The code of data matching practice says that the Audit Commission will provide guidance on how to interpret the output of data matching exercises. It has denied providing guidance on how to investigate stating that this would be ultra vires. Ms Akram of the Commission has, however, said that there is nothing to prevent the Commission providing initial guidance on the selection of matches for investigation.
When I asked for a copy of this guidance it repeatedly refused on the basis that it provided guidance on how to investigate, and it even argued that since you could not investigate matches until you had interpreted them, then even the interpretation was part of the investigation. My request for guidance on how to 'interpret' the output of the data processing was, on this argument, itself, a request for guidance on 'how to investigate' and not even a redacted version of the document would be produced.
The response of the Commission caused its Independent Complaints Reviewer to comment that it gave rise to an unintended impression of duplicity.
According to the Audit Commission, "the document that Mrs XXXX refers to as a 'secret Audit Guide' deals with the results of the matching of the electoral register against council tax records, to help identify whether residents may be incorrectly receiving the Single Person Discount. It is a practical guide to assist participant authorities in investigating matches and it is not a legal document or a summary of the law relating to council tax discounts. "
This information was provided in a letter to Bob Neill, Under Secretary of State.
And it is clear from the redacted version that I have that the documents do provide guidance on how to investigate, and that they are legally outrageously wrong in the allegations made about taxpayers.
So the Audit Commission was not providing me with the truth when it denied providing guidance on how to investigate. It clearly was being duplicitous.
Tuesday, 29 May 2012
Tuesday, 8 May 2012
Capita and Council Tax and Maladministration in Derbyshire Bolsover, etc.
Capita appears to have been involved in one way or another with a number of councils which, on the face of it, look like they are not obeying the law on council tax properly and which are certainly putting legally false information on their web sites and or their documentation.
By association, this raises questions about the fitness of Capita to take on local government financial and administrative duties.
The provision of clear and accurate guidance to both elected representatives and local taxpayers is a basic requirement of correct public administration. To make it worse, Capita claim to 'capture key policies and procedures' as part of their discount review service. On this basis, it really ought to be able to point out to councils that they are not complying with the law setting out the procedures which must be used: especially Regulation 15 (2) and 20 (3) (f).
This is particularly the case when Capita 'informs councils' that particular people are frauds.
Notify the council of households that are making
fraudulent SPD claims and require notification of
ceasing SPD benefit
NB Council Tax discounts are NOT benefits.
Capita appears to make this judgement that a person is a fraud based on telephone calls and electronic voice analysis, and claims to employ trained fraud investigators. Injustices arising from the reasonable distress of people who are falsely suspected of fraud being taken by a person of machine on the other end of a telephone line as evidence of something suspicious have already hit the pages of local newspapers.
Their web site boasts about an initiative in Derbyshire, involving nine councils, including Erewash, Bolsover and Amber Valley. The web site piece may be found here:
http://www.capita.co.uk/media/pages/CapitahelpsDerbyshirecouncilssave%C2%A325mwithsinglepersondiscountreview.aspx
As you will see, this web site uses the term 'review', a term which does not feature in the law, but which some councils use to describe carrying out the duty arising under Regulation 14 in respect of certain nominated households. Some councils deny that the 'investigation letters' sent out in the course of such exercises are part of a fraud investigation: they claim they are merely trying to find out how much tax the householder pays. There is a lot of double speak: for the same councils deny point blank that they are using the full electoral register to assess entitlement to a discount to Section 11. (It is an offence, broadly speaking, for a council to use any information deriving from that register except for a statutory purpose related to crime prevention and law enforcement, with the general legal opinion apparently being that this means enforcing the criminal law, for otherwise, the provision would be pointless, other duties of the council being to do with enforcing the civil law).
The duty is to take reasonable steps to ascertain whether any discount should apply, and if so the amount of that discount. It applies in respect of every dwelling within the authority, not just in respect of certain individuals. This duty has been described as a duty to make a tax assessment, and on that basis data protection exemptions apply: data used to assess or collect any tax are not protected under DP law from being shared.
