Friday, 19 August 2011
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
data matching council tax discount claimants awarded reviews
Here is an invitation to tender in which even at this point the basis of the discount is incorrectly stated.
The implication appears to be that 'genuine' claimants really do live alone. The tell-tale use of the word 'awarded' supports the view that this might be a case of council maladministration, a case of a council which believes that it should have or has in law 'awarded' something which literally is a 'single person discount' and that what is being 'verified' is a set of 'claims' to be living alone.
One could check this suspicion by looking at the web sites of the councils in question, but the announcement is anonymous.
A similar tender was put out by East Sussex Councils, working together in a procurement hub. Eastbourne Borough Council and Wealdon District Council are named in connection with this initiative.
It comes to something when even the requests for tender include prejudicial and misleading material.
This way of looking at discounts was first, to the best of my knowledge, advanced by Experian Ltd. The use of words like 'verify' - in the sense of 'check' implies that this is straightforward matching. Terms like 'awarded' and 'claim' which do not apply to the discount and are misleading serve rhetorical functions, perhaps, but muddy the waters.
The councils are seeking to review all records where a council tax single person discount (SPD) is currently awarded in order to either reaffirm the entitlement for genuine claimants or highlight and address any potentially incorrect claims and remove the discount where appropriate. The councils are looking to engage a third party supplier to carry out this review using sophisticated data matching techniques and appropriate follow up actions.
The implication appears to be that 'genuine' claimants really do live alone. The tell-tale use of the word 'awarded' supports the view that this might be a case of council maladministration, a case of a council which believes that it should have or has in law 'awarded' something which literally is a 'single person discount' and that what is being 'verified' is a set of 'claims' to be living alone.
One could check this suspicion by looking at the web sites of the councils in question, but the announcement is anonymous.
A similar tender was put out by East Sussex Councils, working together in a procurement hub. Eastbourne Borough Council and Wealdon District Council are named in connection with this initiative.
It comes to something when even the requests for tender include prejudicial and misleading material.
This way of looking at discounts was first, to the best of my knowledge, advanced by Experian Ltd. The use of words like 'verify' - in the sense of 'check' implies that this is straightforward matching. Terms like 'awarded' and 'claim' which do not apply to the discount and are misleading serve rhetorical functions, perhaps, but muddy the waters.
The councils are seeking to review all records where a council tax single person discount (SPD) is currently awarded in order to either reaffirm the entitlement for genuine claimants or highlight and address any potentially incorrect claims and remove the discount where appropriate. The councils are looking to engage a third party supplier to carry out this review using sophisticated data matching techniques and appropriate follow up actions.
data matching council tax discount claimants awarded reviews
Here is an invitation to tender in which even at this point the basis of the discount is incorrectly stated.
The implication appears to be that 'genuine' claimants really do live alone.
Tenders are invited for the supply of services in respect of Council Tax Checking and Verification for Single Person Discount Claimants. The successful tenderer will be responsible for providing this service, liaising closely with a separate Contract Manager from each authority.
The councils are seeking to review all records where a council tax single person discount (SPD) is currently awarded in order to either reaffirm the entitlement for genuine claimants or highlight and address any potentially incorrect claims and remove the discount where appropriate. The councils are looking to engage a third party supplier to carry out this review using sophisticated data matching techniques and appropriate follow up actions.
The implication appears to be that 'genuine' claimants really do live alone.
Tenders are invited for the supply of services in respect of Council Tax Checking and Verification for Single Person Discount Claimants. The successful tenderer will be responsible for providing this service, liaising closely with a separate Contract Manager from each authority.
The councils are seeking to review all records where a council tax single person discount (SPD) is currently awarded in order to either reaffirm the entitlement for genuine claimants or highlight and address any potentially incorrect claims and remove the discount where appropriate. The councils are looking to engage a third party supplier to carry out this review using sophisticated data matching techniques and appropriate follow up actions.
Equalities and Human Rights Commission
This article makes interesting reading, though it barely scratches the surface of the issues.
But it does suggest that at least somebody is waking up.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/government-computing-network/2011/aug/15/equalities-human-rights-commission-data-threat
But it does suggest that at least somebody is waking up.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/government-computing-network/2011/aug/15/equalities-human-rights-commission-data-threat
Equalities and Human Rights Commission
This article makes interesting reading, though it barely scratches the surface of the issues.
