission'.
I suppose this would make a difference as an Audit Commission Auditor could hardly blow the whistle on his or her own employer, or the 'appointer'. Not and expect to get more work in the future?
The Council's internal accountants said they did not know they were paying for incorrect guidance as the documents containing it were confidential and they were not allowed to log in to read them. Actually their first response was to be quite stroppy and ask who had given the enquirer a copy of the document in the first place. The answer, The Audit Commission, stopped them in their tracks.
Now here's a surprise: the accountant leading the audit of the council's accounts said he had never read, guess which laws? Yes. You guessed it.
Isn't Freedom of Information a wonderful thing?
Sunday, 10 July 2011
The London Borough of Hillingdon. Single Person Discount Investigation Letter
According to the Audit Commission, the model investigation letter provided online for councils carrying out their fishing trips in search of fraud was provided by Hillingdon. Hillingdon has as yet to confirm or deny this.
Perhaps the Borough has now corrected the original so that the commas and possessive apostrophes are in the first place, but the Commission has not.
More importantly, this letter, begins with a legally inaccurate statement.
It opens as follows (incorrect comma as per the original)
My records show that you receive a discount on your council tax bill, as you are the sole occupier at the above-mentioned address.
The records of the General Manager of the Council Tax Office can, of course, show no such thing.
For the council has issued a bill based on the statutory assumption that there will be entitlement to the same rate of discount for the whole of the coming year.
Moreover, the recipient will know that the General Manager is talking through the wrong orifice because when the council sent the demand notice, it complied with the law and informed him of the above-mentioned statutory assumption and of his legal duty under Regulation 16 to correct it should it turn out to be wrong.
Unless, of course, the recipient lives in Hillingdon. For there is no evidence as yet that Hillingdon does comply with the clear requirements of the legislation that tells it what information it must provide with the demand notice.
On the other hand, there is evidence that somebody at Hillingdon is making up laws, and making up situations in which the council tax department can levy a penalty. For its Council Tax leaflet for 2010/11, on page 18
If you have been allowed a discount or exemption
and something changes in your household which means that
you may longer be entitled to a reduction, you have a duty to
notify the council within 21 days of the change.
Later on, the same leaflet includes the following information:
Change of circumstances
If your bill shows a discount or an exemption, you must tell
us immediately of any change in circumstances which may
affect your entitlement to either.
Changes include people leaving or joining your household,
children reaching the age of 18 even if they are still at school,
college or university, a person no longer being in one of the
discount groups, for example a student finishing their course
of study, or the property becoming occupied.
Failure to tell us within 21 days of a change without good
reason, may mean that you are liable for a £70.00 penalty.
This can be increased to £280.00 for repeated failures.
If you are receiving sole occupancy discount it is essential that
you let us know if your circumstances change and you are no
longer entitled to it.
The phrase 'sole occupancy discount' leaps out at one, since of course there is no such thing, but the Audit Commission appears to have instructed a barrister in late 2007 on the basis that there was, and on the basis that an auditor could tell by looking at the electoral register that there was probably lack of entitlement. Indeed, that is more or less the story which the NFI team's internal minutes tell.
Whatever, the true story, it is clear that the model letter allegedly supplied to the Commission by Hillingdon misrepresents the legal situation and strongly suggests that somebody in Hillingdon is misinterpreting personal data in a significantly incorrect manner.
On the face of it, then, it would appear that the Audit Commission is taking advice from a council which cannot even provide to its customers clear, fair and accurate information as required under its general duty of care and when a law is quite clear and specific about what it must tell them.
This opens up the interesting possibility that the rest of the incorrect material that the Audit Commission has published since 2006 on this matter also originates with Hillingdon.
And indeed the early Audit Guides produced by the Audit Commission actually thank Hillingdon for showing them the way.
But of course the Audit Commission really ought to have checked their fact first.
Perhaps the Borough has now corrected the original so that the commas and possessive apostrophes are in the first place, but the Commission has not.
More importantly, this letter, begins with a legally inaccurate statement.
It opens as follows (incorrect comma as per the original)
My records show that you receive a discount on your council tax bill, as you are the sole occupier at the above-mentioned address.
The records of the General Manager of the Council Tax Office can, of course, show no such thing.
For the council has issued a bill based on the statutory assumption that there will be entitlement to the same rate of discount for the whole of the coming year.
Moreover, the recipient will know that the General Manager is talking through the wrong orifice because when the council sent the demand notice, it complied with the law and informed him of the above-mentioned statutory assumption and of his legal duty under Regulation 16 to correct it should it turn out to be wrong.
