The Commission is also continuing to engage directly with DCLG with more detailed comments on the clauses in the draft Bill.

The Commission is also continuing to engage directly with DCLG with more detailed comments on the clauses in the draft Bill.

This is bad news, as the record shows that the Commission is quite good at misleading the DCLG, with its false statements relating to the primary SDP match being a good example. In fact, as the speeches of Baroness Scotland showed us, it is also quite good at misleading Parliament.  And that goes just for the UK Parliament.  It played exactly the same trick on the Scottish Parliament. 

And of course the Commission generally may be  'on the side' of auditors.

So in respect of arguments about an auditor's refusal to take up an objection it says this

We think that today such a right of appeal is anachronistic. Any elector who is 

unhappy with an auditor’s decision not to consider an objection, or with an 

auditor’s determination of an objection, already has the right to seek judicial 

review of the auditor’s decision. We think that judicial review is more 

appropriate in these circumstances and should be sufficient. 

Of course, electoral are all capable of and rich enough to ask for a judicial review.  (NOT!)

We also think there is a strong case for adding a fourth area: the prevention 
and detection of maladministration and error.

Coming from a body which still states, in the face of advice from two ministers and its own legal department that a non existent 'single person discount' has been incorrectly awarded or claimed if more than one adult is resident, causing injustice and wholesale maladministration, this is rich.  It actively encourages maladministration and error, and, indeed, its own favourite 'hit list' is predicated upon legally false allegations which it was advised were incorrect in February 2009.  

Who came up with this idea?  Follow the money....  who makes money out of this?

There are  already sufficient safeguards in the draft Bill to ensure that such wider powers 

could only be used to address clear and identified risks in a proportionate way. 

I am sorry but I do not think that in excess of 600,000 abortive fraud investigations every other year are necessary or proportionate.  The NFI is actively opposed to 'safeguards' and has actively considered eliminating these from the code of practice, succeeding in doing this in Scotland already.

We do not agree with the proposed removal of the criminal offence of not 
supplying information for data matching. Our experience suggests that, 
without this offence in place, it is much more difficult to secure the extent of 
compliance that, historically, has been the strength of the NFI.

You mean some councils went and got legal advice that some of your uses of personal data were unlawful?

Ah, bless!

The NFI’s success depends on auditors to follow up and reinforce the benefits 
of participation in NFI at the local level.

The electoral register is nothing to do with auditors and it never has been. It is not a document related to the accounts of the council.  Nor are many of the outputs of the NFI relevant to auditors.  It is not necessary or proportionate to tell auditors that hundreds of thousands of innocent entitled families are making two contradictory 'claims' one about the electoral register and one about an SPD which does not exist now and never did exist. It is more like libel.

What the NFI has been doing was well expressed at the time of the arguments about the SPD exercise: bullying local councils.

Regardless of who ‘owns’ the NFI, there should be a governance board, 
representing key stakeholder interests, to oversee the development and .... of the NFI

Well your own governance board had the wool pulled well and truly over its eyes, didn't it.  

I suppose the 'key stakeholder interests' won't include the victims of the maladministration and injustice?

And the AC wants the new owners to be people willing to invest in 'marketing' the NFI.  And it has found it in the Cabinet Office.   

I am sorry but the government should not be asked to 'market' anything. Were this really a consumer product, there is no doubt that the NFI's adverts would be found not to be in line with the requirements applying in law, for it frequently  makes false claims which it cannot substantiate to the point it would appear of actual libel. 

But it confirms my view that the AC has its own political and social agenda about the uses of personal data, and takes a strategic view on how to achieve its aims, though 'publicity' or a sort which is a disgrace to a public body and to the government which allows it to continue.

An incompetent firm Branch and Lee Consulting Ltd apparently offering to help councils to break the law

Branch & Lee Consulting Ltd will only cancel claims where the evidence shows that it is highly likely that another person over 18 years old resides in the property. As our fees are not based on the total number of cancellations generated it is not in our or the authorities interest to cancel SPD’s only for the customer to re-apply or appeal against the decision. It is essential to achieve long term financial returns as opposed to a quick but temporary income.

This firm must be complete idiots as it is perfectly legal to receive an SPD when more than one adult is resident.  

What are they talking about, and, more worryingly, which councils are incompetent enough to employ them?

