Wheelie Bins and the ad hoc sub committee on the draft local audit bill

Hundreds of thousands of innocent people subjected to fraud investigations on the say so of a National Audit Body which could not even get council tax law right, and what do they find to talk about at the ad hoc sub committee on the draft local audit bill: wheelie bins?  There was a sense not of 'populism' but of trivialization here, I felt.

And yes, they alleged that this was all the fault of the Audit Commission, bullying councils into fortnightly collections.   Councils are, it was implied, scared of the Audit Commission.   Interesting twist on things.  Politics, I suppose.

But as it happens, this is just how the Audit Commission bullies councils into subjecting innocent people to fraud investigations, a combination of threats hinting at surcharges and so on (via Clive Lewis' misguided and badly advised 'opinion'  and a deluge of legally incorrect PR material).

Councils turn round and say that they have to do what the Audit Commission wants.  They must take Audit Commission assertions as true.

I was concerned to hear that Ministers apparently  believe people in their constituencies find it too difficult to sort themselves out for fortnightly recycling collections.  Those with learning difficulties are entitled to social support after all and would get help in routine household tasks beyond their capabilities.   But I have to suppose that ministers know their own 'constituency' voters' capabilities better than I do!
.

engineers against national fraud initiative data mining as 'a form of oppression'

http://www.raeng.org.uk/societygov/policy/responses/pdf/New%20powers_against_organised_financial_crime.pdf



It is again essential that, if data matching is to be carried out, all of the data that is to
be matched is kept up to date, so that people are not put under suspicion due to
inconsistencies between outdated records.  The burden of keeping data up to date
should not fall on the individual, except where that duty already exists. If the Home 
Office initiates an investigation, it should first verify the data that led to the suspicion. 
Again there should be statutory compensation for people damaged by investigations 
that prove groundless – otherwise there is a risk that the investigations themselves 
can be used as a form of oppression – as IRS investigations in the USA are 
sometimes seen to be.

audit commission and data quality:

The Audit Commission is currently able to monitor and advise participating organisations 
about the quality of the data provided to the Commission for the data matching process. 


Thus spake the Information Commissioner.

But who monitors and advises the Audit Commission when it 'libellously' alleges that its output indicates that people, thousands upon thousands of them, are making two inconsistent claims at the same time when they are not?   Nobody.  Complain about stuff and they ignore you or refer the complaint back to the very same people who made the mistake in the first place.


More significantly there is no sanction included for those who choose not to have regard to the code. If the 
code is to be an effective safeguard an effective sanction for those who ignore its 
provisions need to be in place and this sanction should be clear on the face of the 
legislation.

Quite, and it is the Audit Commission which is doing most of the ignoring, and which when in receipt of complaints that an exercise did not comply, brought forward proposals the modify the code, not change the exercise.

Less than one percent accuracy.

Our Revenues department has confirmed that to date, 160 households have
been investigated, and 156 have been determined to still be entitled to
the 25% discount. 


Out of the people identified as 'potential frauds' by the Audit Commission in this council, less than one per cent were not entitled to the discount.  Sadly the other 99% are on record as having been on an NFI 'hit list' in a situation where the NFI has falsely led people to believe that this means there was prima facie evidence to suspect fraud.  This new piece of personal data can be widely shared, with, for example, agencies providing credit references and other 'anti fraud' organisations.  


This is slightly better odds than the one in three thousand apparently produced in the pilot investigations IN SEARCH OF INCONSISTENCIES but it shows how hollow these assertions that 'where no match is found there will be no material affect' are.   'Matches' are simply people whom the NFI suspects on the basis of prejudice and membership of a particular population group 'might' turn out after investigations to be in inconsistent situations.  Meanwhile a large group of the population falsely believes data matching IS comparing data sets to identify inconsistencies, not least because the Audit Commission has said that it is so many times that a lot of people have ended up believing it.


This stinks. 

Outraged of Tunbridge Wells Capita again!

Typical  misinformation and the use of Capita:

Review of single person Council Tax discount

To make sure that all households pay the correct level of Council Tax, we are carrying out a review of those receiving a single person discount. The review is being done with the assistance of Capita Local Government Services.