Unless, of course, the recipient lives in Hillingdon. For there is no evidence as yet that Hillingdon does comply with the clear requirements of the legislation that tells it what information it must provide with the demand notice.
On the other hand, there is evidence that somebody at Hillingdon is making up laws, and making up situations in which the council tax department can levy a penalty. For its Council Tax leaflet for 2010/11, on page 18
If you have been allowed a discount or exemption
and something changes in your household which means that
you may longer be entitled to a reduction, you have a duty to
notify the council within 21 days of the change.
Later on, the same leaflet includes the following information:
Change of circumstances
If your bill shows a discount or an exemption, you must tell
us immediately of any change in circumstances which may
affect your entitlement to either.
Changes include people leaving or joining your household,
children reaching the age of 18 even if they are still at school,
college or university, a person no longer being in one of the
discount groups, for example a student finishing their course
of study, or the property becoming occupied.
Failure to tell us within 21 days of a change without good
reason, may mean that you are liable for a £70.00 penalty.
This can be increased to £280.00 for repeated failures.
If you are receiving sole occupancy discount it is essential that
you let us know if your circumstances change and you are no
longer entitled to it.
The phrase 'sole occupancy discount' leaps out at one, since of course there is no such thing, but the Audit Commission appears to have instructed a barrister in late 2007 on the basis that there was, and on the basis that an auditor could tell by looking at the electoral register that there was probably lack of entitlement. Indeed, that is more or less the story which the NFI team's internal minutes tell.
Whatever, the true story, it is clear that the model letter allegedly supplied to the Commission by Hillingdon misrepresents the legal situation and strongly suggests that somebody in Hillingdon is misinterpreting personal data in a significantly incorrect manner.
On the face of it, then, it would appear that the Audit Commission is taking advice from a council which cannot even provide to its customers clear, fair and accurate information as required under its general duty of care and when a law is quite clear and specific about what it must tell them.
This opens up the interesting possibility that the rest of the incorrect material that the Audit Commission has published since 2006 on this matter also originates with Hillingdon.
And indeed the early Audit Guides produced by the Audit Commission actually thank Hillingdon for showing them the way.
But of course the Audit Commission really ought to have checked their fact first.
fraud?
It took a long time to obtain a version of the Audit Commission's Audit Guide on Section 11 Discounts.*
I suspected it would probably be prejudicial and incorrect; so much of their material had been incorrect that it seemed unlikely that any document would get it right.
But the sheer scale of their incompetence and effrontery still came as a shock.
Why, why, why didn't even one local council put its head over the parapet and say 'Excuse me, you are making us pay for this processing, you are using the personal data of our customers to do it, and you are getting it wrong?'
Maybe nobody who read it was well enough trained to know the difference?
Maybe cost cutting has meant that councils employ any old dogsbodies to investigate, dogsbodies who simply assume that the Audit Commission gets it right? People whose background is in benefits and who assume that discounts work like benefits. If you make the assumption that this happened way back at the outset, when the pilots were conducted, a lot of the mistakes make sense, as does the use of inappropriate language from other legal contexts including 'awarded' and 'review'.
I am reminded of the loyal old horse in 'Animal Farm': if Napoleon says it is right it must be right.
Except the metaphorical pig in this case is the Audit Commission.
Too many animals! Enough!
* By this I mean, very generally, the guidance on what it means if more than one person is on the electoral register for an address where a Section 11 discount has been deducted. It means surprisingly little, and is in fact a perfectly legal and regular situation!
I suspected it would probably be prejudicial and incorrect; so much of their material had been incorrect that it seemed unlikely that any document would get it right.
But the sheer scale of their incompetence and effrontery still came as a shock.
Why, why, why didn't even one local council put its head over the parapet and say 'Excuse me, you are making us pay for this processing, you are using the personal data of our customers to do it, and you are getting it wrong?'
Maybe nobody who read it was well enough trained to know the difference?
Maybe cost cutting has meant that councils employ any old dogsbodies to investigate, dogsbodies who simply assume that the Audit Commission gets it right? People whose background is in benefits and who assume that discounts work like benefits. If you make the assumption that this happened way back at the outset, when the pilots were conducted, a lot of the mistakes make sense, as does the use of inappropriate language from other legal contexts including 'awarded' and 'review'.
I am reminded of the loyal old horse in 'Animal Farm': if Napoleon says it is right it must be right.
Except the metaphorical pig in this case is the Audit Commission.
Too many animals! Enough!
* By this I mean, very generally, the guidance on what it means if more than one person is on the electoral register for an address where a Section 11 discount has been deducted. It means surprisingly little, and is in fact a perfectly legal and regular situation!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)