But it does suggest that at least somebody is waking up.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/government-computing-network/2011/aug/15/equalities-human-rights-commission-data-threat
But it does suggest that at least somebody is waking up.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/government-computing-network/2011/aug/15/equalities-human-rights-commission-data-threat
Saturday, 13 August 2011
Northgate South Holland District Council.
Curioser and curioser: it appears that over one third of the nation's council tax bills are produced by Northgate. Northgate uses 'Oracle' relational data base technology. This is about data matching.
Some councils have contracted out the duty arising under Regulation 14 of the Local Government Act to Northgate Information Solutions UK Ltd. However, the responsibility for any alarming or offensive letters - as has been alleged to take place - remains with the council.
Here is a nice example of a council which uses Northgate, the council in question being South Holland District Council.
http://www.sholland.gov.uk/council/counciltax/news/Council+Tax+Discount+Review.htm
The council has chosen to represent this as a 'review', a term apparently derived from benefit administrative procedures and which does not appear in council tax discount law. However, though the duty under Regulation 14 applies to all residences, this 'review' only covers some. Which?
It will come as no surprise to the reader that the council misrepresents this matter. It asserts that the residences in question are ones where 'a 25% single person discount has been awarded for council tax purposes'. Discounts are deducted, not awarded. This is the second use of inappropriate terminology from an incorrect legal framework on one web page.
The council is, and again this will come as no surprise, one of those which places legally inaccurate information about the duties of discount recipients on the internet when it has a duty to put out accurate clear and fair information.
Here is the offending piece of 'advice':
Your bill will tell you of any discount you may have already been given. You MUST inform the Council Tax Section of any changes in your circumstances that may affect any discount shown on your bill.
This is junk. But you can see why it might suit Northgate to have such junk published. Because they work with Experian who claim that you can 'validate' an existing discount by matching the code used within the data base tables with data contained in or derived from the full electoral register. This would not appear to be a statutory purpose relating to crime prevention or law enforcement.
The council tax information leaflet fails to include the information required by law and instead includes this incorrect and/or misleading assertion about discounts:
You must notify us of a change in
circumstances within 21 days. Failure to do so
could result in a penalty of £70 being imposed
The net result of this misinformation is to imply that the poor sods in receipt of 'review' letters have apparently failed in a duty to provide information which they should have provided and are 'worthy of' investigation on that basis.
Worse, South Holland Council also produces 'single person discount' application forms which incorrectly state that if any of the circumstances on the claim form changes there is a duty to inform the council and that a penalty can be issued in the case of failure.
This is very serious maladministration, particularly if anybody at the council actually believes it.
For they are reasonably clear that the electoral register may be used at any time to 'check' the original information and that if the council tax department has not been told this will be regarded as a 'discrepancy' and that it will be investigated.
It would appear to be almost beyond doubt then that customers of this council are being subjected to 'investigations' on the basis of alleged 'discrepancies' which exist only in the minds of those misinterpreting council tax discount law and the personal data and meta data on their computers.
This is scandalous.
Assuming that Northgate knows what goes on, it could be argued that it is actively encouraging law breaking by councils. Certainly, Northgate would appear to be misinterpreting certain of the entries within the tables which it uses within its relational data base technology. Evidence from various web sites attributing particular motivations and reasonings to Northgate supports this view. Council tax discount law is there to be obeyed, by government as well as by taxpayers and go-betweens. This is called the rule of law. The law, and not councils or credit reference agencies, or IT go-between geeks should prevail.
Sadly, it would appear that it rarely does.
The cause of the problem: follow the money?
Some councils have contracted out the duty arising under Regulation 14 of the Local Government Act to Northgate Information Solutions UK Ltd. However, the responsibility for any alarming or offensive letters - as has been alleged to take place - remains with the council.
Here is a nice example of a council which uses Northgate, the council in question being South Holland District Council.
http://www.sholland.gov.uk/council/counciltax/news/Council+Tax+Discount+Review.htm
The council has chosen to represent this as a 'review', a term apparently derived from benefit administrative procedures and which does not appear in council tax discount law. However, though the duty under Regulation 14 applies to all residences, this 'review' only covers some. Which?
It will come as no surprise to the reader that the council misrepresents this matter. It asserts that the residences in question are ones where 'a 25% single person discount has been awarded for council tax purposes'. Discounts are deducted, not awarded. This is the second use of inappropriate terminology from an incorrect legal framework on one web page.
The council is, and again this will come as no surprise, one of those which places legally inaccurate information about the duties of discount recipients on the internet when it has a duty to put out accurate clear and fair information.
