Does the NFI know the difference between 'claimed' and 'is claiming' and 'was awarded' and 'is receiving'?
No, I don't think it does. No more than it understands council tax discount law.
This specifies that all 25% discounted demand notices must be issued on the assumption that the same rate or amount of discount will apply on every day of the coming year. No discount is ever 'awarded' (ie deducted) on the assumption that there is only one adult at the property, with not even a disregarded person for company. But the NFI keeps making assertions to the contrary:
I should also emphasise that the primary council tax data set matched to the electoral
register only includes those whose entitlement to the 25% discount was determined on
the basis that there were no other adults living at the property.
The point here is that the electoral register used is the one produced midway through the tax year. At this point the discount is being awarded and received and claimed on the assumption that there will be entitlement to a 25% discount on every day of the year.
But the Audit Commission states:
The primary match does not include those cases where a discount has been given on the basis that other adults live at the premises, but fall to be disregarded for council tax purposes. In these circumstances, therefore, where the electoral register shows that more than one adult is
registered at the property it does on its face indicate an apparent inconsistency worthy of
investigation.
This is at best false and at best equivocal, relying deliberately on the polysemic and ambiguous word 'apparent'. The 'inconsistency' here is more apparent than real. It certainly isn't real.
The Home Office, lobbied actively by the NFI desperate to get its hands on the Electoral Register, claimed in several letters that the NFI used that document to identify 'anomalies'. Who told it that? It would appear that it was the Audit Commission, which kept putting out the same false information. It even put it into 'Fair Processing' notices copied onto hundreds of council web sites and its own code of data matching practice. It put it into its own code of data matching practice. The only reasonably conclusion is that the NFI falsely believed that it was true. But it denies ever having believed any such thing (when it suits it).
Given that the author of this was sent a full legal briefing on council tax discount law, one can only assume that she either did not read it, did not understand it, or deliberately seeks to avoid admitting that for some years she and her colleagues have been providing false information about it. I wondered whether she was a learner of English as a second language, which might explain the mistakes in terms of a lack of grasp of grammar, but I think she knows what she is about. She is, I reasonably believe, deliberately trying to imply that there is a clear and obvious discrepancy between the data in the two data sets, even though she has been sent a legal briefing pointing out that this is false.
That same person informed a judge that it was true to say that at the time of matching two inconsistent 'claims' were being made, one in respect of the electoral register and one in respect of entitlement to a discount. Were this true, then one data set or the other would have to be incorrect. But it seems clear that she knows that this is false.
Moreover, when it was pointed out to her that it was false to allege that certain people were claiming to live alone, her tone became almost shrill with indignation. For some reason she failed (or, more probably, pretended not to see that it was important to be clear in law about what 'claims' people were and were not making. She also appears not to grasp the meaning of the word 'but', and to think that it means the same as 'and'. She hotly denies, in writing, precisely the same allegation which she insisted in speaking to the judge was true. She insults me as 'merely pedantic' for pointing out the mistake.
54. Example Two (paragraph 7)
The electoral register may indicate, for example, that there is more than one person living in a
particular property but the council tax records may show that the person liable for paying council
tax is claiming the single occupant discount.
Mistake: The records in question do not include copies of any claims made by the taxpayer: there
is no such thing as a single occupant discount and therefore the electoral register cannot decide
entitlement
The Commission’s response
55. The paragraph does not state that the electoral register can determine entitlement to
single person discount. It simply states that the electoral register may show more than one person living at a particular property and the council tax records may show that an occupant of that property is receiving the single person discount as a result of a claim to be entitled. Neither statement is incorrect. The Commission agrees that the electoral register cannot determine entitlement, and has never argued that it could.
59. As already explained, the 25% reduction due under section 11 is commonly known as the
single person discount, and I consider your repeated assertions on this point to be merely
pedantic. I also note here that you sometimes use the words ‘claim’ and ‘claiming’ without
apparent difficulty, despite your repeated complaints about the Commission in this
regard. The words used to describe the discount do not affect an individual’s eligibility or
ineligibility to receive it, or the legitimacy of the Commission’s data matching exercise
It isn't mere pedantry to point out that a National Audit Body is falsely asserting that either taxation data or electoral registration data must be wrong or 'incorrectly claimed': it is a public duty and one can only wish that the National Audit Body itself has sorted the problem out when it was first pointed out with it.
People from the Audit Commission have happily sat on committees where it has been reported that an up to date ER can be used to determine entitlement to a single person discount. Derek Elliot is just one example. Of course, the resultant publication isn't produced by the Audit Commission so the Commission can and does deny any responsibility. It is plain that its representatives are allowed freely to have their names associated with legally misleading and prejudicial documents.
The 'words used' by the Audit Commission, especially in its Audit Guides are important. They regarded as accurate and authoritative. As a matter of good practice they should not state or deliberately imply circumstances which, if true, would provide good reason to suspect fraud. Evidence of fraud should exist, and not be fabricated by government agencies or accountants. The words used by the Audit Commission are copied into officer reports all over the country. They are repeated, as if accurate accounts, by other agencies including the Information Commissioner and the Home Office. People believe the words used by the Audit Commission. Therefore they do matter. If the words used are not accurate, they lack legitimacy.
The Department for Communities cries out the truth like a voice in the wilderness but nobody pays any attention to it.