www.socitm.net and Gedling's legal mistakes and yet another misleading story this time courtesy of Mr Duncan Adamson

Duncan Adamson, Business Development Manager for Gedling Borough Council has produced a ghastly Powerpoint presentation about a non existent entity called a 'single person discount'.


This may be found on the website at www.socitm.net. 


Socitm is an association for IT and related professionals working in the public and 'third' sectors.


The last thing that such professionals need is badly presented and legally inaccurate and misleading Powerpoint presentations such as that produced by Mr Adamson.


Mr Adamson's second slide is called 'the legislation', and his third slide includes just part of Section 11 of the Local Government Act.  This appears to satisfy Mr Adamson that he has located the non existent beast called a single person discount: he appears to think that Section 11 1 a of the Act sets out such a thing.  


I say this because his Powerpoint includes newspaper articles which grossly misrepresent council tax discount law, and the actual processes involved in the exercise, run by Northgate and Experian Ltd of Nottingham.   For example, an article from the Nottingham Evening Post which features as one of Mr Adamson's slides incorrectly claims that the council  was catching out people who were 'getting the 25% discount while living with other people.'  One has to ask why Mr Adamson includes legally misleading newspaper articles in his presentation.  Does he, for example, approve of legally misleading newspaper articles, or does he simply not have sufficient grasp of local government taxation law to see that the articles are misleading? 


It is, of course, perfectly legal and proper, with respect both to the council and the taxpayer,  for a 25% discount to be deducted when a person is living with other people.  The other people may a) fall to be disregarded and/or b) not have their sole or main residence at the address in question.  


This process is by now familiar: first the council runs a publicity campaign which succeeds mainly in fuelling public misunderstanding of council tax discount law.   Local papers carry news stories completely misrepresenting the nature of the discount and the nature of the uses to which personal data is being put by Northgate and Experian Ltd., of Nottingham.  


Both these companies are getting an enormous amount of free publicity at public expense and this publicity in effect falsifies completely that which they are doing with the vast amounts of personal data passed on to them by banks, councils and other bodies.  


I believe that the public has a right to know and understand the real nature of this processing and the underlying reasoning. 


In the case of Gedling, a poster with a picture of an old vinyl single (some pun on the word 'record' appears to be intended) includes the words 'single resident discount'.  If Gedling calculated and issued council tax notices 'on the basis' that the taxpayer was literally the sole resident of their house, then they were acting in breach of not just one but two clearly expressed regulations.  As only one side of the poster is reproduced one cannot check whether this too included legally inaccurate information.  


One cannot help but feel that Mr Adamson is probably completely unaware of how this law works.  The fact that a whole slide in his show asks just one question: 'Is there someone else there?' appears to confirm this.  As is plain to a person who has taken the trouble to read the law properly it would be perfectly legal and proper for someone else to be there. 


Let us check Gedling's web site to see whether the council puts legally accurate information out there.  If so, then Mr Adamson would only have to read his own council's web site to get things straight in his mind.  We can live in hope.  But, no. 


We very quickly find legally inaccurate information on the 'Discounts' page of the Gedling Council  web site.  Here it is.

The Council tax charge is based on two adults sharing a property. If there are more than two adults, the amount payable will not increase.  A discount of 25% is available when only one person aged 18 years or over lives in a property.

If you are already receiving a discount and another adult moves in with you, you must notify us of any change clearly stating the date this change took place. You can do this using our Change in Circumstance online form.

This is plain wrong. If you are receiving a discount of 25% your duty is to inform the council within so many days if you have reason to believe you are no longer entitled to a discount of any amount or you are only entitled to a lower percentage discount.  There is no duty whatsoever to inform the council of changes of circumstances per se.


Perhaps nobody at Gedling has read as far as Regulation 16? 

The council's web site has a form using yet another misleading nickname, this time 'single occupier discount'.  This form is signed by a Miss Caddy, who cannot use the comma correctly, as evidenced in this legally misleading and inappropriate sentence:

I will notify the Local Taxation Section of any change in my circumstances, which may affect my entitlement to this discount within 21 days of the change occurring.

The form bears a logo with the words 'IRRV Organisational Member'.  IRRV trained staff ought to know what the duties of the taxpayer are, and they also ought to know what the duties of local councils are in respect of the provision of information. It should be clear and accurate.  


So were Mr Adamson to check his own council's web site to check up on the law, he would find himself none the wiser and would probably end up getting the wrong end of the stick.  If  he asked Miss Caddy, who appears to have been given a post linked with Revenue Collection, it seems likely that he would also receive misleading information from her.  What chance to Gedling taxpayers have of the council carrying out its legal and moral duty to provide legally accurate information. 

It would appear to be that Gedling would struggle to carry out its obligations to its taxpayers, since its own Business Development Manager cannot compile a legally appropriate/accurate Powerpoint.  In effect the council is simply slandering large numbers of its taxpayers. How many we shall never know since Mr Adamson has not chosen to honour us with this information.

Indeed, there would appear to be governance issues generally, since the council has shown itself up by publishing what appears to be clear evidence of its administrative and legal failings on the Internet in this way. 

Mr Adamson tells us that the council uses an Integrated Revenue and Benefits IT system from Civica.   The make up of this system appears to be the source of the problem. Such systems have different cells or categories for people who at some point were believed to be living alone and for those dwellings where at some point a resident was known to fall to be disregarded.  It seems clear that far too many people fall into the trap of thinking that the categories on the software systems represent a legal distinction which does not exist. Therefore, when so-called 'SPD' information is passed electronically to Northgate, they do not understand the legal basis upon which BY LAW they must have calculated the bill and the legal assumptions upon which the bill was issued.  

Mr Gedling produces some figures: whether they are, as similar figures appear to be in other contexts, distorted by the inclusion of cases where a non existent 'single person discount' of 25% was 'cancelled' only to be replaced simultaneously with an equally non existent 'disregard discount' it is difficult to say.  It is also impossible to verify these figures since nobody can say how many people would have responded positively to the paper canvass which Mr Gedling and Experian Ltd of Nottingham are so proud of doing away with. 


Mr Adamson quotes Regulation 14 and highlights the word 'reasonable'.  It is not 'reasonable' for the council to fail to abide by the Local Government Finance Act, and associated Demand Notice Regulations and Administration and Enforcement Regulations: it is maladministration. 

Gedling could do better.