Here is the offending piece of 'advice':
Your bill will tell you of any discount you may have already been given. You MUST inform the Council Tax Section of any changes in your circumstances that may affect any discount shown on your bill.
This is junk. But you can see why it might suit Northgate to have such junk published. Because they work with Experian who claim that you can 'validate' an existing discount by matching the code used within the data base tables with data contained in or derived from the full electoral register. This would not appear to be a statutory purpose relating to crime prevention or law enforcement.
The council tax information leaflet fails to include the information required by law and instead includes this incorrect and/or misleading assertion about discounts:
You must notify us of a change in
circumstances within 21 days. Failure to do so
could result in a penalty of £70 being imposed
The net result of this misinformation is to imply that the poor sods in receipt of 'review' letters have apparently failed in a duty to provide information which they should have provided and are 'worthy of' investigation on that basis.
Worse, South Holland Council also produces 'single person discount' application forms which incorrectly state that if any of the circumstances on the claim form changes there is a duty to inform the council and that a penalty can be issued in the case of failure.
This is very serious maladministration, particularly if anybody at the council actually believes it.
For they are reasonably clear that the electoral register may be used at any time to 'check' the original information and that if the council tax department has not been told this will be regarded as a 'discrepancy' and that it will be investigated.
It would appear to be almost beyond doubt then that customers of this council are being subjected to 'investigations' on the basis of alleged 'discrepancies' which exist only in the minds of those misinterpreting council tax discount law and the personal data and meta data on their computers.
This is scandalous.
Assuming that Northgate knows what goes on, it could be argued that it is actively encouraging law breaking by councils. Certainly, Northgate would appear to be misinterpreting certain of the entries within the tables which it uses within its relational data base technology. Evidence from various web sites attributing particular motivations and reasonings to Northgate supports this view. Council tax discount law is there to be obeyed, by government as well as by taxpayers and go-betweens. This is called the rule of law. The law, and not councils or credit reference agencies, or IT go-between geeks should prevail.
Sadly, it would appear that it rarely does.
The cause of the problem: follow the money?
Friday, 12 August 2011
Another fine mess! Whose incompetence does this article display?
An interesting article appears online here:
http://www.thesouthernreporter.co.uk/news/local-headlines/private_firm_s_alarming_purge_on_council_tax_discount_claimants_1_1444636
The headline is 'Private Firm's Alarming Purge on Council Tax Discount Claimants'
Once again a council has sent out letters which have alarmed or offended residents.
The council in question is Scottish Borders. A quick check of their council tax information leaflet shows that it appears not to include the required information relating to the obligation of discount recipients and so on. But the web site does incorrectly imply that the council must be informed if another person moves into a property. This is not true.
Application forms for discounts include a 'promise'
I undertake to advise the Council of any change of circumstances which may affect eligibility for discount including the arrival of new residents and whether any existing resident moves from the property or their status as outlined above changes
It simply is not on for councils to obtain undertakings of this sort from people who have not been properly advised of the legal position and in a situation when the council has a duty to provide full and accurate information generally under public law and specific duties to provide accurate information with every demand notice. Basically it would appear that people are being 'fitted up' by being asked to sign promises at odds with the law and at odds with the information with which the council should be supplying them, and are being conned into thinking that all this is somehow 'okay'. Providing inaccurate information constitutes maladministration especially when this causes distress, which these letters clearly do.
And once again a newspaper produces a report which fails to report the facts of the matter properly.
And once again the name of Experian crops up, though less directly this time, as a firm called Northgate has set itself up as a middle man, dealing as a go between in second hand products consisting of your personal data and my personal data. Oh yes, lots of people get their cut.
Once again people in receipt of a discount are called 'claimants', muddying the waters somewhat.
Once again the exercise is misrepresented as 'targeting' people who are erroneously or fraudulently receiving a discount, implying that this is what it does. These exercises are not based on evidence that error or fraud exists. This needs to be made clear. But it never is. You begin to think that this is deliberate.
The article states that all the people whose names were supplied were receiving an SPD which is odd, since no such thing exists in law either side of the border. But it implies that if more than one person is 'linked' with the address this is an inconsistency requiring investigation. This is not true.
This is a no win no fee exercise in which Northgate allegedly receives a sum for each person whose discount is removed. It uses Experian's credit report data base, which appears to include the full electoral register.
The council says it is cheaper to treat people like this than to send out annual canvass letters to people receiving a discount. The council says it will consider whether to rephrase the letters in future. Time and time again, all over the country, letters based on Experian's product cause complaints.