Regulation 14 gives councils the choice about how to go about making their decisions, but it is clear that all methods used must be in accordance with the law. Any procedures which are at odds with the law are wrong and could be subject to judicial review or public complaint. In other words, Regulation 14 does not allow any council to ignore Regulation 15 or to rewrite Regulation 16 or to provide to its residents legally false or misleading information.
Capita's web site makes it that Capita believed it had identified people where there 'was a risk' that single person discount was not appropriate, using credit reference information. This means that a 'hit' could arise merely because a person put their oldest child on the electoral register. Only these people were contacted, using a 'review letter'.
It seems clear that Capita suspected that every household to which a review letter was sent might be the site of a serious criminal offence of dishonesty and that this was done, not on the basis of any actual discrepancy but on the basis that there 'was a risk'.
Given what we know about the maladministration and misinformation usually linked with such initiatives, let's check out the web sites of some of these councils, starting with Bolsover.
Does Bolsover mislead its taxpayers? Yes.
At the click of a button we find legally inaccurate information on Bolsover's web site.
Following the award of a discount you must notify us immediately if your situation alters and the circumstances giving rise to a discount change.
NOTE: YOU MUST NOTIFY THE COUNCIL IF THERE IS ANY CHANGE IN YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY AFFECT YOUR ENTITLEMENT TO A DISCOUNT. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN A PENALTY BEING MADE.
The web site also has what looks like a list of 'discounts' ranging from student to under 18s. This last is particularly stupid, as under 18s do not count as residents at all, and so no discount applies. The question does not arise.
Does Derby mislead its taxpayers? Yes.
Does Chesterfield Borough Council mislead its taxpayers? Yes
The CT leaflet for 2012/13 does not contain the required information about the duty under Regulation 16, but this might appear on the financial pages of the demand notice.
However, a general leaflet put out by the Revenues department includes a blanket request to taxpayers to
Tell us as soon as there are any changes in your
circumstances. Delaying could increase the amount you have
to pay towards your rent or Council Tax.
Chesterfield's web site does have false information about the NFI on it, however. It states that where a match is found it indicates that there is an inconsistency. As we now realise, this is an utterly false assertion: one of the main NFI exercises produces lists of people in whose situation there is no inconsistency at all, but where the NFI thinks one might exist.
Does Derbyshire Dales Council mislead its taxpayers? No obvious evidence of this. Some potential good practice examples for others to follow.
This isn't bad, so long as the Council does not invent a 'single person discount' allegedly different from disregard discounts. At least it does not claim that the duty arises in respect of changes that 'might' affect entitlement, a very common false assertion by local councils.
If your bill indicates that a discount has been allowed, you must tell the revenues section within 21 days of any change of circumstances which affects your entitlement. If you fail to do so you may be required to pay a £50 penalty.
To be continued.
By association, this raises questions about the fitness of Capita to take on local government financial and administrative duties.
The provision of clear and accurate guidance to both elected representatives and local taxpayers is a basic requirement of correct public administration. To make it worse, Capita claim to 'capture key policies and procedures' as part of their discount review service. On this basis, it really ought to be able to point out to councils that they are not complying with the law setting out the procedures which must be used: especially Regulation 15 (2) and 20 (3) (f).
This is particularly the case when Capita 'informs councils' that particular people are frauds.
Notify the council of households that are making
fraudulent SPD claims and require notification of
ceasing SPD benefit
NB Council Tax discounts are NOT benefits.
Capita appears to make this judgement that a person is a fraud based on telephone calls and electronic voice analysis, and claims to employ trained fraud investigators. Injustices arising from the reasonable distress of people who are falsely suspected of fraud being taken by a person of machine on the other end of a telephone line as evidence of something suspicious have already hit the pages of local newspapers.