And how is it lawful for them to do this with personal data?

If you get any communications about your council tax from Branch and Lee containing misleading information to the effect that you are receiving a discount 'on the basis' that you are literally the only resident, send them via your MP to the DCLG, and also to the Local Government Ombudsman. 

It was hardly a surprise to find that one of the apparent owners of this firm, Mr Lee, worked for the Audit Commission for some time.  This may well be where he acquired the false beliefs about local government taxation law which the firm now passes on to the public and councils via its marketing material and web site.  No points out of ten for Mr Lee.  (Prior to that did he manage a department in Waitrose?)

complaints about the national fraud initiative

Reading through the old debates in Parliament you can see how MP after MP and a few Lords too have been providing to Parliament misleading and insufficient information attributed to the Audit Commission.

Baroness Scotland was a prime example.  She said she had been 'assured' that this was a narrow targeted approach and all the rest of it. I am sure she had, because that is the sort of nonsense that the Audit Commission routinely says.  Even after being told by the Audit Commission legal department that it is perfectly legal and proper to be in receipt of a 'single person discount' when there is more than one resident, the Audit Commission's public relations and enquiries officer Robert Mauler was publicly denying that any NFI exercises were risk-based or statistical in nature and also falsely alleging that the primary SPD match identified inconsistencies.  Even after having had the law spelled out to her, Nagina Akram informed a judge in a Tribunal Hearing that the taxpayer was making two inconsistent claims at the same time, one in respect of entitlement to a discount and one in respect of the electoral register. This was precisely the point which the AC legal team investigated and found to be false in terms of council tax administrative law.  Having written to me once accepting that the output did not show failure to provide information required by law (via the Audit Commission Legal Department) they then wrote to me asserting that councils tell people they must inform them of any changes in residence, and since this came from Nagina Akram one has to suppose that in line with her denial that the NFI ever got this wrong, she thinks that councils are right.  Since then Bob Neill wrote telling the NFI that the output did not indicate failure to provide information required by law as the other person might fall to be disregarded. In an outrageous piece of two faced self contradiction the Audit Commission asserts that it is acting in accordance with the advice of Bob Neill. But plainly it is not.  The very Audit Guide which it hired a barrister and fought all the way to a Tribunal Appeal to keep secret from me includes a false allegation that either an electoral register 'claim' or the 'claim' in respect of council tax must be wrong.   It is providing to council audit departments legally false information totally at odds with a) the legal briefing sent to it by the Audit Commission legal department and b) advice from the relevant minister who happened to be legally qualified at a much higher level than any of the Audit Commission staff appear to be.  Indeed, one of the main Audit Commission commentators on the subject used to manage a department in Waitrose, which does not appear to be very suitable training for making comments upon accountancy and audit law, local taxation law, the ECHR or much else of relevance.

One of the most outrageous arguments in favour of the NFI put to Parliament was one that nobody had complained to the Audit Commission about an NFI investigation.  Well one of the councils whose pilot was praised by the Audit Commission had to issue a public apology, but as officers felt they had the Audit Commission on side they clearly felt able to express their resentment at having to do this and did so in that the apologies were not real or genuine and carefully avoided admitting that falsely suspecting people of fraud was anything remotely problematic.  Not only that, but many councils were advised that the SPD pilot involved criminal offences relating to electoral law and they did complain loudly about that.  Finally, the first time I complained to the NFI that it was publishing legally inaccurate and false information about the output from this exercise I received an email from Peter Yetzes himself stating that it was not possible to complain about the National Fraud Initiative.  THIS PROBABLY EXPLAINS WHY THE NFI CAN SAY IT GETS NO COMPLAINTS; ITS POSITION WAS THAT COMPLAINING WAS NOT POSSIBLE AND THEREFORE ANY ATTEMPTS TO COMPLAIN WERE REJECTED.

What I have stated here is consistent with and evidenced by the documents and materials sent to me by the Audit Commission, by heads of council Audit Teams and a range of other sources, including some fraud investigators, who, when they DO understand council tax discount law, find themselves having to make some very awkward explanations to people who DO object to being threatened with adjusted demand notices half way through the tax year.

This is not a case of 'publish and be damned'.