I think most people would rather pay the one pound each that it would cost the council to send out forms (the money it says it saves by simply regarding them as potentially fraudulently or 'erroneously' receiving the discount that be regarded as potentially fraudulent or erroneous.
Standard council tax data systems record certain people as 'single'. This information records the basis on which it was initially assumed that there was entitlement to a discount of 25%. It does not record the basis on which the discount was deducted or an ongoing 'claim'.
Same old same old. They know very well these letters are appalling and provoke complaints, mush. They just don't bother to tell you, or if they do you act innocent. You have to wonder whether Experian and the middle men who buy and sell on this estimated residence counts and so on draft the apology letters as well as the ones which require apologies. Perhaps it is all part of the service?
If Northgate behave like Experian they will deny that they suspect anything about the people in question: they aren't fools. And the Council's contract will include all sorts of idemnity clauses so that nobody can get back at or blame Northgate. It would be the council who was responsible if defamatory statements were issued.
These people should ask for a full legal briefing and an account of precisely why it is felt appropriate to use the electoral register in this situation. Good luck to them.
http://www.thesouthernreporter.co.uk/news/local-headlines/private_firm_s_alarming_purge_on_council_tax_discount_claimants_1_1444636
The headline is 'Private Firm's Alarming Purge on Council Tax Discount Claimants'
Once again a council has sent out letters which have alarmed or offended residents.
The council in question is Scottish Borders. A quick check of their council tax information leaflet shows that it appears not to include the required information relating to the obligation of discount recipients and so on. But the web site does incorrectly imply that the council must be informed if another person moves into a property. This is not true.
Application forms for discounts include a 'promise'
I undertake to advise the Council of any change of circumstances which may affect eligibility for discount including the arrival of new residents and whether any existing resident moves from the property or their status as outlined above changes
It simply is not on for councils to obtain undertakings of this sort from people who have not been properly advised of the legal position and in a situation when the council has a duty to provide full and accurate information generally under public law and specific duties to provide accurate information with every demand notice. Basically it would appear that people are being 'fitted up' by being asked to sign promises at odds with the law and at odds with the information with which the council should be supplying them, and are being conned into thinking that all this is somehow 'okay'. Providing inaccurate information constitutes maladministration especially when this causes distress, which these letters clearly do.
And once again a newspaper produces a report which fails to report the facts of the matter properly.
And once again the name of Experian crops up, though less directly this time, as a firm called Northgate has set itself up as a middle man, dealing as a go between in second hand products consisting of your personal data and my personal data. Oh yes, lots of people get their cut.
Once again people in receipt of a discount are called 'claimants', muddying the waters somewhat.
Once again the exercise is misrepresented as 'targeting' people who are erroneously or fraudulently receiving a discount, implying that this is what it does. These exercises are not based on evidence that error or fraud exists. This needs to be made clear. But it never is. You begin to think that this is deliberate.
The article states that all the people whose names were supplied were receiving an SPD which is odd, since no such thing exists in law either side of the border. But it implies that if more than one person is 'linked' with the address this is an inconsistency requiring investigation. This is not true.
This is a no win no fee exercise in which Northgate allegedly receives a sum for each person whose discount is removed. It uses Experian's credit report data base, which appears to include the full electoral register.
The council says it is cheaper to treat people like this than to send out annual canvass letters to people receiving a discount. The council says it will consider whether to rephrase the letters in future. Time and time again, all over the country, letters based on Experian's product cause complaints.
I think most people would rather pay the one pound each that it would cost the council to send out forms (the money it says it saves by simply regarding them as potentially fraudulently or 'erroneously' receiving the discount that be regarded as potentially fraudulent or erroneous.
Standard council tax data systems record certain people as 'single'. This information records the basis on which it was initially assumed that there was entitlement to a discount of 25%. It does not record the basis on which the discount was deducted or an ongoing 'claim'.
Same old same old. They know very well these letters are appalling and provoke complaints, mush. They just don't bother to tell you, or if they do you act innocent. You have to wonder whether Experian and the middle men who buy and sell on this estimated residence counts and so on draft the apology letters as well as the ones which require apologies. Perhaps it is all part of the service?
If Northgate behave like Experian they will deny that they suspect anything about the people in question: they aren't fools. And the Council's contract will include all sorts of idemnity clauses so that nobody can get back at or blame Northgate. It would be the council who was responsible if defamatory statements were issued.
These people should ask for a full legal briefing and an account of precisely why it is felt appropriate to use the electoral register in this situation. Good luck to them.
Thursday, 11 August 2011
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)