Their web site boasts about an initiative in Derbyshire, involving nine councils, including Erewash, Bolsover and Amber Valley. The web site piece may be found here:
http://www.capita.co.uk/media/pages/CapitahelpsDerbyshirecouncilssave%C2%A325mwithsinglepersondiscountreview.aspx
As you will see, this web site uses the term 'review', a term which does not feature in the law, but which some councils use to describe carrying out the duty arising under Regulation 14 in respect of certain nominated households. Some councils deny that the 'investigation letters' sent out in the course of such exercises are part of a fraud investigation: they claim they are merely trying to find out how much tax the householder pays. There is a lot of double speak: for the same councils deny point blank that they are using the full electoral register to assess entitlement to a discount to Section 11. (It is an offence, broadly speaking, for a council to use any information deriving from that register except for a statutory purpose related to crime prevention and law enforcement, with the general legal opinion apparently being that this means enforcing the criminal law, for otherwise, the provision would be pointless, other duties of the council being to do with enforcing the civil law).
The duty is to take reasonable steps to ascertain whether any discount should apply, and if so the amount of that discount. It applies in respect of every dwelling within the authority, not just in respect of certain individuals. This duty has been described as a duty to make a tax assessment, and on that basis data protection exemptions apply: data used to assess or collect any tax are not protected under DP law from being shared.
Regulation 14 gives councils the choice about how to go about making their decisions, but it is clear that all methods used must be in accordance with the law. Any procedures which are at odds with the law are wrong and could be subject to judicial review or public complaint. In other words, Regulation 14 does not allow any council to ignore Regulation 15 or to rewrite Regulation 16 or to provide to its residents legally false or misleading information.
Capita's web site makes it that Capita believed it had identified people where there 'was a risk' that single person discount was not appropriate, using credit reference information. This means that a 'hit' could arise merely because a person put their oldest child on the electoral register. Only these people were contacted, using a 'review letter'.
It seems clear that Capita suspected that every household to which a review letter was sent might be the site of a serious criminal offence of dishonesty and that this was done, not on the basis of any actual discrepancy but on the basis that there 'was a risk'.
Given what we know about the maladministration and misinformation usually linked with such initiatives, let's check out the web sites of some of these councils, starting with Bolsover.
Does Bolsover mislead its taxpayers? Yes.
At the click of a button we find legally inaccurate information on Bolsover's web site.
Following the award of a discount you must notify us immediately if your situation alters and the circumstances giving rise to a discount change.
The same nonsense appears over and over again. In some cases, including documentation sent to taxpayers, it is accompanied by the threat of a financial penalty.
The web site also has what looks like a list of 'discounts' ranging from student to under 18s. This last is particularly stupid, as under 18s do not count as residents at all, and so no discount applies. The question does not arise.
Does Derby mislead its taxpayers? Yes.
What should I do if am getting a discount but my circumstances have changed?
You must tell us about the changes and we will tell you how it affects your discount.
For example, if you live alone you must tell us if another adult moves in with you.
Does Chesterfield Borough Council mislead its taxpayers? Yes
The CT leaflet for 2012/13 does not contain the required information about the duty under Regulation 16, but this might appear on the financial pages of the demand notice.
However, a general leaflet put out by the Revenues department includes a blanket request to taxpayers to
Tell us as soon as there are any changes in your
circumstances. Delaying could increase the amount you have
to pay towards your rent or Council Tax.
Chesterfield's web site does have false information about the NFI on it, however. It states that where a match is found it indicates that there is an inconsistency. As we now realise, this is an utterly false assertion: one of the main NFI exercises produces lists of people in whose situation there is no inconsistency at all, but where the NFI thinks one might exist.
Does Derbyshire Dales Council mislead its taxpayers? No obvious evidence of this. Some potential good practice examples for others to follow.
This isn't bad, so long as the Council does not invent a 'single person discount' allegedly different from disregard discounts. At least it does not claim that the duty arises in respect of changes that 'might' affect entitlement, a very common false assertion by local councils.
If your bill indicates that a discount has been allowed, you must tell the revenues section within 21 days of any change of circumstances which affects your entitlement. If you fail to do so you may be required to pay a £50 penalty.
To be continued.
Friday, 4 May 2012
Lambeth and Good Practice (Or Not?)
In a briefing note for the SLT Meeting of April 2007, the Audit Commission stated that it would produce guidance on good practice based on the experiences of the pilots.