Pity that newspapers are so obsessed with the private lives of the victims of crime and the royals that they cannot or do not get to grips with the doings of murky and secretive and basically wholly unaccountable and uncontrolled bodies like the Audit Commission.

(uncorrected) evidence to ad hoc sub committee from Amyas Morse and Eric Pickles

Witness: Amyas Morse, Comptroller and Auditor General, National Audit Office, gave evidence

This evidence was published on Parliament's web site with a note that it may be quoted but it should be made clear that it is not yet corrected by witnesses and therefore may not stand in its presently published form.

The National Audit Office will not consider complaints that the Audit Commission is misusing public money to purchase data processing which it then puts false and prejudicial interpretations upon.  Yes, I did try.

I leave the most interesting point until last, since that is the order it came in in the original evidence. 

Questions are raised of good governance.  Given the maladministration arising from the fact that local council audit teams and many elected representatives rely on the legally false allegations made about identifiable persons via the Audit Commission's hitherto secret 'Audit Guide' relating to the SPD matches, the whole concept is in my eyes something of a sick joke.

They then go on to whistle blowing, another somewhat sick joke, since nobody asks who will blow the whistle on the Auditors if, as the Audit Commission demonstrably has done in respect of what it alleges is 'financial information' relating to hundreds of thousands of taxpayers, false and financially and administratively incorrect allegations are made about taxpayers.  

So far from addressing this issue, we have another 'audit' person vaunting his independence.  

There are all sorts of problems when you made 'auditors' beyond democratic control.  They grab the electoral register and use it as the basis for false allegations about registered voters, for example, a blow at the heart of democracy.

I realise that this is not the precise context in which these points are being made, but the point remains wholly valid.  For when they go on to discuss fees being 'beefed up' the precise point applies because the NFI has alleged that the non existent 'inconsistencies' which it falsely alleges exist between CT data and the electoral register are found AT THE COST OF THE LOCAL COUNCIL.  And it is not just Audit Commission fees which get beefed up, the credit reference agencies are making a lot of money out of this SCAM.  In fact, they appear to be more or less the only people who DO actually gain anything out of it, though they also gain politically through having driven a coach and horses through a number of basic principles of our legal and social system and the increasing normalisation of evidence free statistically based fraud investigations based on 'intelligence' that a person might be a thief which they earn money out of providing.

And now for the BIG BIT

I see the control of fraud as an executive function and not the function of an independent auditor. Although I am supportive and I wish it well and want to see it in a good place, I don’t think the place is with us, for that reason.

But the arguments that the Audit Commission (before the law was altered via the Serious Crimes Bill) could have the full electoral register was precisely that it was an audit function.  So put briefly Mr Morse would have to agree that the Audit Commission was never entitled to this data in the first place and that nor are appointed auditors.  

Perhaps it is for this reason that the Chair of the Sub Committee looked somewhat gob smacked at this point? I hope that the implications of what she had just been told were clear to her, but maybe she is not sufficiently up to speed with the issues to realise this. 

Given that we are now clear that the AC thought the electoral register was a document relating to the accounts of the council because it got both electoral and council tax law wrong (see for example the accounts of barristers Timothy Pitt Payne and Clive Lewis) this is even clearer indication that something was very rotten in the state of Denmark (or wherever the Audit Commission was at the time).

I think Peter Yetzes has a lot to answer for.  But I don't think that anybody will ever get round to making him justify what he has done. 


Mr Pickles talks about data sharing between local and central government.  I wonder how well any council tax data shared in this way is described.  Does central government make the same sort of mistake that Audit Commission staff have made over the years?  One has to hope not, but one cannot have much faith.  

Mr Morse's comment is fed to Mr Pickes:

Q667 Mr Bacon: You will agree with the CAG’s comment, which you may not have heard, that he regarded the NFI, which he strongly supports, as an executive function, and that therefore the NAO would be an inappropriate home for it.

Eric Pickles: I have never in my wildest dreams thought it should come to the NAO, so he can rest safer in his bed tonight.

Q668 Chair: Okay. So we will make a recommendation to you, but you are aware of it and you will take it up.

Eric Pickles: Yes, absolutely.

One can only wonder precisely what Mr Pickes will be taking up here: probably not the point that if it is not an audit function what the hell was the Audit Commission playing at for all those years grabbing people's personal data?

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.