Council Tax bills are calculated on the assumption that two or more adults (people over the age of 18) are resident in the property. If only one adult occupies a property, then they are entitled to a 25 per cent single person discount on their Council Tax.

Why is there a review?

The review is being undertaken because the council is committed to maintaining as low a Council Tax as possible for all its residents and therefore we wish to ensure that customers only receive discounts they are entitled to.

If you are currently receiving a 25 per cent single person discount and your circumstances have changed you should contact the council on 01892 526121or email counciltax@tunbridgewells.gov.uk.

We will be using a combination of postal review, telephone interviews and data matching against credit reference agencies as part of the exercise.  

This is a misleading use of the term 'data matching'.  Does the council actually know what data Experian and other credit references have and what the output from the algorithms actually indicates?  No evidence to show that this is the case.

And yes, they also list disregard categories as 'discounts' so on the face of it they are checking entitlement to a discount which does not exist.  

If your bill indicates that a discount has been allowed, you must inform of any change circumstances which may affect your entitlement. If you fail to do so you could incur a penalty.

and yes, they are failing to provide information required by law/ legally accurate information and the mistake is of a sort which implies wrong doing on the part of a person allegedly receiving a discount which does not exist 'incorrectly'.

No copy of demand notice on web site: cannot say whether it includes the information required by law.  Seems unlikely that this will be the case in view of the other mistakes published by the council.

Old leaflets contain misleading / false information

Changes in circumstancesPlease notify Tunbridge Wells BoroughCouncil within 21 days if yourcircumstances change. Remember thatsomeone leaving or joining yourhousehold or reaching their 18th birthdaymay affect any discounts you receive.If you do not tell us about changes youcould have to pay a penalty of £70.

Social Responsibility in Computing

http://ethics.ccsr.cse.dmu.ac.uk/ccsr/gateway/ethicol/ethicol-papers-1/vol-7-no-1-february-data-matching

There is a difference between the methods of fraud detection used in the past and data matching. Traditional investigation is triggered by some evidence of a wrong doing by an individual, such as tax evasion or bogus benefit claims. Data matching is not targeted at individuals but at entire categories of people. It is initiated not by the suspicion concerning an individual but because the profile of a particular group is of interest. This leads to three issues of concern.

• Privacy - Data matching is likely to involve matching personal records compiled for unrelated purposes. Surely an individual has a right to control personal information and prevent its use without consent for purposes unrelated to those for which it was collected.
• Due process of the law - Once a match has been undertaken it will result in a number of hits. All those identified are in jeopardy of being found guilty of a wrong doing. It is unlikely that these individuals are given any notice of their situation, since doing so might affect the investigation, or an opportunity to contest the results of the match at an early stage. For these reasons their right to due process of law is curtailed.
• Presumption of innocence - The presumption of innocence is intended to protect people against having to prove that they are free from guilt whenever they are investigated. Data matching can reverse this to a presumption of guilt. This is because the technology of data matching is so plausible and the detection of fraud is much applauded. These powerful influences will weigh heavy in favour of the notion that those identified must be guilty.

One of the advances in data matching techniques is the automatic sharing of information. This is dependent on increasingly complex and expanding communication networks that link more and more organisations together. There is a tendency to view people as objects to be moved about these networks. In this instance it is unclear how an innocent citizen might be assured that incorrect information is totally corrected or removed across the complex web of organisational relationships. The security of such a network is also of concern as the network will be as secure as its least secure node. Individual organisations might not be aware of all other organisations linked to the network for if they were they might be wary of sharing information due to insecurity through either technological deficiencies or moral attitudes of some organisations.

In order to detect sophisticated fraud there is need to use complex data analysis techniques which may well involve methods based on partial match interpretation which in turn increases the risks of incorrect hits. Simple fraud detection lends itself to data matching systems that have little or no human intervention and the pressure to use such systems will grow. There needs to a be clear understanding of who has access to this information and how it will be used. Legislative frameworks, codes of practice and operational procedures must be in place to ensure that data matching is applied in a balanced way sensitive to the needs of organisations and society as a whole and to the rights of individuals.

Each of us is probably the subject of some data matching exercise quite frequently. It might be related to a mortgage application or a latest tax return or many other reasons. How do you feel about that? How would you feel if you were on the receiving end of an erroneous data match which led to a mortgage foreclosure or the loss of your credit rating? Next time you are involved in implementing a data matching system think on it could be you incorrectly caught by it!

