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?