These pilots involved Lambeth, which identified 7,000 cases as 'hits' based on the incorrect assertion that the householder involved 'the SPD applicant has declared there to be nobody over 18 in the household' but the electoral register suggests otherwise. On this basis the exercise was falsely described as 'unambiguous matching'.
Lambeth appears to have contracted out council tax duties to Capita. Once again, we have information suggesting that Capita is closely linked with local government maladministration and misinformation.
Research shows that a number of councils which have done this now have legally false information and guidance about CT discounts.on web sites and other documentation.
Is the practice of Lambeth good or bad? It appears to be consistently and systematically bad.
Document One
Reducing Your Council Tax. A Guide
Bad practice: refers to 'single person discount' and 'disregard discount' as if these were two different discounts. Misleading.
Bad practice: incorrectly informs people as follows:
People under 18 are not counted, but you must tell us when any person living
in the property becomes 18.
Document Two
Reducing Your Council Tax Application Form
Bad practice
Misleadingly refers to two different discounts, a 'single person discount' and a 'disregard discount'.
Bad practice
Falsely informs people that they must inform the council of any change in circumstances that 'may affect' their discount.
The council should accurately inform the taxpayer of the nature of the obligation arising under Regulation 16. It should do this within the demand notice as a result of a clear and explicit instruction, and it should do this at all other times as a general requirement of public administration.
Document Three
Council Tax Guide 2012/2013
Page 8 provides a reasonably indication of the circumstances in which a discount under Section 11 arises, which is required by the law.
On the negative side, the document refers people to the web site where, as we have seen, legally misleading information may be found.
This document does not contain the required information about the obligation arising under Regulation 16. it may be that the council discharges this legal duty on the actual 'bill', but even if it does, the misinformation provided elsewhere may confuse the taxpayer.
These pilots involved Lambeth, which identified 7,000 cases as 'hits' based on the incorrect assertion that the householder involved 'the SPD applicant has declared there to be nobody over 18 in the household' but the electoral register suggests otherwise. On this basis the exercise was falsely described as 'unambiguous matching'.
Lambeth appears to have contracted out council tax duties to Capita. Once again, we have information suggesting that Capita is closely linked with local government maladministration and misinformation.
Research shows that a number of councils which have done this now have legally false information and guidance about CT discounts.on web sites and other documentation.
Is the practice of Lambeth good or bad? It appears to be consistently and systematically bad.
Document One
Reducing Your Council Tax. A Guide
Bad practice: refers to 'single person discount' and 'disregard discount' as if these were two different discounts. Misleading.
Bad practice: incorrectly informs people as follows:
People under 18 are not counted, but you must tell us when any person living
in the property becomes 18.
Document Two
Reducing Your Council Tax Application Form
Bad practice
Misleadingly refers to two different discounts, a 'single person discount' and a 'disregard discount'.
Bad practice
Falsely informs people that they must inform the council of any change in circumstances that 'may affect' their discount.
The council should accurately inform the taxpayer of the nature of the obligation arising under Regulation 16. It should do this within the demand notice as a result of a clear and explicit instruction, and it should do this at all other times as a general requirement of public administration.
Document Three
Council Tax Guide 2012/2013
Page 8 provides a reasonably indication of the circumstances in which a discount under Section 11 arises, which is required by the law.
On the negative side, the document refers people to the web site where, as we have seen, legally misleading information may be found.
This document does not contain the required information about the obligation arising under Regulation 16. it may be that the council discharges this legal duty on the actual 'bill', but even if it does, the misinformation provided elsewhere may confuse the taxpayer.
Misleading Information in NFI internal reports Crap about Lancaster
The NFI has denied having any connection with the pilot data mismatching exercises carried out in Lancashire.
Oddly at least one of the councils involved asserted that they had to behave as they did because their auditors insisted on it. Moreover, NFI internal minutes make it clear that the NFI was connected with the initiative to the extent that legally false accounts of it were presented by NFI staff.