Please send your views on ethical and social responsibility issues and cases of ethical dilemmas to:

Professor Simon Rogerson
Director
Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility
Faculty of Computing Sciences and Engineering
De Montfort University
The Gateway
Leicester
LE1 9BH

How to lie with statistics

http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/performance-information/data-analysis-and-presentation/pages/examples-data-analysis-presentation-tools.aspx

This is hugely amusing, considering the methods used by the NFI to decide that it can use the full electoral register to suggests that 'over 20% of SPDs are questionable'.  The 'figures' show no such thing. It is the Audit Commission, acting it would appear in plain breach of counsel's advice that auditors do not have to be bloodhounds, sniffing out wrong doing where no evidence exists on the face of the documents, which make this suggestion.  It is the prose describing the significance of the 'statistics' which is important here.  Given the NFI's own statistical procedures, which are far from good practice, they are once again hypocritical in publishing information such as this.  What a waste of public money anyway: basic statistics courses are free.  Why waste public money on projects like this?

12. National Fraud Initiative: While the Commission would continue to seek to persuade certain local authorities of the legality of using the electoral register to identify fraudulently and inappropriately claimed single-person council tax discount, the Chief Executive reported that the matter may culminate in legal action. The sensitivities about using the electoral register were understood, but as the aim and outcome was identifying criminal offences, the work might actually encourage voters to have greater confidence in their authorities.

One cannot use the electoral register to identify fraudulently and inappropriately claimed single-person council tax discount.  The Chief Executive had no business to tell the board that one could.  The Commission has no business attempting to convince councils that one can.  My point is not one about the legality of using the electoral register in a case where it DID show a fraudulent or incorrectly claimed discount, but the simple point that as a matter of the facts of council tax discount law the electoral register CANNOT show that any discount has been incorrectly 'claimed'.

privacy, Data Protection and 'lawful' processing

From Amberhawk

I have often moaned (and moaned) about the fact that the Commissioner does not do “lawful” processing (see references). However, a stinging judgment in the “Solicitors from Hell” case (which mainly rebuked the Commissioner for his interpretation of the “domestic purpose” exemption), a key passage stated the following re the issue of lawful processing under the Data Protection Act (DPA):
... "The DPA does envisage that the Information Commissioner should consider what it is acceptable for one individual to say about another, because the First Data Protection Principle requires that data should be processed lawfully. The authoritative statements of the law are to be found not only in the cases cited in this judgment (including para 16 above), but also by the Court of Appeal in Campbell v MGN Ltd  [2002] EWCA Civ 1373 [2003] QB 633 paras [72] to [138], and in other cases. As Patten J made clear in Murray, where the DPA applies, if processing is unlawful by reason of it breaching the general law of confidentiality (and thus any other general law) there will be a contravention of the First Data Protection Principle within the meaning of s.40(1), and a breach of s.4(4) of the DPA”…

So on this argument as the NFI and numerous councils are not processing personal data within the NFI in accordance with council tax discount law, it is a breach of the DPA.  

Audit Commission hypocrisy

Well, this local elector has fundamental concerns about the quality of the Audit Commission's work

It contradicts itself

Its staff contradict themselves
It has misled at least two Parliaments within the United Kingdom, and a number of government departments

It publishes defamatory allegations on its web site in respect of identifiable individuals (especially via the NFI FAQ on the Section 11(1) discount). That document falsely alleges that the data mining shows that people are simultaneously making two inconsistent claims at the same time, a belief which the AC  has denied ever having held. It has also dismissed the fact that it would not be true to say this as 'mere pedantry'.  It beggars belief that a solicitor could dismiss legal facts as 'mere pedantry' but the AC one most certainly did just this. 

