CIPFA has a long record of encouraging maladministration and putting out legally prejudicial and false information.
Cardiff was one of the first Welsh councils that the NFI got on side.
In doing this, it was supported by Audit Wales, which published some grossly inaccurate accounts of the law pertaining to discounts. The person who sent me legally incorrect information from Audit Wales was reported in the press to have left his job because they found porn on his computer. Yucky.
It follows then that the Council is likely to have legally inaccurate and misleading information on its web site, on material produced for taxpayers and on information provided to elected members.
Sure enough, Cardiff lists a number of non existent discounts, including, amusingly, both 'single person discount' and 'disregarded person's discount'. People can, according to Cardiff, 'apply' for either of these.
In 2009 Cardiff agreed to draw up application forms containing misinformation about the legal duty of the taxpayer and to get people to sign these on application. It is not clear that the council realised what it was being asked to do or that it had been correctly briefed on the obligations of the taxpayer.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CGUQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cardiff.gov.uk%2Fobjview.asp%3Fobject_id%3D15542&ei=pynLT_-mB8yo8AOzzbzSDw&usg=AFQjCNGx0tgKgcpHCPBJpF77fVaTOU70Rg&sig2=DFs0uiLiWj9fN9CPChopiA
CIPFA produces a report including an account of Cardiff's treatment of its taxpayers.
CIPFA is doing a pretty good job of spreading confusion and misunderstanding, and supported Hillingdon's original pilot to the point of commending it. Nice to see that CIPFA doesn't let little things like maladministration get in the way of important matters like falsely suspecting people of fraud because they can't get the meta data right. It's that word 'but' which implies some contradition again. The situation is perfectly legal and proper. It is misrepresentation to state that those involved 'appeared' to be claiming a 'discount' which does not exist. It is also interesting that CIPFA uses language to cast a cloud over the taxpayer, slinging mud where no actual evidence exists. Over 2,500 residents of Cardiff were affected. This account also refers to 'changes that might affect their entitlement'. The law contains no such category. It would appear that either CIPFA or Cardiff or both do not understand Regulation 16
For the original document, see here:
http://www.cipfanetworks.net/fileupload/upload/Session%204%20%20MayJune%202008136200850830.pdf
The match identified those households where the occupant appeared to
be claiming the single person discount but the electoral roll indicated
there was more than one person in the household aged 18 or over.
Some parts of this document appear to have been cut and pasted from NFI documents which have been admitted not to adequately reflect the law. The false assertion that there is no entitlement to this discount if more than one adult is resident appears here. CIPFA is not a government body and is not therefore obliged to provide objective and fair information, but still, given that people will tend to believe what it says, it ought not to get it wrong. And it does this persistently.
It has suggested that this is 'good governance'. Heaven help us!
Sunday, 3 June 2012
potential libel relating to NFI data matching / mangling? CIPFA Advice
This amused me:
Participants should ensure that the data they provide to
the Commission are of a good quality in terms of accuracy
and completeness. Processing of inaccurate data could
mean that the participant is in breach of data protection
or libel laws.
Such as in the case where the Audit Commission falsely alleges that a person is simultaneously making two inconsistent claims, one in respect of the full electoral register and one in respect of entitlement to a discount?
Participants should ensure that the data they provide to
the Commission are of a good quality in terms of accuracy
and completeness. Processing of inaccurate data could
mean that the participant is in breach of data protection
or libel laws.
Such as in the case where the Audit Commission falsely alleges that a person is simultaneously making two inconsistent claims, one in respect of the full electoral register and one in respect of entitlement to a discount?
Meta Data Section 11 25% discounts.
Along with personal data, councils are supposed to send 'codes' to the NFI. In the past, Audit Scotland asked those sending data to include with the personal data explanations of the codes used.
This is were the mistake has crept in.
The NFI does not, and has never, understood the codes attached to data, whether on the computers used by Hillingdon and the rest, or on the uploads provided by councils.
It therefore sends legally false accounts of this to councils, who believe it, and a vicious cycle of false allegations and misunderstanding is created which brings untold misery and suspicion down upon very large numbers of innocent entitled people who have done nothing wrong.
This is were the mistake has crept in.
The NFI does not, and has never, understood the codes attached to data, whether on the computers used by Hillingdon and the rest, or on the uploads provided by councils.
It therefore sends legally false accounts of this to councils, who believe it, and a vicious cycle of false allegations and misunderstanding is created which brings untold misery and suspicion down upon very large numbers of innocent entitled people who have done nothing wrong.