In October 2006 NFI staff reported that four Lancashire authorities (including Preston)
'Matched CT SPD v Credit Applications/payments'
This false assertion was made by at least one authority officer dealing with the large numbers of distressed and harassed taxpayers who complained about the threatening letters they had from the council half way through the tax year (September, to be precise). Obviously, being told that a person about whom one knows nothing is applying for credit using one's address causes serious worry and distress. And this happened to local residents at the time. It appears to be the case that authority employees believed this false information, and that they may have passed it on to the NFI who then parroted it without questioning it.
One such taxpayer complained to the Information Commissioner. ICO staff, who said they had never heard of anything like it, and who later stated a view that the exercise had been in breach of DP law, visited Experian Ltd of Nottingham. They subsequently stated that, though it appeared to be difficult to find out the reasons why particular households had been flagged up for investigation, it was clear that this could arise in cases where there was NO CREDIT APPLICATION OR PAYMENT by a third party. A 'hit' (though this term was not used at the time ) could arise purely and simply on the basis that a second adult appeared on the electoral register.
The Council disagreed with the decision of the ICO on the DP legality of the exercise, and, presumably, this is why officers have apparently failed to mention this fact. They do not seem to have told elected members of this, or EURIM, or whoever they were communicating with at the NFI. Perhaps the NFI was never told.
The NFI may not like its documents being referred to as 'crap', but this is a descriptive term which is wholly apt for the case in question. They are shot through with self contradiction, legal inaccuracies and incompetence, and they also appear to fly in the face of legal advice on the duties of auditors with which their own barrister provided them.
Oddly at least one of the councils involved asserted that they had to behave as they did because their auditors insisted on it. Moreover, NFI internal minutes make it clear that the NFI was connected with the initiative to the extent that legally false accounts of it were presented by NFI staff.
In October 2006 NFI staff reported that four Lancashire authorities (including Preston)
'Matched CT SPD v Credit Applications/payments'
This false assertion was made by at least one authority officer dealing with the large numbers of distressed and harassed taxpayers who complained about the threatening letters they had from the council half way through the tax year (September, to be precise). Obviously, being told that a person about whom one knows nothing is applying for credit using one's address causes serious worry and distress. And this happened to local residents at the time. It appears to be the case that authority employees believed this false information, and that they may have passed it on to the NFI who then parroted it without questioning it.
One such taxpayer complained to the Information Commissioner. ICO staff, who said they had never heard of anything like it, and who later stated a view that the exercise had been in breach of DP law, visited Experian Ltd of Nottingham. They subsequently stated that, though it appeared to be difficult to find out the reasons why particular households had been flagged up for investigation, it was clear that this could arise in cases where there was NO CREDIT APPLICATION OR PAYMENT by a third party. A 'hit' (though this term was not used at the time ) could arise purely and simply on the basis that a second adult appeared on the electoral register.
The Council disagreed with the decision of the ICO on the DP legality of the exercise, and, presumably, this is why officers have apparently failed to mention this fact. They do not seem to have told elected members of this, or EURIM, or whoever they were communicating with at the NFI. Perhaps the NFI was never told.
The NFI may not like its documents being referred to as 'crap', but this is a descriptive term which is wholly apt for the case in question. They are shot through with self contradiction, legal inaccuracies and incompetence, and they also appear to fly in the face of legal advice on the duties of auditors with which their own barrister provided them.
Data and Meta Data - At the heart of the so-called 'Single Person Cock Up'?
There is data, such as your name, your address, and there is meta data, i.e. information above and beyond the basic information and which is needed to make sense of the basic information.
No term appears to exist for the case where the 'meta data' is false, misleading or prejudicial. I shall call it 'anti data'.
Let me give an example.