It wrote a code of data matching practice which fundamentally misrepresented the NFI and how it works and gave this to the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament - abd it decides when it suits it to ignore the provisions of this code

It has a clear political agenda in respect of the right to privacy and data protection (or lack of it) which is a political agenda and not an accountancy  based one

It actively encourages maladministration and actively praises the practices of councils which fail to abide by council tax discount law and public law in respect of provision of clear, fair and accurate information to the taxpayer

It allocates complaints to employees deeply concerned personally with the issue, not to independent people who can take an objective view (and see its own complaints procedure)

So far from being transparent, it took a refusal to provide one audit guide all the way to an F of I tribunal

One department fails/refuses to accept or abide by briefings provided by the legal department
It quite happily makes illegitimate not to mention disturbing allegations about improper relationships within families

Generally it acts in ways which make it difficult for a local auditor to do precisely what it tells Parliament it wants to happen, as it does here in its evidence to the ad hoc sub committee: 


46 It is unclear to whom a local elector would go if they had fundamental concerns about the quality or delivery of auditors’ work at smaller bodies. DCLG will need to identify an appropriate body, if it is not the department itself, that can ultimately take responsibility for monitoring the system overall.

And he didn't understand council tax discounts either, being convinced that NFI output related to people 'claiming' to be entitled on the basis that they were the sole adult resident of their dwelling

The former Auditor General of Wales, Jeremy Colman, has been imprisoned for eight months for possessing and making indecent images of boys. Some of the images were ‘level four’ and must have required serious abuse of the children. Colman, who is 62, will have to sign the sex offenders register for ten years and is subject to a restraining order on his use of the internet. Prior to being appointed as Welsh Auditor General, Colman was assistant auditor general of the National Audit Office, had been a senior civil servant and was previously a partner at Price Waterhouse.

More NFI statistical nonsense

SPD claimed in Lancaster City Council compared with other councils

The chart below allows you to compare the level of council tax single person discount (SPD) claimed at your council with other councils in the selected comparison group.

Lancaster City Council almost never issues council tax claim forms and is clear that the information it sends to central government in its statistical returns is information it 'assumes' to exist, on the basis that Regulation 14 allows it to do as it likes.  

From my recollection of how to 'lie' with statistics, one effective way to do this is to surround them with misleading prose.  This the NFI has down to a fine art.

http://spd.audit-commission.gov.uk/RenderReport.aspx

Does Northgate believe that there is a 'single person discount'?

Does Northgate really believe that there is, literally, a single person discount?

It would appear that this is the case.

Here is the law allowing councils to contract out the function of ascertaining entitlement, which Northgate currently does:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/1880/article/12/made

2) An authority may authorise a contractor for the purposes of calculating the chargeable amount in respect of any dwelling in the authority’s area to—

(a)take such steps as the contractor considers reasonable to ascertain whether that amount is subject to any discount under section 11 of the Act (discounts) or, in the case of a dwelling in Wales, that section or section 12 of the Act (discounts: special provision for Wales), and if so, the amount of that discount;

(b)determine whether there is reason to believe that the chargeable amount in respect of a dwelling for the financial year in question is subject to a discount; and

(c)make the assumption that the chargeable amount either is or is not subject to a discount.
Northgate persistently produces legally misleading briefing which appear to indicate  beyond reasonable doubt that they incorrectly believe that Section 11 contains a 'single person discount' to which only those living literally alone are entitled.  It would appear that they are not making the assumption required in (c) above as this assumption relates to the assumption required under Regulations 15 and 20.  If they were making it they would not be claiming to be carrying out 'reviews' of entitlement to a discount which does not really exist.  Northgate repeatedly state that they make use of Experian in ascertaining entitlement.  My view is that the reason a 'single person discount' has been invented may well be that only in this way can an argument be mounted that the use made of the full electoral register is for a statutory duty related to the enforcement of the (criminal) law or to crime prevention.  Here is a good example of the sort of fudge and equivocation which ensues.  Here is the often repeated claim that 'ascertaining entitlement to a discount' equates to 'checking its validity' and to checking the 'validity' of a discount which does not exist in a context where either Northgate or the council most certainly ought not to be assuming that there is any entitlement on a particular basis under Section 11(1).

How do Northgate and Experian check the validity of the single person discount?

In order to do this, all the accounts that are currently in receipt of the single person discount are passed to Experian who do a search against the property and not the individual as Experian receive no names. 

http://www.darlington.gov.uk/Advice%20and%20Benefits/Council%20Tax/singlepersonreview.htm
The fact that Darlington puts this utter nonsense on a benefits page, when this is not a benefit and should not be confused with a benefit is just the cream on the cake of confusion and public misinformation.