Saturday, 2 June 2012
Experian, the full electoral register, and another example of NFI misinformation
Not content with falsely alleging that the people whose data it feeds into the computers of Synectic Solutions are 'claiming' to be entitled on the basis of Section 11(1)(b), Kevin Boon of the NFI also claimed, in an internal note dated 2006 that in four Lancashire 'Audits' this meta data was compared against 'credit applications'. This is seriously misleading. In fact the algorithms use information derived from 'credit reference' information which includes and may be limited to the full electoral register. No marks again for the NFI.
This irresponsible piece of misinformation mirrors distressing and incorrect assertions made by Lancaster City Council staff to discount recipients at the time. Persons who honestly and correctly stated that there were no other 'credit applications' made from their address were told that they must be the subject of attempted identity fraud and told to contact Experian Ltd to sort it out. Presumably the badly informed council staff simply thought that they were lying. However, Experian would not provide the names of the person believed to be attempting this crime, nor would they pass it on to the police for investigation. They were abusive to callers, to the extent that the Council, following complaints, decided to review the way in which Experian dealt with callers. It should be noted that minors cannot obtain credit, and, therefore, that in the case of a newly adult young person, such as a person still at school, the chance of any credit application having been made is very small.
The fact of the matter appears to be that Experian uses 'credit reference' information, which does include the full electoral register. This is why Experian obtains the full electoral register in the first place, because it was decided that using it to vet credit applications prevented people from falsely claiming to live at an address where they were not actually resident. It is, of course, possible to obtain credit if you are not on the electoral register at the address given on the application, though it may be more difficult and costly.
A complaint was made to the Information Commissioner's Office. An ICO officer visited Experian and confirmed that it was perfectly possible for a 'case' to be thrown up solely on the basis of electoral register information. The fact that a household was flagged up by Experian did not mean that there was a credit application by a second adult. Thus, in the case of a young adult newly turned 18, the suspicion of fraud very probably arose purely on the basis of electoral register information.
NB Unlike the Audit Commission, which hedges and fudges on this question, Lancaster City Council staff were clear that people to whom review letters were sent were suspected of fraud on the basis of a 'discrepancy'.
Therefore, the distress and anxiety caused to residents worried that they were victims of attempted identity theft had been caused by incorrect information provided by Lancaster City Council telephone operatives. It would appear that the Council was so confused that it also provided incorrect information to the NFI, which then compounded the mistake by reporting it as fact in internal meetings.
This example demonstrates that the NFI does not check information before passing it on, and that it does not understand the practices of Experian or of councils which use Experian. One explanation of the reason that the NFI has persistently put out legally false information about this data processing is that it has taken incorrect advice from other bodies and has not troubled itself to check the information independently.
This irresponsible piece of misinformation mirrors distressing and incorrect assertions made by Lancaster City Council staff to discount recipients at the time. Persons who honestly and correctly stated that there were no other 'credit applications' made from their address were told that they must be the subject of attempted identity fraud and told to contact Experian Ltd to sort it out. Presumably the badly informed council staff simply thought that they were lying. However, Experian would not provide the names of the person believed to be attempting this crime, nor would they pass it on to the police for investigation. They were abusive to callers, to the extent that the Council, following complaints, decided to review the way in which Experian dealt with callers. It should be noted that minors cannot obtain credit, and, therefore, that in the case of a newly adult young person, such as a person still at school, the chance of any credit application having been made is very small.
The fact of the matter appears to be that Experian uses 'credit reference' information, which does include the full electoral register. This is why Experian obtains the full electoral register in the first place, because it was decided that using it to vet credit applications prevented people from falsely claiming to live at an address where they were not actually resident. It is, of course, possible to obtain credit if you are not on the electoral register at the address given on the application, though it may be more difficult and costly.
A complaint was made to the Information Commissioner's Office. An ICO officer visited Experian and confirmed that it was perfectly possible for a 'case' to be thrown up solely on the basis of electoral register information. The fact that a household was flagged up by Experian did not mean that there was a credit application by a second adult. Thus, in the case of a young adult newly turned 18, the suspicion of fraud very probably arose purely on the basis of electoral register information.
NB Unlike the Audit Commission, which hedges and fudges on this question, Lancaster City Council staff were clear that people to whom review letters were sent were suspected of fraud on the basis of a 'discrepancy'.
Therefore, the distress and anxiety caused to residents worried that they were victims of attempted identity theft had been caused by incorrect information provided by Lancaster City Council telephone operatives. It would appear that the Council was so confused that it also provided incorrect information to the NFI, which then compounded the mistake by reporting it as fact in internal meetings.
This example demonstrates that the NFI does not check information before passing it on, and that it does not understand the practices of Experian or of councils which use Experian. One explanation of the reason that the NFI has persistently put out legally false information about this data processing is that it has taken incorrect advice from other bodies and has not troubled itself to check the information independently.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)