Let us take the data: Mrs George Brown. Address 24 West Road, Portsmouth. February 2001
Let us invent some meta data:
a) Mrs Brown lives at 24 West Road.
b) Mrs Brown lived at 24 West Road on February 1st 2001
c) In February 2001 Mrs Brown told Mr Smith that she lived at 24 West Road
d) It is now 2012 and Mr Smith assumes, having heard nothing to the contrary from Mrs Brown, that she still lives at 24 West Road
e) In March 2012 Mrs Smith told Mr Jones that she lives in London
f) Mrs Smith is lying about where she lives now
g) Mrs Smith was lying in February 2001
h) Mrs Smith is a completely honest person, constitutionally incapable of telling an lie.
i) Mrs Smith might be a liar.
j) We need to root out liars
k) There should be an investigation to find out whether Mrs Smith is or is not a liar.
l) On this basis, we shall legally abolish any rights to any sort of personal privacy which the law confers on Mrs Smith
l) We should insist that Mrs Smith clears herself from suspicion of being a liar.
m) We should encourage Mrs Smith to do this by alleging that there is evidence of a discrepancy or inconsistency.
n) Mrs Smith will only object to this process if she has something to hide: any objections will, therefore, be further grounds to suspect Mrs Smith.
We cannot know whether any of this meta data is true or fair without the whole picture. But it is clear that in example i) somebody has a suspicious mind. It is also clear that in example l, somebody is setting out on a course likely to cause distress and injustice to Mrs Smith.
On one view, incorrect meta data - anti data - is the problem at the heart of the SPD cock up now sweeping the country. Hundreds of thousands of SPD recipients would, if the NFI had its way, be put into the situation of Mrs Smith in cases k and l and m above.
The Audit Commission insists that when personal data (names, addresses etc) are sent to them for matching on the two SPD exercises certain 'meta data' is attached to it.
The problem appears to be that the NFI has never understood this meta data correctly.
This meta data takes the form of 'codes'. The NFI wants councils to attach certain 'codes' to our personal data. A document on the NFI web site specifies the 'meta data' which the NFI believes can and should be attached to our personal data.
These codes and types vary between systems so a key is required. However, we are only interested in knowing the equivalent codes/types for certain entries and so it is important for us to be able to distinguish these from the rest. Irrespective of what other codes and types mean, at the very least it must be clear as to which fields represent the following:
Discounts
Single person - suggested field entry = SINGLE
Disregards
Student - suggested field entry = STUDENT
The varying mis-interpretations of these codes is at the heart of the problem.
These codes do not indicate the basis on which the council made its calculations for the demand notice and they do not indicate the basis on which the appropriate amount was deducted from the chargeable amount and they do not indicate the basis on which the demand notice was issued. Nor do they indicate the 'basis' on which the taxpayer 'is claiming' to be entitled to a discount, or (assuming competence and lawful administrative procedures) do they represent the 'beliefs' about councils about the basis of entitlement. They most certainly do not set out 'unambiguously' the reason for entitlement, or the basis of entitlement.
This is the basic untruth which time and time again the NFI has stated or implied.
It may be that these 'codes' represent information on the basis of which, while undertaking its duties under Regulation 14, at some time in the past, the council made its assumption that there was entitlement to a discount of a particular amount, at the rate set in law, but in all fairness no more can be said.
To add unfair and legally inaccurate 'meta data' to the personal names supplied to the NFI is both morally and - in so far as those concerned have legal duties to administer finances in accordance with the law - legally wrong.
No term appears to exist for the case where the 'meta data' is false, misleading or prejudicial. I shall call it 'anti data'.
Let me give an example.
Let us take the data: Mrs George Brown. Address 24 West Road, Portsmouth. February 2001
Let us invent some meta data:
a) Mrs Brown lives at 24 West Road.
b) Mrs Brown lived at 24 West Road on February 1st 2001
c) In February 2001 Mrs Brown told Mr Smith that she lived at 24 West Road
d) It is now 2012 and Mr Smith assumes, having heard nothing to the contrary from Mrs Brown, that she still lives at 24 West Road
e) In March 2012 Mrs Smith told Mr Jones that she lives in London
f) Mrs Smith is lying about where she lives now
g) Mrs Smith was lying in February 2001
h) Mrs Smith is a completely honest person, constitutionally incapable of telling an lie.
i) Mrs Smith might be a liar.
j) We need to root out liars
k) There should be an investigation to find out whether Mrs Smith is or is not a liar.
l) On this basis, we shall legally abolish any rights to any sort of personal privacy which the law confers on Mrs Smith
l) We should insist that Mrs Smith clears herself from suspicion of being a liar.
m) We should encourage Mrs Smith to do this by alleging that there is evidence of a discrepancy or inconsistency.
n) Mrs Smith will only object to this process if she has something to hide: any objections will, therefore, be further grounds to suspect Mrs Smith.