Well said No2ID on NFI data mining

http://www.no2id.net/IDSchemes/NO2IDSeriousCrimeBillBriefingFEB2007.pdf

I don't think so.

From the Fraud Jobsite

http://www.fraudjobsite.co.uk/news/view/75701


The Audit Commission was keen to emphasise that security procedures and data mining techniques have been audited and cleared by privacy watchdog the Information Commissioners Office.

I don't think so.  

In fact, F of I requests  have disclosed a spat between the NFI and the ICO, apparently  because the NFI wanted a forward by the ICO to imply that he approved of the NFI  whereas the ICO did not want to be represented as holding this position. The NFI asserted that the ICO position was a 'semantic argument'.  The ICO said that it was, but that it held to its point.  

possible amendments re draft local audit bill part 6

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/pabills/200607/serious_crime.htm

There is some food for thought here.

NFI council tax case studies praise single person discount maladministration in Solihull, Brent, Haringey

 HERE ARE SOME COUNCILS WHOSE MALADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN PRAISED BY THE AUDIT COMMISSION


http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/fraud/nfi/public-sector/case-studies/Pages/counciltaxcasestudies.aspx



HARINGEY

Tells people they must 'register' for council tax if they move into the Borough.  Not true.


I know I must let you know about any changes in my circumstances which might affect my
account.    (Not true, council has no business to put false information on forms and make people sign them)

You must notify the Council immediately if any of the above details change  (Again, not true)

Local residents are concerned about this. See for example

http://www.harringayonline.com/forum/topics/council-tax-bill-single?page=3&commentId=844301%3AComment%3A231318&x=1#844301Comment231318

where Haringey council officers are apparently putting yet more misinformation into the public domain.

4 April 2011

Dear Councillor Stanton

Council Tax: Single Person Discount Review

Thank you for your e mail dated 22 March 2011 and for bringing to my attention the comments left on the Harringay Online website.

Single Person Discount (SPD) is a statutory relief available to Council Tax payers where only one adult is resident at the property. The value of the single persons discount is significant. Haringey currently awards SPD to 34,824 residents. Based on a Band D property, the SPD is £373.54 per recipient giving a total cost to the Council Tax collection fund of £13,008,156.96.

Billing authorities are under a duty to take ‘reasonable steps’ to ascertain discount entitlement before calculating the council tax liability. This requirement arises from Regulation 14 Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992) (S.I.1992/613), and Authorities must, therefore, undertake procedures to check on the possibility of discount.

Every year, we receive a high volume of applications for SPD.   Unfortunately it has been proven that some of these applications are not genuine and, whilst the Local Taxation Service has strong controls in place, it is important that the Council is seen to be taking steps to ensure that every resident is paying the correct amount of council tax.

The Council also has a legal requirement to review discounts annually. All council tax bills are annotated with the following message ‘If your circumstances change you may no longer be entitled to any discount or exemption shown on this bill and must tell us immediately’. Unfortunately, this approach has not always proved to be effective as a number of taxpayers still fail to advise us of the change to their circumstances.

When deciding on a strategy to review SPD for 2011/2012, the Local Taxation Service decided to issue a separate review form to ensure that our records are as up to date as possible. There are sound financial reasons for including the review form with the Annual Bill as it was deemed to be the most cost effective way of contacting those concerned -  thus saving on additional paper, printing and postage costs at a later point in the year. Additionally, reviewing accounts early in the financial year means that those taxpayers whose discount is withdrawn due to a change in their circumstances have more time to repay any discount they are not entitled to.

Having read the comments on the website I must confess that I am disappointed that a number of subscribers appear to suggest that they have either not opened or properly read the correspondence sent to them.  Please be assured that there was no intention to hide the review form in an attempt to raise additional income as some have suggested on the website. In fact those who do not return their form will be issued with a reminder before any discount is withdrawn. If a discount ends up being withdrawn as a result of a failure to return the form, the taxpayer will be sent a bill detailing the change of liability. If they are indeed still entitled to the discount they will be able to submit a new claim for SPD, and, once all the relevant checks have been undertaken, the discount will be reinstated as appropriate.

Finally, the information you have provided us has of course proved us with valuable feedback on the way that we conduct our SPD reviews and we will certainly consider ways on ensuring that future contact promotes the inclusion of and importance of returning SPD review forms within the prescribed timescale.

As a result of your e mail we are looking at how much it might cost to have a message included on the front of the envelope drawing taxpayers notice to its content.

I hope the above clarifies the position regarding the single persons discount review and allays any concerns you may have.

Should you have any further queries or suggestions as to how we can improve communication with our taxpayers please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Head of Benefits and Local Taxation

SOLIHULL

When we work out your Council Tax we assume two adults live in most properties.  (Stop it, then)

Households with more than one adult living in the property where the second adult is a full time student, student nurse, apprentice, is severely mentally impaired or detained in prison may not claim a single person discount but may claim an alternative 25% discount. 

If you are not the only adult (aged 18 or over) living in the property you will now be required to pay the full rate of council tax. 

Households with more than one adult living in the property where the second adult is a full time Student, Student Nurse, Apprentice, is severely mentally impaired or detained in prison may not claim a single person discount but may claim an alternative 25% discount. For more information and to apply for a discount of this nature please contact us on             0121 704 8100 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            0121 704 8100      end_of_the_skype_highlighting       or email us at revenues@solihull.gov.uk.

(Utter nonsense)

BRENT

Can't tell the difference between discounts and disregard categories.

Discounts on council tax discount are available under certain circumstances.

A discount may be available if you are:

• a person aged over 18 living on your own in a property (this is referred to as asingle person discount)
• a person for whom child benefit is being received
• an 18 or 19 year old who has just left school or college
• a student nurse
• an apprentice
• a Youth Training trainee
• a patient resident in hospital
• a person who is being looked after in a residential care home, nursing home, or hostel providing a high level of care
• a person living with, and providing essential care for someone, for example due to disability, who is not their spouse, partner or child under 18
• a care worker such as a Community Service Volunteer
• a person who is severely mentally impaired
• a convicted or remand prisoner, unless in prison for non-payment of fines or the council tax
• a person staying in certain hostels or night shelters
• a person living in a religious community with no income of their own
• a member of International Headquarters or Defence Organisation
• a member of a Visiting Force
• a diplomat.

If you are the only adult living on your own in a property, you may be entitled to a single person discount of 25 per cent off your council tax.

You must be over 18 to be entitled to this discount.

Use this form to request (or to cancel, if your situation changes) a single person discount.

Parliament misled by Audit Commission

Reading again the Hansard debates on the data matching provisions within the Audit Commission Act it is increasingly clear that the AC misled Parliament. For in Parliament people said that they had been told that the NFI involved matching data to identify actual inconsistencies, and that councils had to investigate to see whether these arose from fraud OR error. You will realise that the NFI has taken to denying that it assumes that one or the other must apply, and in denying in respect of the CT output that it has ever thought that one or the other must apply, and that there is any requirement that one or the other must apply.

How can Parliament possibly ensure that its laws achieve what they think they will achieve when those advising it routinely provide misleading or inaccurate reports to it?

The other big question is how many more of the NFI exercises are base upon mistakes like the 'single person discount' mistake?

How many people get odd phone calls or letters from fraud investigators on fishing trips within fishing trips who are clearly badly  briefed about the legal situation they are in?

Only a full review will reveal the extent of NFI incompetence, and I for one doubt that there will be any political will to embark on such a review: the scale of the injustice and maladministration is already somewhat difficult to comprehend, involving as it does hundreds of thousands of innocent entitled voters and their families.

Westminster, Capita, ad hoc subcommittee local audit bill. Maladministration

Since Parliament is in Westminster, it seems like a good idea to see whether Westminster is administering council tax discounts in accordance with the regulations, and whether it provides clear and accurate information to its taxpayers about their position and duties under council tax discount law.  It appears  not.  This means that the sub committee has an example very close to home of how incorrect data is created and shared in ways approved of by the Audit Commission and involving similar process to those it is being asked to approve of via Part 6 of the Local Audit Bill.