We cannot know whether any of this meta data is true or fair without the whole picture. But it is clear that in example i) somebody has a suspicious mind. It is also clear that in example l, somebody is setting out on a course likely to cause distress and injustice to Mrs Smith.
On one view, incorrect meta data - anti data - is the problem at the heart of the SPD cock up now sweeping the country. Hundreds of thousands of SPD recipients would, if the NFI had its way, be put into the situation of Mrs Smith in cases k and l and m above.
The Audit Commission insists that when personal data (names, addresses etc) are sent to them for matching on the two SPD exercises certain 'meta data' is attached to it.
The problem appears to be that the NFI has never understood this meta data correctly.
This meta data takes the form of 'codes'. The NFI wants councils to attach certain 'codes' to our personal data. A document on the NFI web site specifies the 'meta data' which the NFI believes can and should be attached to our personal data.
These codes and types vary between systems so a key is required. However, we are only interested in knowing the equivalent codes/types for certain entries and so it is important for us to be able to distinguish these from the rest. Irrespective of what other codes and types mean, at the very least it must be clear as to which fields represent the following:
Discounts
Single person - suggested field entry = SINGLE
Disregards
Student - suggested field entry = STUDENT
The varying mis-interpretations of these codes is at the heart of the problem.
These codes do not indicate the basis on which the council made its calculations for the demand notice and they do not indicate the basis on which the appropriate amount was deducted from the chargeable amount and they do not indicate the basis on which the demand notice was issued. Nor do they indicate the 'basis' on which the taxpayer 'is claiming' to be entitled to a discount, or (assuming competence and lawful administrative procedures) do they represent the 'beliefs' about councils about the basis of entitlement. They most certainly do not set out 'unambiguously' the reason for entitlement, or the basis of entitlement.
This is the basic untruth which time and time again the NFI has stated or implied.
It may be that these 'codes' represent information on the basis of which, while undertaking its duties under Regulation 14, at some time in the past, the council made its assumption that there was entitlement to a discount of a particular amount, at the rate set in law, but in all fairness no more can be said.
To add unfair and legally inaccurate 'meta data' to the personal names supplied to the NFI is both morally and - in so far as those concerned have legal duties to administer finances in accordance with the law - legally wrong.
Tuesday, 1 May 2012
Northgate and Council Tax
In a supreme irony, Scottish Borders Council has used (possibly unwittingly) a response to a Freedom of Information Request to put into the public domain information which, if what it says is true, indicates that it is not complying with CT discount law (which is the same in essence in Scotland as in England).
According to them, they appear to pay Northgate £40 every time they (apparently Northgate and the Council) make a serious legal mistake.
Don't take my word for it.
http://www.scotborders.gov.uk/directory_record/24343/single_person_discount_review
Does Scottish Borders Council carry out its obligations to the taxpayer correctly?
You guessed it. No. The 'application forms' for this discount provide misleading information to the taxpayer. The web site does the same thing.
According to them, they appear to pay Northgate £40 every time they (apparently Northgate and the Council) make a serious legal mistake.
Don't take my word for it.
http://www.scotborders.gov.uk/directory_record/24343/single_person_discount_review
Where the Council Tax payer remains entitled to receive discount i.e. there has been no change in the household, there is no charge to Scottish Borders Council.
Where Northgate are advised of a change and discount is cancelled there is a charge or £40 to Scottish Borders Council.
Does Scottish Borders Council carry out its obligations to the taxpayer correctly?
You guessed it. No. The 'application forms' for this discount provide misleading information to the taxpayer. The web site does the same thing.
To make sure the right person is charged council tax at the right rate, you must tell us about any changes in the circumstances of the adults (aged 18 or over) living in a property.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)