The first piece of bad news is that Capita is involved.  Capita routinely asserts that disregard categories are discounts*.  Disregard categories are just that: categories of people who fall to be disregarded, or who do not count as residents.  Capita run data mining exercises to identify people as 'high risk' fraud cases, in, it would appear, a similar manner to the NFI.  It usually misleadingly alleges or implies that the people concerned were claiming to live alone and puts only a fraction of single person discount recipients into the match.  

It uses the full electoral register to decide that people are entitled to a discount of the appropriate amount, which nobody has been given legal advice is legal and proper/pretends that it is checking 'claim's that particular circumstances exist.   Garbage like 'checking your validity to claim single person discount' is usually used about such reviews, in an apparent attempt to square Regulation 14 with what is being done.   Regulation 14 has been turned from a duty to  ascertain whether any discount applies and if so the amount of that discount into a duty to check whether a discount which DOES NOT EXIST is being 'claimed' correctly.

It works with credit reference firms to do this, and has lie detection voice software on its phones, another strategy which has caused injustice and distress.  The software appears to be unable to distinguish between innocent and distressed people and guilty people.  A great many entitled people have been distressed or enraged by the practices of councils which have outsourced revenue functions to Capita.  

Let us see whether the web site of Westminster provides clear and accurate information to taxpayers.

When we work out the full Council Tax amount we assume that two adults are living in the property.

You should not.  Council tax law contains no such provision or requirement.  

If you think you may be entitled to a discount or that your property is exempt for one or more of the reasons stated, you can download an application form from this page
carers discount, apprentice discount, child benefit discount, student discount

These are not discounts, as you are telling people, they are categories of disregarded adults. To be fair, another page does state that these groups of people are 'not counted' when deciding how many residents there are.   But the taxpayer has probably been confused by the bits he has read and may not get that far.  It seems fairly  clear, however, that Capita does regard some people as 'claiming' or 'receiving' a single person discount as opposed to a disregard discount, and that these are the people whose address is sent to the credit reference agency for data mining.  

This is confirmed by the council's annual council tax leaflet, a document which should contain information prescribed by law but which in fact contains other misleading information, again on the lines that disregard categories are types of discount. **

Other information provided by the council calls disregard categories 'status discounts'

Misinformation therefore runs throughout the documents via which this council communicates to its residents.  

If you are an individual living in Westminster you may use your My Westminster account to register a property and up to 6 residents for Council Tax. 

There is no requirement to 'register' residents for council tax.  The requirement for a local taxation register was abolished along with the poll tax.  Why is Westminster saying things like this on its web site.  The LGO has explicitly rebuked one council for telling people they have to 'register' for council tax, with the reason being that this is not true.






*
http://www.swindon.gov.uk/ab/ab-counciltax/ab-counciltax-discounts/Documents/counciltaxdiscountapplicationform1107.pdf

http://www.capita.co.uk/markets/Documents/SPD%20Brochure_2012_FINAL.pdf

http://www.mendip.gov.uk/NewsArticle.asp?id=SX9452-A783C976

**

http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications_store/council%20tax%20a-z%202012-13.pdf

See also November 11 2011 nfi asserts in press release it has found More than £22 million worth of false claims for student and single person council tax discounts;  source cites 'Protecting the Public Purse' annual report for 2011

Timothy Pitt Payne 'The Cannock Chase Opinion'

I wondered whose side Mr Pitt Payne had been on in the disputes about Audit Commission access to the full electoral register for the purpose of, allegedly, falsely suspecting people of fraud on the basis of mistaken beliefs about UK law and how it works.  For Mr Pitt Payne has since written that the rationale was that the exercise provided prima facie evidence of fraud.  The exercise, as a subsequent legal briefing by the Audit Commission Corporate Services Legal Team, provides no evidence of fraud under either heading within the Fraud Act.   It would appear, to judge from Clive Lewis's account of Mr Pitt Payne's opinion,  that Mr Pitt Payne had not been asked for an opinion on council tax discount law or electoral law.   Rather like Clive Lewis, he appears to have taken it as read that the NFI's account of the matter would have been properly researched legally.

It turns out that Mr Pitt Payne was consulted by Cannock Chase council.    His view that the rationale was that the exercise provided prima facie evidence of fraud may have come from chats with people at Cannock or it may have arisen for other reasons, such as the use of the terribly misleading nickname to describe a discount of 'the appropriate amount'.  

However, since the Audit Commission's Legal Services Department provided the NFI with an account of how discounts work in terms of the law, the idea that this exercise provides fraud under either heading within fraud law has been utterly discredited.

This means that both the Audit Commission and Cannock wasted a lot of public money on legal opinions when both of them ought, as a matter of their general duties and professional responsibilities, to have known that the premises on which the electoral register were being sought were utterly false.

One barrister involved did appear to have some inkling of the problems, but his views were not considered, and were not even apparently put to Clive Lewis.  Perhaps this is because they were considered too risky to ask him about?

One also has to assume either that neither of these gentlemen live in a council area which provides clear information about the Section 11 25% discount via their council tax demand notices as required by law or that they simply do not read them.  For otherwise they should know how this discounts ought to be administered.

One cannot help but wonder how far the administrative practices of Cannock Chase at the present date comply with the regulations and generally with the requirements of public administration and so on.  No prizes for guessing the answer ...


http://www.cannockchasedc.gov.uk/site/scripts/download_info.php?fileID=632

If you wish to apply to be disregarded*  please write to:

Local Taxation and Benefits Section
Cannock Chase District Council
PO Box 28
Civic Centre
Beecroft Road
Cannock
Staffs
WS11 1BG

* How silly is this! A disregarded person cannot 'apply' to be disregarded.  Such matters would be for the liable adult.  Some disregarded persons cannot be liable.  Moreover, being disregarded happens as a matter of law, it is not a status which has to be 'applied' for to exist; it exists as a matter of law. 


LIVING WITH SOMEONE, BUT CLAIMING SINGLE PERSON DISCOUNT?

It is perfectly legal to 'claim' a single person discount if you are 'living with someone'.

Have Your Circumstances Changed?
If you receive any form of reduction to your bill, you must tell us about any change of circumstances within 21 days. If you do not do this, the Council may impose a £70 penalty.

Here the council is attempting to scare people into providing information about third parties which they have no duty to provide under council tax law by threatening them with a penalty.  This is plain and clear maladministration.  Councils should provide clear and accurate information at all times.  If you live in Cannock Chase, complain to the council, and when if tells you the Auditors make it behave like this, as it may well do,  or misstates your obligations under Regulation 16 or any other regulation, then complain to the LGO and to your MP. 

NOT TRUE! NOT TRUE! GOTCHA! BULLYING, MISINFORMATION, MALADMINISTRATION, THREATS.

How the Council will use your information
The Council is required under section 6 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 to participate in the National Fraud Initiative (NFI) data matching exercise. Council Tax data will be provided to the Audit Commission for NFI and will be used for cross-systems and cross-authority comparison for the prevention of fraud. 

We advise Council Taxpayers that the data held  by the Council in respect of your Council Tax liability will be used for cross-system and cross-authority comparison for the  prevention of fraud.

Translation?  We are likely to falsely suspect you of fraud because we are not complying with council tax regulations and administering discounts in accordance with the law. 

The Council is also working in partnership with other Staffordshire authorities to conduct a review of 

Council Tax discounts. The Council may share the information you have provided to the Council Tax section, with private 

organisations employed to conduct data matching for the prevention and detection of fraud. 

Want to bet on whether or not the council is sharing 'codes' such as disregard and single, which have no basis in council tax  discount law, probably with Experian  (now of Dublin to avoid paying tax, apparently, formerly of Nottingham), but possibly via Northgate or Capita?  It looks like a dead cert.

Data matching helps to 

identify fraud but it may also identify claims and payments which are erroneous. Where a match is found it may indicate 

that there is an inconsistency which requires further investigation. No assumption is made as to whether there is fraud, 

error or another explanation until an investigation is carried out. 

What nonsense this is! Why should anybody have to carry out an investigation seeking an 'explanation' when no inconsistency has been discovered? Who has anything to 'explain'?  Except Cannock Chase which ought to explain why it is providing misinformation about council tax discount law to its citizens via its web site when providing incorrect information is maladministration.

For further information you can visit our website www.cannockchasedc.gov.uk/nfi

Please let us know if you are claiming a Council Tax discount for living alone but your circumstances have changed.


BINGO!